Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for June, 2010


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 28, 2010

The ROMAN AROUND blog will be on hiatus until further notice. The time has come for me to end my little two-year excursion into blogging and leave it to others who do it this far better than I. My disappointment in my inability to generate the type of readership in over two years of doing this that I had hoped for – along with a demanding job that continues to eat up a large chunk of my time – has helped me to come to this decision.

It is what it is, and I accept that.

For those who did read this blog on a regular basis, thank you sincerely.

I hope to find an outlet of some sort in the future to channel my love of writing.

Until then, be well.

And God Bless America.

Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2010

On the inside of the gatefold of the Beatles American LP “Songs, Pictures And Stories Of The Fabulous Beatles,” the narrative of the band’s young 21-year old bassist, Paul McCartney, starts this way:

Paul is sometimes called the “Nut Beatle” or “Beatle Nut” because he is the zaniest of the group.

Whether that was actually true or not is a matter for Beatleologists.

What is for certain, forty-six years later, is that the “Nut Beatle” isn’t zany at all. Rather, the ever-wrinkling “cute one” is a bona fide “shut up and sing” archaic hippie moron with a disgusting and warped sense of values. He is not only reaffirming to the world that even the greatest of musical geniuses can have the emptiest of heads, he is further showing himself to be an insensitive mental oaf in his (almost) old age. That he also worships the most incompetent American President since James Earl Carter only emphasizes his oblivion.

The crotchety old songsmith from Liverpool – who once wrote a song called “Freedom” in response to the 9/11 attacks (a song that was harshly ridiculed by left and has all but been banished from the face of the earth since then) – has already disgraced himself in recent weeks by insulting a former American President on American soil while receiving an award from the American government.

Such class.

Well the “Beatle Nut” has brilliantly advanced his own cause toward immortalized irrepressible idiocy by comparing those who don’t buy into the global warming myth to those who deny the Holocaust.

Yes, the fool on the hill is saying that to deny the unproven, unsubstantiated, ever-crumbling claims that the world is in danger from rising temperatures due to human activity is akin to denying the most well-documented atrocity in human history.

To this day, there is not a stitch of proof – only agenda-driven theory, scattered supposition, wishful leftist thinking and fear-mongering – that human beings are not only causing the planet’s temperature to rise, but that we are putting the planet in danger by doing so. Yet, proof of the Holocaust exists in abundance. To deny it would be like denying the existence of the sun.

From Fox News:

Sir Paul McCartney just can’t let it be.

The former Beatle predicted in an interview that the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico might expedite a move to cleaner, renewable energy sources in the world.

Sir Paul could have stopped while he was ahead, but McCartney went on to compare people who don’t believe in global warming to “those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”

“Sadly we need disasters like this to show people,” McCartney said in an exclusive interview with The Sun. “Some people don’t believe in climate warning — like those who don’t believe there was a Holocaust.”

McCartney continued, “But the facts indicate that there’s something going on and we’ve got to be aware of it if we want our kids to inherit a decent world, not a complete nightmare of a planet — clean, renewable energy is for starters.”

Sir Paul is obviously among the many deep thinking hysterics on the left who believe that temperatures are naturally static, with little fluctuation. I would ask him: What temperature should it be right now, Sir Paul? And how would he explain the melting of all the Ice Age ice thousands of years before the advent of the Hummer?

To begin with, the planet is not in a warming cycle.

Even Phil Jones – the Maharishi of the man-made global warming hoax – admitted that during the last fifteen years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

As I wrote in February:

There is not one scintilla of data (i.e., evidence) showing that CO2 causes temperatures to rise, as asserted by the likes of King Hysteric, Al Gore. In fact, a closer look at King Gore’s famous hockey stick charts purportedly showing that increased CO2 levels trigger temperature boosts actually suggests that the opposite may be the case.

There is not a neutron’s worth of scientific evidence that human activity is causing temperatures to go up, nor is there anything to back up the claims that the planet is in danger. Every so-called bit of proof put forth by the enviro-fascists is either inconclusive, irrelevant, anecdotal or an outright misrepresentation. There is nothing – repeat nothing – scientific about the so-called causes of global warming and the so-called effects of such warming, nor is there anything of any kind proving that human beings are contributing anything to such phenomena.

It’s all nonsense

But even if there was some sort of warming trend, so what?

Temperatures fluctuate all the time. There have been plenty of warming periods in this planet’s history as well as plenty of cooling trends. It is the height of arrogance – and ignorance – to think that human beings can have such a major impact on global temperatures. If we so desired – if the very existence of humanity depended on it – no matter how we might try, we do not have the ability to raise the earth’s temperature in any significant way.

But the bigger issue here is equating the denial of something that is, at best, scientifically questionable – a left-wing movement riddled with scandal, manipulation and outright deceit – with the denial of something as provable (and abhorrent) as the Holocaust.

To deny the greatest documented evil of all – the Holocaust – is itself evil.

Thus, to equate the denial of man-made global warming to Holocaust denial is to say that disagreeing with the likes of Al Gore, Ed Begley Jr. and Paul McCartney is evil.

It not only trivializes Holocaust denial, it is the ultimate insult to those whose lives were impacted by the Holocaust.

It is shameless.

Not that anyone is paying much attention, mind you.

Rest assured, however, had McCartney compared the denial of God to denial of the Holocaust, he certainly would have gotten play in the lamestream media.

McCartney without a guitar or piano is much like Barack Obama without a teleprompter.

Incidentally, the lyrics to the now extinct song Freedom are:

This is my right
A right given by God
To live a free life
To live in freedom

Talkin’ about freedom
I’m talkin’ ’bout freedom
I will fight
For the right
To live in freedom

The left hated that song.
wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Music, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 24, 2010

Yesterday, President Barack Obama accepted the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal, commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, for harshly critical remarks made by him and his aides against the President. The comments appear in the latest issue of Rolling Stone magazine.

Although the President claimed he did not take the comments as a personal insult – and praised McChrystal as one of America’s finest soldiers – he said the resignation was in the best interest of national security.

And while the lamestream media is leaking all over itself, trying to contain its enthusiasm over what many are calling an historic display of leadership and strength exuded by Barack Obama, I am personally continuing to comb through Rolling Stone in an attempt to figure out what exactly he was supposed to have said that was bad enough to hasten his resignation.

I’ll grant you, it wasn’t the brightest move in the world for McChrystal to afford a leftist, anti-military, anti-war rag like Rolling Stone magazine access to him and his inner circle, but was resignation really necessary?

Of course, it didn’t take long for the historically proficient members of the press to insert their obligatory references to President Abraham Lincoln and General George McClellan, as well as President Harry Truman and General Douglas MacArthur. Both of those situations were similar to this one only in that it involved a Commander-In-Chief and a General; otherwise, not so much. McClellan was, at best, ineffective and grossly insubordinate. MacArthur spoke openly against the strategy of his Commander-In-Chief in a time of war – an absolute no-no.

McChrystal, on the other hand, was thoroughly compliant.

Many others have written on this matter far more eloquently than I, so I won’t bother going into detailed analysis of this event.

I will, however, say this – and it can hardly be denied: If General McChrystal and his aides had made identical comments with a Republican in the White House, he’d have become the darling of the lamestream media, would have become to go-to guy on every cable talk show, would have probably gotten a gig on MSNBC as the resident “military expert” and would have won the title of “maverick.” He might have even snagged a spot on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine … with hugs and kisses from the editorial staff.

He would have been the “soldier with a conscience,” the “free thinking warrior.”

The entire matter would have been portrayed as clear-cut evidence of incompetence at the top by military experts out in the field.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 23, 2010

In May, 2005, Howard Dean summed up, in no uncertain terms, how Democrats view Republicans – not just as people with differing values, but as morally bankrupt, heartless individuals who would sooner allow a baby to starve then have to part with their riches. On NBC’s Meet The Press, Dean infamously said, “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

That’s quite literally how most modern libs see conservatives. They truly believe that limited-government types actually want children go to bed “hungry each night” – just as they honestly think we don’t give a damn about the environment or the homeless. (Now is probably a good time to confess that a favorite pastime of mine is swiping baby food out of the shopping carts of young mothers in the supermarket so that the child will go hungry upon returning home. I also enjoy tossing trash all over the parking lot on my way back to the car after teasing a homeless man with a Big Mac – just as all of us right-wingers like to do.)

Yesterday, the President effectively tore a page from the Book of Dean, making it clear that the worst thing for “the children” of America are Republicans.

While attacking Republicans for opposing ObamaCare, the President said:

Would you want to go back to discriminating against children with preexisting conditions? Would you want to go back to dropping coverage for people when they get sick? Would you want to reinstate lifetime limits on benefits so that mothers like Amy have to work?

We’re not going back, I refuse to go back.

There isn’t enough straw in all the barns across America to construct the man Barack Obama is parading in front of us.

For President Obama, one either supports his big-government spending initiatives or wants nothing at all. One either approves of ObamaCare or wants to see America’s streets littered with the corpses of babies.

No one – repeat no one – wants to see children with pre-existing conditions discriminated against. No one wants to see insurance coverage dropped for people when they get sick.

What Republicans are opposed to is Obama’s out-of-control government spending. They are opposed to seeing crippling tax increases imposed on Americans to help pay for Obama’s unprecedented expansion of government. They are opposed to peddling the fairy tale that health care costs will go down when they can only go up. They are against moving the American health care delivery system – the envy of the world – under the ultimate control of the federal government. They are against the inevitable transition to a single-payer system (i.e., government-run health care) as private insurance companies drop off the map due to their inability to compete with an entity that can print its own money. They are opposed to the inevitable decline in health care that will occur when demand increases exponentially without an increase in supply.

This was quite an instructive moment yesterday.

The only things missing were the President’s welled up eyes, his quivering lip, and his on-cue monogrammed White House handkerchief.

After all, he was talking about “the children.”

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 22, 2010

It took a Ronald-Reagan appointed judge to smack down one of the most moronic and obtuse moves to come out of the Obama White House since the dawn of the Messianic Age. (This doesn’t count anything that happened while Obama was heading up the Office of President Elect).

Twenty-five days ago, in what could only be rationally explained as the President’s desire to inscribe his own chapter in the Book of Asininity, Barack Obama, as a response to the Gulf oil spill, inexplicably issued a six-month moratorium on any new permits for deepwater drilling as well as drilling at any of the 33 exploratory wells in the Gulf.

How it is he didn’t see that making such a boneheaded move would be on par with suspending all air travel because of a plane crash, or outlawing motor vehicles because a thirty care pileup on the Connecticut Turnpike, is inconceivable.

Then again, no one who expects to be taken seriously ever used the terms “wisdom” and “Barack Obama” in the same paragraph, let alone sentence.

Well, earlier today, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman of Louisiana took his gavel and cracked it across the administration’s puss by blocking Obama’s six-month moratorium, saying, in effect, that the damage caused by the suspension of drilling would be inestimable.

Well done, Judge Feldman.

From Fox News:

Several companies that ferry people and supplies and provide other services to offshore drilling rigs asked U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in New Orleans to overturn the moratorium, arguing it was arbitrarily imposed.

Feldman agreed, saying in his ruling the Interior Department seemed to assume that because one rig failed, all companies and rigs doing deepwater drilling pose an imminent danger.

“An invalid agency decision to suspend drilling of wells in depths of over 500 feet simply cannot justify the immeasurable effect on the plaintiffs, the local economy, the Gulf region, and the critical present-day aspect of the availability of domestic energy in this country,” Feldman wrote.

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

As expected, the White House vowed that they would seek an immediate appeal … because they can’t very demonstrate to the world how evil fossil fuels are if some right-wing judge appointed by a cowboy President is allowed to impose his free-market, big-oil, squash-the-little-guy agenda on the poor folks of the Gulf – even though the Obama moratorium would have put thousands upon thousands out of work, forced many drillers to move to friendlier waters and pushed America toward greater dependence on foreign oil.

The moratorium was imposed after the April 20 explosion on the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig that killed 11 workers and blew out the well that has spewed millions of gallons of oil into the Gulf.

The Interior Department said it needed time to study the risks of deepwater drilling. But the lawsuit filed by Hornbeck Offshore Services of Covington, La., claimed there was no proof the other operations posed a threat.

Company CEO Todd Hornbeck said after the ruling that he is looking forward to getting back to work.

“It’s the right thing for not only the industry but the country,” he said.

The moratorium was declared May 6 and originally was to last only through the month. Obama announced May 27 that he was extending it for six months.

Maybe more golf course time is what’s needed for Barack Obama. Maybe after the back nine, a return to the front nine would be best for all parties involved.

The more things that keep him occupied and away from the Oval Office, the better.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Gulf Oil Spill | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 22, 2010


Temperatures in and around New York City, over the past several days, had been almost August-like. A couple of days ago, in fact,, the mercury was aggressively flirting with the dreaded 90 degree plateau. I say “dreaded” because I freely admit to being in the minority when it comes to warm weather. I simply hate the heat. Summer – outside of baseball, vacations and longer days – is my least favorite season, followed closely by winter (although I make concessions for Christmas when I actually hope for winter-like weather).

I am a spring and autumn man, with leanings toward the fall.

I’m one of those who will gladly take 60 degrees over 80 degrees any day.

While in the car over the past several days, with 80-plus degree temps becoming the norm, I’ve been hearing the local DJs and weather experts make exuberant comments like, “A gorgeous day in New York City!” and “As beautiful as it gets!”

One weather guy actually said, “If it were like this year round, there’d never be anything to be sad about!”

Obviously, he didn’t mean it literally (seeing as there are plenty of grumpy people in warmer climates), but his sentiment was universal among the radio personalities in New York I had the chance to sample over the past few days: heat is good!

“It’s gonna feel like paradise today!”

“Get out there and love it while it lasts!”

Blah-blah-blah …

Setting aside my personal animus for any temperature above 80 degrees, I couldn’t help but shake my head and laugh while listening to these people sing the praises of the unseasonable heat wave.

How ironic, I thought.

These radio folks were the very same ones who, a couple of months earlier, were positively crazed with Earth Day and the potentially horrific effects of global warming. These same hot-weather cheerleaders were only a couple of short months ago warning everyone within earshot of the impending doom awaiting all earthlings if conscientious enviro-friendly anti-warming action wasn’t taken immediately. I couldn’t as much as spit at a radio that day without hearing something about Earth Day, the environment, the climate and anything “green.”

It was all-Earth Day all day.

In fact, it received more play than National Holocaust Remembrance Day and Washington’s Birthday combined – times ten. These summer-loving microphone jockeys spent every possible moment sharing “green” tips, planet-saving helpful hints, environmentally gracious suggestions and overall climate-protecting measures. Indeed, if I had a dollar for every time one of these retro-hippie DJs and hippy-dippy weathermen went on about climate change and global warming, I could almost afford a McDonald’s Value Meal in Manhattan.

How … discerning.

Can I then assume – with global warming and climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing and critical issues – that hot can be selectively good? Like, for instance, after a long, cold winter of being cooped up in the house reading The Daily Cos?

And if there are sun tans still to be worked on, bikinis to be worn, sand castles to be built and boardwalk concessions yet to be patronized, are rising temperatures then acceptable to the greenies? At least some of the time?

And if the environmentalists truly believe that a cooler planet is better, why ask us to be “green” of all things? Doesn’t “green” imply growth, warmth and prosperity? Don’t trees, plants, shrubs, leaves and grass generally thrive in warm weather? Isn’t that when they are at their “greenest?”

Leaves actually fall off and die in cooler weather.

Most trees become bare when the cold sets in.

Grass often turns brown in the winter.

Shouldn’t the color of environmentalism be brown? Or gray?
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 18, 2010

It’s akin to having the Board of Health walk into a hospital operating room, mid-operation, and order the surgeon to cease what he is doing until the room corners can be checked for dust bunnies and stray lint. Better yet, it would be like the police stopping a fire engine on its way to a raging inferno to make sure its registration was up to date.

If ever there was something that needed to fall into the “You’ve Got To Be Kidding Me” file – or the “You Can’t Be F—ing Serious” file, this is it.

On June 9th, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal ordered barges to begin the process of sucking crude oil out of Louisiana’s waters.

However, yesterday, much to the disgust of the Governor, the barges stopped working. They sat like President Obama at the Oval Office Desk with cameras running: idle.

No oil was being removed.

And it wasn’t because the barges had broken down or were proving to be ineffective. To the contrary, they were working quite well.

No, those barges were ordered to be shut down by the feds so that they could be inspected for life vests and fire extinguishers.

From ABC News:

“It’s the most frustrating thing,” the Republican governor said (yesterday) in Buras, La. “Literally, yesterday morning we found out that they were halting all of these barges.”

Sixteen barges sat stationary today, although they were sucking up thousands of gallons of BP’s oil as recently as Tuesday. Workers in hazmat suits and gas masks pumped the oil out of the Louisiana waters and into steel tanks. It was a homegrown idea that seemed to be effective at collecting the thick gunk.

“These barges work. You’ve seen them work. You’ve seen them suck oil out of the water,” said Jindal.

So why stop now?

“The Coast Guard came and shut them down,”Jindal said. “You got men on the barges in the oil, and they have been told by the Coast Guard, ‘Cease and desist. Stop sucking up that oil.’”

But the Coast Guard ordered the stoppage because of reasons that Jindal found frustrating. The Coast Guard needed to confirm that there were fire extinguishers and life vests on board, and then it had trouble contacting the people who built the barges.

So, if I may ask: Would it not have been possible to send another vessel full of life vests and fire extinguishers – assuming they were needed – out to the barges? Was it necessary to completely suspend operations while this “inspection” took place?

To be clear, this isn’t about the United States Coast Guard.

This is about where the orders to the Coast Guard came from.

This is why modern liberals cannot be trusted with responsibility. Leaders get thing done. Libs, on the other hand, organize fact finding commitees to determine if hearings will be necessary to establish new bureaucracies.

Following the cue of Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Jindal decided enough was enough – that it was up to him to do what the feds would not do. It speaks volumes about the undeniable ineptitude of the Obamacratic regime.

Zip at Weasel Zippers put it best when he wrote: “Jindal might have the toughest job in this whole mess, he’s fighting on two-fronts, against the oil slicks and the Obama administration…”


Incidentally, here’s what a governor who is sick of incompetency looks and sounds like:

wordpress statistics

Posted in Gulf Oil Spill | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 18, 2010

Random thought 55217:

In a world where tobacco consumption warrants a Motion Picture Association of America rating, where images of Winston Churchill are becoming “cigarless” thanks to airbrushing, where depictions of the Beatles’ Abbey Road album cover are conspicuously missing Paul McCartney’s cigarette, and where tobacco use – specifically cigarettes – has become an issue of morality, it defies logic – it is intellectually indefensible – that a corporation manufacturing and selling an item that is completely legal in the United States cannot purchase billboard space, magazine pages or air time.

Did you ever stop to think about that from a completely objective position?

I cannot be the only one who still finds it astonishing that in a free market society, there are laws against advertising a perfectly legal product.

Reasonable limitations are one thing. But an outright ban is another.

I cannot be the only one who is disturbed to observe a system of twisted moral values where the choice to smoke is on par with, if not considered worse than, cheating on a test or premarital sex.

Choosing to smoke, contrary to leftist dogma, is not an issue of character or moral fiber.

Cheating on an exam, on the other hand, is.

So, why is it okay for the government to tell a free-market entity that they cannot advertise their legal product? (This is not rhetorical. I’m actually asking the question).

It cannot be because there is an age restriction on tobacco.

Beer commercials and automobile ads – both of which have age limitations regarding their use – abound.

Is it because of all the “bad” that comes from smoking?

In this country, the number of violent incidents and crimes that can be directly attributed to alcohol consumption is enormous.

Yet, how many children have been beaten by parents who had one too many cigarettes? How many battered women’s shelters are filled with victims of Marlboro-crazed Neanderthals? How many people have been killed by those convicted of DWS (Driving While Smoking)?

Meanwhile, the number of automobile accidents caused by reckless, irresponsible drivers – preoccupied with cell phones, makeup, bags of drive-thru food on the passanger seat, etc. – is ever-growing.

Should beer and car ads be banned?

Of course not – just like ads for soda, sugar-rich cereals and cupcakes shouldn’t be nixed. It should be up to the network, billboard owner or magazine publisher to make the determination – not government.

I’m a big one for individual responsibility.

In October of last year, in a piece called THE NEW MORALITY – LIBERTY’S LATEST WAR, I wrote:

Talk show host Dennis Prager makes the point that if second-hand smoke kills as many people as is claimed by these totalitarian-like zealots – (some say as many as 50,000 a year in the United States alone, which would translate to nearly six people an hour dying in this country as a result of coming into contact with second-hand smoke) – then not only should the practice be banned outright everywhere, but those who are smoking need to be arrested and convicted for taking the lives of the innocent.

Logical, yes?

By the way, I don’t smoke. (I quit on February 2, 1998 at 3:14PM).

It’s a disgusting habit.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Health is the New Morality, Moral Clarity | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 17, 2010

It was done, they said, to take a much-needed stand against racism.

But they are the ones who will be doing harm to “people of color” working legally in Arizona.

It was done, they said, to protest racial profiling.

But they are the ones who view the immigration debate as a racial issue, not a legal one.

It was done, they said, because they are on the right side of history.

But they are the ones who spit in the face of this country’s long tradition of legal immigration from all corners of the globe.

They care about people – except citizens and legal aliens.

They care about families – except those that will be directly affected by any and all Arizona boycotts (including countless Hispanics).

And who exactly are “they”?

While one can certainly insert any number of open-border leftist groups into that slot, today’s the spotlight shines on the Sacramento, California City Council. Two nights ago, they made it their business to tackle an issue so pressing and so relevant to the citizens of California’s capitol city that Councilman Rob Fong, when asked why the group would deal with this matter as they did, said, “How can we not?”

Sacramento is placing economic sanctions on the State of Arizona.

From the Sacramento Bee:

The sanctions passed by a 6-1 council vote are on par with the broadest actions passed by other California cities, including Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland.

They include forbidding city workers from attending conferences in Arizona on the city’s dime, boycotting companies based in Arizona “where practicable and where there is no significant additional cost to the city” and potentially canceling current contracts with firms from Arizona.

Because there is nothing more responsible than officially endorsing unlawfulness – not to mention imposing sanctions on fellow, law-abiding Americans of a different state.

Opponents of the boycott said the City Council should not have weighed in on the actions of another state and urged the council to concentrate on other issues, including the city budget.

But supporters of the boycott far outnumbered opponents at the council meeting, with many describing the discussion as a civil rights issue.

“This is about Sacramento. This is about every state in our nation,” said Melinda Guzman, a local attorney. “This is not just about Arizona.”


And an overwhelming majority of all Americans from every state in our nation support Arizona’s illegal immigration law.

It’s astonishing how leftists believe they can pick and choose the laws they wish to obey.

If, for instance, there are signed and sealed business contracts between parties in Arizona and Sacramento, then what? Is it suddenly okay to breach those commitments because a group of misguided, ill-informed, dim-witted, leftist crusaders want to throw their support behind unlawful behavior? Is it now acceptable to renege on contractual agreements in the name of solidarity with those who are violating American immigration laws?

And if these broken contracts wind up in litigation, who foots the expense?

Three syllables: taxpayer.

Unfortunately, as is the wont of the left, no one ever bothers to ask, “What happens next?” Thomas Sowell calls it a lack of Stage Two thinking.

And if people can choose which laws they will or will not honor – in this case, at the expense of sovereignty and security – where does it end?

Are we a nation of laws or not?.
wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration | Tagged: , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 17, 2010

From the “World Class Morons” file …

On Tuesday, just hours before the President sat at his Oval Office desk and said nothing before 32 million prime time television viewers, British Petroleum President, Lamar McKay, was being grilled at a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing about the Gulf oil spill.

Congressman Joseph Cao, Republican from Louisiana, used the opportunity to do what any clear-thinking, sane-minded individual wishing to find solutions to a most tragic situation would do – suggest that a company big wig disembowel himself.

After all, what says “problem solving” more than suggesting that someone commit suicide to make things right?

Besides, what would ease the pain and suffering of the affected people of the Gulf region more than to have the President of BP stab himself with a sword?

From Fox News:

“Well, in the Asian culture, we do things differently. During the Samurai days, we’d just give you the knife and ask you to commit hara-kiri,” said Cao, who is Vietnamese-American. “My constituents are still debating on what they want me to ask you to do.”

Cao went on to complain about BP’s response in his district, which he said is suffering “great economic impact” from the oil spill.

“The clean-up process has been a disgrace. The claims process has been dismal,” Cao said.

To repeat, Cao is a Vietnamese-American. Harakiri – or more accurately, seppuku – is a Japanese form of ritual suicide.

No matter, though.

All of those Asians look alike anyway, don’t they Mr. Cao?

Another numbskull from Nitwit County heard from …

wordpress statistics

Posted in Gulf Oil Spill | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2010

The latest Presidential Daily Tracking Poll numbers from Rasmussen are in … and they’re not good.

Now to be fair, these figures were tabulated almost entirely from surveys taken  before Obama’s Gulf oil spill address last evening – the defining moment of Barack Obama’s presidency.

Thus, I concede to being somewhat hesitant in posting the results.

It would be akin to assessing the life and accomplishments of Winston Churchill ten years before the start of World War II, or evaluating the career of Babe Ruth before he ever put on a major league baseball uniform.

Honestly, how can one appraise Lincoln without acknowledging the Gettysburg Address?

How can one take measure of Reagan’s stand against the Evil Empire without acknowledging his “Tear Down This Wall” speech?

Likewise, I grant that citing the President’s ever-plummeting approval numbers based on data compiled before last night’s history-altering, game-changing speech from the Oval Office places my credibility at risk.

But hey, what the hell …

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% 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 -20 (see trends).

Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 75% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 12% Strongly Approve and 52% Strongly Disapprove.

These results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, today’s results are based almost entirely on interviews conducted before the president’s speech to the nation. The impact of the president’s speech will be seen over the next several days.

Heading into the speech, 30% of voters gave President Obama good or excellent marks for handling the oil spill. Forty-five percent (45%) said he was doing a poor job. Most voters (57%) still favor offshore oil drilling.

Rasmussen also says that only 42% of Americans “somewhat approve” of this President’s performance. Since the dawn of the Messianic Age, that number has never been lower.

(Feel free to take an “ouch” out of petty cash).

But Obamacrats need not fear. Last night’s “Wrong Speech At The Wrong Time” presentation will figure in to the Presidential Daily Tracking Poll soon enough.

Hopefully, by then, the White House can squeeze in one more glitz-and-glam event with another ex-Beatle.

Ringo turns seventy next month.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2010

There was no plan. He didn’t try to sell anything – except how exceptional the feds’ reaction to the Gulf oil spill has been. He offered no solutions, presented no direction, said nothing specific, and even left the heart of the lib media scratching their collective scalps.

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews said, “I don’t sense executive command.”

His vinegary cohort, Keith Olbermann, ached, “I don’t think he aimed low, I don’t think he aimed at all. It’s startling.”

It was a brief – and frankly embarrassing – excursion into platitudinal hell. It was, in short, the worst speech ever given by President Barack Obama.

And it may be the worst speech ever delivered by a President from the Oval Office.

It is not possible to overstate it.

“Empty” doesn’t cover it. To say it was “lame” is an affront to the word.

And while Americans waited to hear something – anything – about how the disastrous oil spill in the Gulf would be tended to, what we got instead was wandering blather about clean energy, green jobs, energy-efficient windows, more federal commissions, higher taxes and his pledge to bully big oil. He promised an expansion of the federal government, yet again, and put forth the cockeyed message that the pain and suffering being felt by Americans in the Gulf region will be relieved with higher energy costs and a loss of jobs.

To begin with, thousands of oil rig jobs – along with the onshore jobs that support them – will remain “offline” because President Obama did not lift the moratorium on oil drilling. The policy will stay in effect until he hears a panel’s recommendations on how to improve worker safety and environmental protections.

Oh, goody.

The obvious result will be that the United States becomes increasingly more dependant on foreign oil at a time when this country needs oil the most. Ultimately, rig operators will have no choice but to move to friendlier waters.

How exactly this is better for the United States is unclear.

Secondly, President Obama vowed to “make BP pay” – something I’m sure he thought would knock it out of the park with the American people.

Nice try.

Despite his cartoonish posturing, the Bully-In-Chief cannot actually order a private company (British Petroleum, in this case) to put money into an escrow account, or tell them they cannot pay out dividends. That’s not exactly constitutional.

However, the President can – and certainly will – employ some creatively persuasive methods (i.e., big government intimidation) in his new domestic contingency operation against oil companies.

And although Obama never actually tried to peddle “Cap And Trade” or a “carbon tax” during the speech – as many had expected – he certainly did hit each of the anti-oil, big-windmill talking points we’ve all heard many times before.

He also talked about moving into the future, and creating the kind of America we want for our children, but then said he hadn’t any idea how it was going to happen or what it was going to look like.

Such clarity. Such leadership.

I am loathe to quote the regularly detestable Keith Olbermann, but he summed up the Obama performance this way: “It was a great speech if you were on another planet for the last 57 days.”
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010

To be sure, the numbers aren’t good. The latest Gallup poll shows that the American middle class is turning its back on President Obama. In fact, in every income group, save for one, Barack Obama’s approval numbers are less than 48%. Only the under-$24,000 income bracket still has a majority approval rating of 52% – but even there, that number is the lowest of Obama’s presidency.

Terrence P. Jeffrey of writes:

During the week of June 7-13, only 46 percent of Americans overall told Gallup they approved of the job Obama is doing as president, tying for the worst week of Obama’s presidency. Two weeks ago, forty-six percent also said they approved of the job Obama is doing, and last week 47 percent said they approved.

But when the president’s approval is separated by incomes groups, it is only the lowest income bracket recorded by Gallup—those who earn less than $2,000 per month—that gives Obama a majority approval rating, with 52 percent saying they approved of the job he is doing as president.

Among those earning $2,000 to $4,999 per month (or $24,000 to $59,988 per year), 46 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing. Among those earning $5,000 to $7,499 per month ($60,000 to $89,988 per year), 44 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing. And among those earning $7,500 or more per month ($90,000 per year or more), the highest income bracket recorded by Gallup, 47 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing.

That’s all well and good, but am I the only one on the surface of God’s green Earth who is altogether befuddled as to how this man’s approval numbers are still so high? Even with my liberal-English dictionary in hand I have to admit, I am mystified.

This is a man whose picture fills out the “clueless” entry in the Encyclopedia Incompetentia. Former Carter administration officials are high-fiving each other as Obama continues to do the impossible – namely, challenge Jimmy Carter for the top spot on the Worst Presidents Countdown.

He bungles, fumbles, stumbles, bumbles, mismanages and mishandles everything in his scope. He is detached, disconnected, aloof and unable to speak publicly without his rolling electronic cue cards just off-shoulder.

And he is about to use the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to promote yet another expansion of federal government.

How is it that Barack Obama still gets a thumbs-up from 46% of the American people? What am I missing? Or better yet, what are they missing?

Shouldn’t that number more realistically be around 35%? Or 4%?

Are they counting the dead? Life-sized cardboard cutouts? Obama’s extended family? Hamsters?

And I would love to have just two minutes to try and pick apart the brains of the 8% of self-identified “conservative republicans” who said they approve of the job President Obama is doing.

What an adventure that would be.

Perhaps I should take comfort in knowing that there still more people who believe Elvis is alive than there are “conservative Republicans” who approve of Bammy.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010

In an age where multiculturalism is almost a moral imperative – where love and appreciation of country have been tossed aside in favor of building self-esteem, celebrating diversity and saving the planet from everything – patriotism, as a selling tool, is appallingly atypical. Good old fashioned, everyday, love-your-country, bread-and-butter, show-it-proudly patriotism seems to be the exception, not the rule – so much so that when it is employed in an advertising campaign, conservatives take special notice.

(Yes, we “old-fashioned” Constitution-loving, free-market, pro-second-amendment God-fearing types still tend to be moved by such things as waving flags, a military band and George Washington).

At the great Lady Cincinnatus blog (brought to my attention by Proof Positive), there is post called “Commercial of The Year.” It is an ad for the 2010 Dodge Challenger.

It is a must see.

A thought crossed my mind as I watched this spot for the third time.

How many of us can remember when military heroes – recipients of medals, citations, etc – routinely earned space on our hometown newspapers’ front page? It was automatic that those who were recognized for meritorious service while defending the nation would be afforded above-the-fold, page one status.

It was a given.

Recently, I had the opportunity to “rescue” a whole bunch of yellowing Toledo Blade newspapers from the World War II era. (They were being used as insulation in an old farm house owned by my wife’s family). The number of front page stories about local boys who earned various honors on the battlefield were simply too many to count.

What a different time it was.

Today, one is hard pressed to find such recognition except, perhaps, in some very small town publications and local neighborhood papers.

There are many great blogs, however, that pick up the slack.

Thank God for them.

Watching this commercial made me think how, at one time, there was no higher honor – nothing that garnered the respect and admiration from the public at large – than serving in the United States military.

A nation that does not honor and revere its warriors cannot – and does not deserve to – endure.

(Serious stuff just from watching a car ad, eh?)

Now, I’m off to go look at Dodge Challenger.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010


I can assure you, I am fully appreciative of the magnitude of the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The repercussions, both environmentally and economically, are extremely serious. Even the President, some fifty-plus days after the explosion that killed eleven human beings on the Deepwater Horizon rig and triggered the oil spill, has had to suck it up and acknowledge that conditions on the ground justify that attention be diverted from him to the Gulf Coast. (It must be very difficult for him).

And with Barack Obama scheduled to speak from the Oval Office tonight on the situation – where the teleprompters are big and beautiful – poised to use the oil spill as a springboard into more government growth, the stage is set for thrills to make their way up a whole lot of mainstream media legs.

This will be leadership on full display.

This will be the moment for the young metrosexual from Chicago to lay his critics to waste and exert the kind of strength and eloquence (albeit almost two months late) that the media has been singing about around the campfire for three years.

This will be the political Viagra that will invigorate a flaccid and disappointing presidency.


But make no mistake about it … it doesn’t matter how many politically expedient, hyper-arrogant, camera-friendly promises Barack Obama makes, the Gulf region will recover from the oil spill in spite of him and his world class ineptitude. He can get up in front of all the cameras he wants and pretend to know how to lead, how to inspire, how to exude confidence, making promises about how the Gulf region will return to normal someday, but it means absolutely nothing. He might as well stand in a driving rain storm and promise that the sunshine will return.

Things will, indeed, return to normal, regardless of what he says or does.

This is not to minimize what’s happened there, but the Anointed One need not bother faking leadership or project some transparent façade of strength nearly two months after the fact; his image as a clueless, supremely detached, disconnected Golfer-In-Chief has long since been established.

Without question, the Gulf region will recover – without the blessings, assurances and soundbite-ready promises of politician Barack H. Obama.

Nature is funny that way.

The Earth, probably to the shock of many, has an uncanny capacity to heal herself, despite the screechings of the hysterical doomsayers of the world.

That’s not to suggest that the oil spill is not a big deal.

It obviously is.

The livelihoods of Americans are being aversely affected. The damage being done environmentally cannot be denied. It is an accident of monumental proportion that will be dealt with, even with Barack Obama in the White House.

But it is not the end of civilization as we know it. The day of environmental reckoning has not come. It is not even close to being on par with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, as President Obama has suggested.

And if the President wants to sashay up to the cameras hoping to save face on a disastrous presidency – you might call it the Gulf oil spill of presidencies – and promise the American people that the Gulf will return to normal, let him.

Of course things will return to normal.

It will take time.

But it will have nothing to do with Barack Obama and his photo-op astroturf promises.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010

Zip at Weasel Zippers asks the question: “How many Czars are we up to now?”

He asks this in response to White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ saying that President Obama will announce a Gulf oil spill recovery plan tonight.

That plan will be headed by a brand new Czar – the latest in an ever-growing stable of Czars that answer to no one but President Barack Obama.

Gibbs spoke with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America:

GIBBS: We are going to outline tonight groups of people and somebody that will be in charge of a recovery plan – putting a recovery plan together – and ready to have when we get past the cleanup and response phase of this disaster.”

STEPHANOPOULOS: So a “Recovery Czar?”

GIBBS: We will have somebody who will – yes – be tasked with doing that.

From Infotech Czar to AIDS Czar, from California Water Czar to Green Jobs Czar, there isn’t a Czar President Obama can’t whip up on a dime.

It’s hard to tally a precise count of exactly how many of these unaccountable, unofficial positions actually exist in ObamaLand, but some say in the neighborhood of 30 to 35.

Maybe they need a Czar Czar.

Posted in Gulf Oil Spill | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 14, 2010

I suppose all it takes is a direct comparison to the worst terrorist attack in United States history to convince the rest of us that the President really is in touch with the American people, that he gets it, that perceptions of his being aloof and detached are wholly misconstrued – a construct of his political enemies.

The disastrous oil spill in the Gulf – according to the President – echoes the murder of nearly three-thousand innocents at the hands of terrorists on September 11, 2001. It is, according to the Community-Organizer-In-Chief, on par with the most dastardly act of evil ever perpetrated on American soil.

Not that it’s surprising he would think that way.

It’s inherent in the liberal blood stream; and I don’t mean the propensity to draw comparisons, which we all do. Rather, I’m talking about making embarrassingly erroneous corrolations. The way the left can carelessly compare health insurance coverage to the Holocaust or equate dissent to Nazi Germany is well-documented. Setting the Gulf oil spill on the same scale with the attacks of September 11, 2001 and hoping to find some kind of balance is yet another example of Barack Obama’s disconnect.

But it isn’t the latest and greatest example.

Barack Obama, to his credit, keeps topping himself.

If, for the sake of argument, one is to accept Barack Obama’s premise that the oil spill in the Gulf echoes the 9/11 attacks (i.e., the deaths of 3,000), what then can be said about the four hours the President spent on the golf course yesterday?

If the environmental and economic disaster on America’s Gulf Coast is to be equated with the murderous attack that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, what are the American people to think about a President who hits the links while such a catastrophe is taking place?

What if, for example, on September 21, 2001, one day after his magnificent speech before a joint session of Congress – ten days after the 9/11 attacks – President Bush took some cronies out for a round of golf while the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoked? Would there be any backlash from the media? Or the American people?

What if Bush went golfing, say, thirty days after the attacks? Or fifty? Would it seem appropriate to do so while this nation was formulating a retaliation strategy for the attacks? While battle plans were being put together, would it have been proper for the President to squeeze in a quick nine holes?

From The Hill:

President Barack Obama spent four hours on the golf course Sunday in temperatures that peaked in the low 90s. The White House pool reported that they left Andrews Air Force Base as it started to rain after 4 p.m.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was among the group golfing with Obama.

Also reportedly in the golfing group were White House Trip Director Marvin Nicholson and photographer David Katz.

The president leaves Monday for his fourth trip to the Gulf Coast since the BP oil spill began nearly two months ago. On the trip, the President will visit Gulfport, Miss., Theodore, Ala., and Pensacola, Fla., to survey the response efforts, visit with Gulf residents impacted by the spill and meet with area officials.

Golf before Gulf, I always say.

And for those who would argue that is unfair and intellectually dishonest to compare preparing for war to trying to get a handle on the Gulf oil spill, I would say, “Exactly.”

Appreciating how serious the situation in the Gulf is, for all of its destructiveness, we can only Thank God it was not another 9/11 type of attack on American soil that took place with Barack Obama at the helm. Given the ineptitude of this administration on all fronts, one shudders at the thought.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 14, 2010

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Okay, now that seems to make more sense.

After the Times Online reported on Saturday that Saudi Arabia had given Israel permission to use their airspace for possible raids on Iranian nuclear facilities, Saudi Arabian Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf is saying that it ain’t so.

From Haaretz:

Saudi Arabia would not allow Israeli bombers to pass through its airspace en route to a possible strike of Iran’s nuclear facilities, a member of the Saudi royal family said Saturday, denying an earlier Times of London report.

Earlier Saturday, the Times reported that Saudi Arabia has practiced standing down its anti-aircraft systems to allow Israeli warplanes passage on their way to attack Iran’s nuclear installations, adding that the Saudis have allocated a narrow corridor of airspace in the north of the country.

Prince Mohammed bin Nawaf, the Saudi envoy to the U.K. speaking to the London-based Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, denied that report, saying such a move “would be against the policy adopted and followed by the Kingdom.”

According to Asharq al-Awsat report, bin Nawaf reiterated the Saudi Arabia’s rejection of any violation of its territories or airspace, adding that it would be “illogical to allow the Israeli occupying force, with whom Saudi Arabia has no relations whatsoever, to use its land and airspace.”

This story doesn’t especially surprise me.

While the original story did seem plausible to me in a “maybe-there-really-could-be-a-Santa-Claus” kind of way, one could have probably bet the mortgage that a story like this would follow soon after, regardless of how accurate it is.

It almost had to happen.

And while a case can be made that the Saudis will ultimately do whatever is necessary to preserve the kingdom, including allowing Israel to use Saudi air space to conduct raids on Iranian nuclear targets, would anyone expect Saudi Arabia to say publicly that they’ve actually come to an agreement of this type with Israel?
wordpress statistics

Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Huntsville City Councilman Showers

Is it possible to use the word “black” anymore and not have to contend with over-sensitive, uneducated, dimwitted race-obsessed relics coming out of the woodwork crying racism? Must every phrase or expression that employs the word “black” – or references anything to do with blacks – be cleared by a panel of civil rights arbiters before it is acceptable to use in public?

(Remember when Dallas Commissioner John Wiley Price went ballistic because fellow commissioner Kenneth Mayfield used the phrase “black hole” to describe misplaced paperwork?)

Recently, the NAACP muscled Hallmark into removing a talking greeting card that featured the words “black hole” because some blacks heard it as “black whore.” The graduation greeting card, which had an outer-space theme, referenced such things as the solar system and Saturn’s rings. But because some folks inexplicably heard the words “black whore,” – a conspicuously uncelestial phrase – the card was yanked. Even when told that the words being said were “black hole,” some swore they could hear an “r” at the end.

Welcome to post-racial America.

One cannot help but wonder if it is at all possible to disagree with a black person in public office anymore and not be branded a racist. Can one actually take a stand against unfavorable or unpopular policies supported by people of color and not have to withstand accusations of bigotry or prejudice? Is it conceivable to the floundering remnants of the race-baiting, intellectually vapid left that a black person could be wrong simply because his or her policy is, you know, a bad idea?

Better yet, is it possible for a white man to behave inappropriately against a black man and not have it be because of racism? Or latent bigotries? Or deep contempt for those with melanin-heavy skin? Can inappropriate behavior against someone of color ever happen because the person perpetrating the act is being an undisciplined, boorish ass?

In Huntsville, Alabama, the idiocy of the city’s mayor apparently cannot be a result of a lack of self control or bad values. It must be about race.

From the Huntsville Times:

Mayor Tommy Battle, acting in frustration with councilman Richard Showers, threw a plastic bottlecap into the dais at the end of Thursday’s city council meeting.

A member of the audience, the Rev. Mitchell Walker of Church Street CPCA, later that night sent a strongly worded email to Battle, as well as dozens of church and community leaders. Walker demanded an apology.

“Well, I can just say for me,” wrote Walker, “to see an elected authoritative Caucasian male mayor totally lose his cool and have the utter gall to throw something at or near a senior African American male Councilman … I’m just speaking for me … very much carries ‘racial’ overtones.”

I cannot possibly be the only one who is infinitely tired of this crap.

To the left, everything under the sun is about, related to, defined by or measured in terms of skin color. To them, all that comprises every day life in the United States of America, in some context, can be filtered through the prism of race. Whether we are redressing grievances – such as opposing the destructive policies of half-white Barack Obama – or reacting childishly by tossing a bottle cap at a city councilman, rest assured that if the recipient is a person with dark skin, the motivations must be racial.

Whether Mayor Battle will be charged with a hate crime is unknown at this time.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 13, 2010

Common enemies create unlikely coalitions.

The oft-quoted phrase “The enemy of my enemy is my friend” sums it up quite nicely.

On a micro level, the annoying, noisy neighbor next door becomes an unexpected ally when the even more annoying guy down the street keeps letting his out-of-control dog go rummaging through everyone’s garbage cans, leaving trash strewn everywhere.

The guy with the smelly armpits on the subway sitting next to me becomes an instant comrade when the naked-from-the-waist-down dude across from us starts hurling peanut shells, shouting expletive-rich, pro-Obama slogans.

Arguably, the most well-known example of this kind of thing on a macro level is the alliance between the United States and Soviet Union during World War II.

Common foe: Nazi Germany.

Yet, within seconds of the war ending, the Cold War was officially on.

In a world where the scourge of moral equivalency acts as a fertility drug of evil – and the rise of kindness to the cruel is matched only by the increase of cruelty to the kind – the very concept that the nation of Saudi Arabia would stand with Israel before the United States does is, to say the least, distressing.

Strange bedfellows, indeed.

Hugh Tomlinson of the Times Online writes:

Saudi Arabia has conducted tests to stand down its air defences to enable Israeli jets to make a bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear facilities, The Times can reveal.

In the week that the UN Security Council imposed a new round of sanctions on Tehran, defence sources in the Gulf say that Riyadh has agreed to allow Israel to use a narrow corridor of its airspace in the north of the country to shorten the distance for a bombing run on Iran.

To ensure the Israeli bombers pass unmolested, Riyadh has carried out tests to make certain its own jets are not scrambled and missile defence systems not activated. Once the Israelis are through, the kingdom’s air defences will return to full alert.

“The Saudis have given their permission for the Israelis to pass over and they will look the other way,” said a US defence source in the area. “They have already done tests to make sure their own jets aren’t scrambled and no one gets shot down. This has all been done with the agreement of the [US] State Department.”

Odd times.

Saudi Arabia, obviously, is concerned about an ever-strengthening Shia. It is more than obvious, even to the Saudis, that Barack Obama’s United States of America cannot be counted on for cover.

Thus the backup plan.

And what, pray tell, is Plan B?

Let Israel take care of it.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

At least temporarily.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Middle East | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 12, 2010

If the concept of the “sanctuary city” isn’t enough to convince illegals that the United States isn’t particularly serious about enforcing its immigration laws, how about illegal alien detention centers offering art and cooking classes? Or dance instruction? Or bingo?

What says, “Hey, you’re breaking the law!” better than movie nights and fresh vegetable bars?

After all, if locking up illegal aliens cannot be pleasant, entertaining and convenient – complete with free e-mail and phone service – why bother doing it at all?

From the Houston Chronicle:

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials are preparing to roll out a series of changes at several privately owned immigration detention centers, including relaxing some security measures for low-risk detainees and offering art classes, bingo and continental breakfast on the weekends.

The changes, detailed in an internal ICE e-mail obtained by the Houston Chronicle, were welcomed by immigrant advocates who have been waiting for the Obama administration to deliver on a promise made in August to overhaul the nation’s immigration detention system.

The 28 changes identified in the e-mail range from the superficial to the substantive. In addition to “softening the look of the facility” with hanging plants and offering fresh carrot sticks, ICE will allow for the “free movement” of low-risk detainees, expand visiting hours and provide unmonitored phone lines.

And, lucky us, it’s going to happen at taxpayer expense.

Tre Rebstock, president for Local 3332, the ICE union in Houston, likened the changes to creating “an all-inclusive resort” for immigration detainees.

Rebstock also questioned the cost to taxpayers for the changes.

“My grandparents would have loved to have bingo night and a dance class at the retirement home they were in when they passed away, but that was something we would have had to pay for,” he said. “And yet these guys are getting it on the taxpayers’ dime.”

Lory Rosenberg of Refugee and Migrants’ Rights for Amnesty International says the changes “will go some way to making this system less penal.”

How nice.

Because the last thing anyone wants is for illegal aliens in an illegal alien detention center to have to be subjected to anything penal.

How about unlimited internet access for the detainees? Or weekly group treks to Applebees for French onion soup? Or massage therapy? Or laptops?

Why not offer the male detainees thrice-weekly visits with a prostitute as well? After all, even illegal aliens have needs.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

Not that she was dressed inconspicuously to begin with. Not that anyone believes she was not going to show everyone her bejeweled bra and panties by the time it was all said and done. Not that she didn’t know exactly what she was doing.

Sure, she “pitched a fit,” to quote the New York Post, but there’s no way the entire incident at Citi Field yesterday afternoon in New York just happened. Highly recognizable pop divas don’t sort of show up at baseball games with open leather jackets, exposed cleavage and studded headbands hoping not to be noticed by the press.

The middle finger thing was icing on her narcissistic pie.

Lady Gaga’s “tirade” at a San Diego Padre-New York Mets baseball game – where she stripped down to her studded underwear and hurled enough expletives to make Saturday Night Fever sound like an episode of Dora the Explorer – reeks of contrivance. Let’s give credit where credit is due.

That’s not to say she wasn’t an “amazin’ disgrace,” as the Post called her.

She was.

That’s not to say she isn’t a flash-in-the-skillet, tedious dullard with music that only roller-skating rink DJs and close relatives will remember ten years from now. That’s not to say that I don’t find the ingredient list on a packet of tropical punch Kool Aid more engaging.

I simply think most people are interpreting what happened all wrong.

Indeed, she is just another spoiled brat celebrity, but this is about marketing.

Gaga showed up during the fifth inning of the day game against the San Diego Padres and was furious that her front-row seats were so close to photographers covering the game.
Instead of sitting, she vanished into a lower-deck concourse — only to reappear in the seventh inning in the empty luxury box owned by Met super-fan Jerry Seinfeld.

By the time fans and photographers spotted her, she had shed her coat to reveal bedazzled undies that looked like the get-up she wore in the video for her single “Telephone.”

The beer-swilling diva — who has professed her love for the Yankees — proceeded to repeatedly salute the crowd with her middle finger. When fans rose for the seventh-inning stretch, she did, too — dancing and giving onlookers the double-bird salute. She watched the rest of the game in just her undergarments without incident.

“She was psyched to go the game,” a source close to Gaga told The Post. “But she felt it was unfair that she was seated right by the paparazzi. Having them take pictures of her all game would’ve been annoying to all the fans. That was going to ruin it for everyone.”

Anyone who believes that last paragraph, please stand on your head.

The last thing Lady Gaga cares about is how her actions will affect anyone else. Exposing everything except genetalia while publicly flipping off the photographers of the press – with adults in attendance who just aren’t interested in what her underwear looks like, not to mention children – are not the actions of a person concerned with the well-being of fellow fans.

Besides, the world revolves around her, and the rest of us had better get that through our non-paparazzi-ravaged heads.

And if – that’s a big if – she had no inkling that she was going to be photographed by the press while at a public event like a major league baseball game, then she ought to defer to the box of rocks, because there isn’t an instrument in creation that can measure the “dumb” she owns.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

We should fear large corporations – those soulless, money-hungry rapists of all that is decent, upstanding and pure, those bastards.

We should recognize that discrimination against minority groups is not only a major problem in this country, but that it could very well be the single most destructive force in America today.

We should understand that the very existence of humanity hangs in the balance due to the perils of global warming and environmental-health ignorance.

And we had better be willing to admit that the ungoing battles against overseas contingency brigades in Afghanistan and Iraq are tearing this nation apart.

Or should we?

According to a Gallup poll, these four topics come in dead last (out of ten) on the list of things Americans fear today.

From The Foundry, via the Say Anything blog:

“How serious of a threat to the future of the United States do you consider the following…” The results are clear: Americans judge the national debt on par with terrorism as the top threat facing the nation. Further, independents – a crucial constituency during an election year – believe the debt to be the single most threatening issue facing the country, even topping terrorism.

A quick analysis of the numbers reveals why the public is alarmed. Today debt held by the public stands at approximately $8.6 trillion, up from around $7.5 trillion less than a year ago. Over the past 30 years, debt held by the public has averaged about 39.4 percent of gross domestic product, and last year stood at 53 percent, the highest since 1955. Unfortunately, instead of taking swift actions to address the worsening problem, Congress and the White House have chosen to double down on the unrestrained spending policies of the past. Obama’s budget (the only budget available because Congressional Democrats refuse to draft one this year) sees debt held by the public hitting 90 percent of GDP by 2020.


What would the percentage have been had one of the choices been “Barack Obama?”

Or Michelle Obama’s belt collection?
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

CNN's curmudgeon, Jack Cafferty

CNN’s Jack Cafferty is wondering why President Barack Obama seems to have lost his touch.

Assuming the President ever had a “touch” that wasn’t the result of well-placed teleprompters and a hypnotized lamestream media, what is hurting him (aside from his leftist agenda) is the realization that campaigning and leadership are not synonymous. The President – with a resume that would qualify him for little more than Assistant Slushee Machine Operator at 7-11 – has been in stuck in campaign mode for three years. That may be great for t-shirt manufacturers, button makers and Chris Matthews’ leg, but not very helpful otherwise.

America is still waiting for him to act like a President.

From using hanging-out-in-front-of-the-bodega language on national television to bowing to foreign heads of state, Barack Obama is the least presidential big cheese any of us has ever seen.

Said Cafferty:

Like it or not, there are times when a President is called upon to be a father figure to the nation: to sympathize, comfort and reassure us when things are bad. It’s what made Reagan and Clinton so very popular. Whatever happened to that firebrand charismatic speaker who made a thrill go up Chris Matthews’ leg?

The President’s in trouble.

As Barack Obama marks five-hundred days in office, a new average of polls shows only 48% of the public approves of the job he’s doing. And those numbers aren’t good enough if he plans to spend more than four years running this country.

Here’s the question: Why does President Obama seem to have lost his touch?

I’m not sure I necessarily agree that the President needs to be a “father figure” per se, although I appreciate the point he is trying to make.

I, for one, don’t look for a “daddy” in a Commander-In-Chief. I look for strength and conviction. I look for someone who will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. I look for someone not to coddle the citizenry, but to advance the values of rugged individualism, personal responsibility, community and liberty. I look for someone to stand up for the values that have made America the greatest nation the world has ever known.

You don’t need to be a “daddy” to accomplish that; just a leader.

Given the choice, I’ll take an effective distant cousin over an ineffective father any day to lead the United States – man, woman, black, white, Christian, Jew, no matter … so long as his or her value system is in line with the American value system as brilliantly defined by talk show host Dennis Prager as the “American Trinity”: Liberty, In God We Trust and E Pluribus Unum.

Still, as Proof at the great Proof Positive blog says, “Jack Cafferty has become my favorite CNN commentator.”

I agree.

He is the only thing on the network that has become “must see TV.”

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

BP Chariman Carl-Henric Svanberg

He probably won’t be using a teleprompter (I say “probably”), but he may very well have a political Cyrano under the table prompting him. There may be crib notes stashed under the napkin or little post-its with bullet points taped to the bottom of the table for him to access. Either way, Captain Cue Card is on the case.

And not that there is any urgency fifty-three days after the fact, but the Oil Spill Summit between the man who vows to kick someone’s ass over this disaster – President Barack Obama – and the man who personifies evil more than any other human being that has ever drawn a breath (including Pauly Shore) – BP Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg – will finally take place … not today, not over the weekend, not on Monday, but next Wednesday.

The President already acts as if what is happening in the Gulf is an annoyance to him – a pain in the ass nuisance drawing precious attention away from him and toward oil-soaked pelicans and vanishing coast line – but like everything else this he does, it is a contrived, day-late/dollar-short measure meant to look like he’s doing something – anything –  other than White House galas, golf and waffles.

From Bloomberg:

BP Plc Chairman Carl-Henric Svanberg is being summoned to Washington for a meeting with President Barack Obama as politicians step up pressure on the company to settle damage claims and suspend the dividend.

Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen, the government’s national incident commander, requested the June 16 meeting in a letter addressed to Svanberg at the company’s London headquarters yesterday. He asked for the chairman and other “appropriate” company representatives to meet with senior administration officials to discuss the company’s response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Allen said Obama will “participate in a portion” of the session.

That the President will participate in a “portion” of the session is a blessing to us all.

The meeting will be Obama’s first direct communication with BP representatives since the April 20 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon rig that killed 11 people and triggered the spill. It also comes as some U.S. lawmakers are calling on BP to suspend its dividend to pay for cleanup and economic losses and questioning the integrity of the company’s public statements.

A sidebar: While in Brooklyn yesterday, I stopped to fill up my car at a BP station on Coney Island Avenue. Because I am an interactive type, I asked a man across from me who was self-serving his Chevy if he had a problem buying gas from BP because of the Gulf Oil Spill.

He said, “It’s a goddamn mess down there, but I need gas. I don’t give a shit where it comes from. When they invent a car with a windmill on it, let me know.”

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

Jerry Brown: Just like Goebbels

When in doubt, bring up the Nazis. When trouble looms over the political horizon, drop in the Third Reich. When there is nothing of substance left to say, mix in a swastika.

It’s how the modern liberal clings to dear political life.

The real question is: To open-minded progressives like Democrat California gubernatorial nominee, Jerry Brown (relic), what exactly does a non-Nazilike Republican sound like?

Or is such a thing only hypothetical?

Doug Sovern at his Sovern Nation blog writes:

I ran into Jerry Brown the other day. Or, rather, he ran into me. Literally.

….I asked him how he could possibly compete with her vast campaign treasury – Whitman spent $71 million of her own money on the primary, and is ready to write checks for $80 million more to crush Brown. She also raised about ten million from donors, and there will be more where that came from, from supporters and from the Republican Party.

Brown boasted about his legendary frugality. “I’ve only spent $200,000 so far. I have 20 million in the bank. I’m saving up for her.” It’s true – his stay-on-the-sidelines, bare-bones primary run cost him almost nothing, at least in California political terms. But he also fretted about the impact of all those eBay dollars in Whitman’s very deep pockets. “You know, by the time she’s done with me, two months from now, I’ll be a child-molesting…” He let the line trail off. “She’ll have people believing whatever she wants about me.” Then he went off on a riff I didn’t expect.

“It’s like Goebbels,” referring to Hitler’s notorious Minister of Propaganda. “Goebbels invented this kind of propaganda. He took control of the whole world. She wants to be president. That’s her ambition, the first woman president. That’s what this is all about.”

Yes, Jerry.

Meg Whitman is just like Joseph Goebbels.

How did everyone miss that, except you?

Are there better masters at cheapening language then liberals? From saying America’s health care “crisis” is a modern-day Holocaust to comparing Tea Partiers to Civil Rights Era racists, no one quite steps in steaming excrement with more consistency than the American left.

Whitman’s campaign manager, Jillian Hasner, issued the following response:

“Just last week, Governor Brown promised he wasn’t going to engage in mudslinging, but now he is comparing Meg Whitman to Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. Jerry Brown’s statements comparing our campaign to a propagator of the Holocaust is deeply offensive and entirely unacceptable.”

Reports that Jerry Brown has hired newly retired White House correspondent Helen Thomas as his press agent cannot be confirmed.


H/T to: Weasel Zippers.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 9, 2010

The number is: 19,600,000,000,000.

No, it isn’t the number of times President Barack Obama uses the word “I” or “me” during the course of the work day. It isn’t the amount of times Democrats blame George W. Bush for all that is wrong in any given week. It isn’t the amount of money being spent each month on dye for Paul McCartney’s hair.

It is what the national debt of the United States will be five years from now under Obamacratic rule.

From Reuters:

The report that was sent to lawmakers Friday night with no fanfare said the ratio of debt to the gross domestic product would rise to 102 percent by 2015 from 93 percent this year.

“The president’s economic experts say a 1 percent increase in GDP can create almost 1 million jobs, and that 1 percent is what experts think we are losing because of the debt’s massive drag on our economy,” said Republican Representative Dave Camp, who publicized the report.

He was referring to recent testimony by University of Maryland Professor Carmen Reinhart to the bipartisan fiscal commission, which was created by President Barack Obama to recommend ways to reduce the deficit, which said debt topping 90 percent of GDP could slow economic growth.

The U.S. debt has grown rapidly with the economic downturn and government spending for the Wall Street bailout, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the economic stimulus. The rising debt is contributing to voter unrest ahead of the November congressional elections in which Republicans hope to regain control of Congress.

The total U.S. debt includes obligations to the Social Security retirement program and other government trust funds. The amount of debt held by investors, which include China and other countries as well as individuals and pension funds, will rise to an estimated $9.1 trillion this year from $7.5 trillion last year.

By 2015 the net public debt will rise to an estimated $14 trillion, with a ratio to GDP of 73 percent, the Treasury report said.

An exasperated blogger at Reuters, who goes by the name of johnchick, posted the following rhetorical question: “How can any Administration raise the debt by 20-30% in a couple years?”

To which another blogger responded with the following:

You should ask George Bush, Cause he was the first to do it. And he is largely the origin of the current fiscal mess that the U.S. is in. Bushie inherited a surplus from the Clinton Administration and quickly turned that into the largest yearly deficits that the U.S. has ever seen. And his Conservative ideology ruined the American Economy in the process.

The U.S. is now going the way of the DoDo.

And the world will be a better place for it.

To begin with, it’s an absolute riot to hear lefties complain about out-of-control federal spending. Most of them, given the chance, would spend more taxpayer dollars on big-government bailouts and stimulus packages. To a lefty, the failure of a liberal policy or initiative is tied directly to its funding.

George W. Bush, who might as well have been a drunken Democrat with the country’s checkbook, made no friends on the conservative side of the aisle when it came to government spending. By the time he left office in January of last year, he was able to put on his resume that he had presided over what was the biggest growth of federal spending in the nation’s history. Like all misguided Republicans, he failed because he embraced liberalism.

Right now, Barack Obama is on pace to make George Bush look like a veritable pinchfist. Obama is apparently determined to make America collapse under its own weight, just as is happening across Socialist Europe right now. At the current rate, America’s publicly held debt will hit an unbelievable 90% of the Gross Domestic Product in a decade. That would be the highest percentage since the Second World War.

The difference, however – and it is a significant one – is that the post-war economic boom contributed mightily to the dramatic fall of that debt-to-GDP ratio.

Today, it’s all about entitlements (i.e., what the government can do for you). Federal spending, as a percentage of the GDP, was nearly 25% last year – the highest in this nation’s history. (It’s projected to shoot up to near 26% this year). And even though President Bush did spend recklessly in terms of total dollars, during his first seven years in office, federal spending as a percentage of GDP was very consistent with all post-war administrations: ranging from 18.11% to 19.38%. (His final year, arguably his most fiscally liberal, it jumped to 20.65%)

It simply isn’t possible to tax ourselves out of the economic disaster that looms with Obama at the helm.

On paper, tax rates would have to be raised to economy-crushing, unheard of levels.

But in reality, no economy could survive such a thing.

It would be the end of America.

And that’s where we’re headed.

So, while no conservative will ever condone the ridiculous Democrat-like spending that went on during the Bush administration, the fact that revenues to the government did go up following the 2003 Bush tax cuts only reinforces the fact that conservative principals – when applied correctly – actually do work. Unfortunately for Bush, spending like a lib in conjunction with those tax cuts was akin to having two fully loaded double whoppers and cheese fires with a diet soda.

Libs cannot have it both ways.

If out-of-control government spending is deleterious to a healthy economy, then it doesn’t matter who is occupying the Oval Office when it happens. The argument that the economy can reach a point where the only way to cure the ills of out-of-control spending is with more out-of-control spending is Leftocrat doltism at its finest.

And let’s be perfectly clear, there was never a true surplus under President Bill Clinton.

Indeed, it flies in the face of conventional wisdom, but the numbers do not, in any way, back up such a claim.

For example, the surplus announced in 2000 – $230 billion – was really a nifty bookkeeping stunt. It was not a genuine surplus, because only the “public debt” was accounted for.

Remember, there are two components to the national debt: public debt – which includes such things as savings bonds and treasury bills – and intergovernmental holdings, which includes income tax revenues and governmental borrowing from itself.

During the last years of the Clinton administration, the public debt did go down, but intergovernmental debt increased by a greater amount.

Not once during Clinton’s time in office did the national debt decrease.

It is not possible, by definition, to have a surplus if the national debt keeps increasing.

First of all, the official Clinton “surplus” numbers, which can be seen here, via the Congressional Budget Office, are as follows:

Fiscal Year 1998 – $69.3 Billion surplus.

Fiscal Year 1999 – $125.6 Billion surplus.

Fiscal Year 2000 – $236.3 Billion surplus.

Please note that these very numbers were also reported by CNN.

Now, if you go to the Bureau of the Public Debt website, which is part of the United States Department of Treasury, you’ll find a link that reads “See the U.S. Public Debt To The Penny.” (You may need to scroll down a bit)

Once you click on that, you’ll be brought to page that gives you the current total national debt (divided into two subgroups: “Debt held by the Public” and “Intrgovernmental Holdings”) along with a search application that enables you to type in the dates of your choosing to see what the total national debt was on that given date.

The important thing to check are the FISCAL YEAR parameters. (The fiscal year always begins on October 1st and runs through the end of the following September).

For instance, if you type in “October 1, 1999″ in the first box and “September 30, 2000″ in the next box, you will be asking to see the total national debt figures for Fiscal Year 2000. You’ll note, after typing in those parameters, that if you scroll all the way to the bottom, the total debt held by the public at the end of Fiscal Year 2000 was “$3,405,303,490,221.20.” You’ll also notice that Intragovernmental Holdings total was “$2,268,874,719,665.66.”

These are official Department of Treasury numbers.

Adding those two numbers together gives you a grand total of “$5,674,178,209,886.86.”

That is what the total national debt was at the end of FISCAL YEAR 2000. The National Debt is thus calculated by adding the Public Debt and Intragovernmental Holdings together.

Compare the total public debt of FY2000 to that of FY1999.

President Clinton did technically pay down the PUBLIC NATIONAL DEBT from FY1999 to FY2000.

FY1999 PUBLIC DEBT: $3,636,104,594,501.81

FY2000 PUBLIC DEBT: $3,405,303,490,221.20

It was paid down by a total of $230,801,104,280.61 – amazingly close to the announced $236 Billion surplus for that year. But it was done so by borrowing from the Social Security Trust Fund (primarily) which ran a surplus that year. The Social Security Administration is required by law to buy government securities with its surpluses (convenient, isn’t it?). That money was thus used by the government to do its business without having to get it from the public. Hence, the public debt was “paid down.”

I fully concede the point that President Clinton paid down the PUBLIC debt, but not the national debt.

Unfortunately, that $230 Billion “pay down” does not take into account Intragovernmental Holdings, which is as much part of calculating surpluses and debts as the Public Debt is.

Intragovernmental Debt ROSE in FY2000.

FY1999: $2,020,166,307,131.62

FY2000: $2,268,874,719,665.66

That’s an increase of $248,708,412,534.04

The difference between how much of the public debt was paid down compared to the growth of the Intragovernmental debt was: – $17,907,308,253.43

That means FY2000 resulted in a true deficit of almost $18 Billion under Bill Clinton.

Granted, it is miniscule compared to the yearly deficits of the Bush years and what is waiting for us with the Obama regime, but it was not a surplus.

Those pesky facts.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, George W. Buah, National Debt, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 9, 2010

I’m not averse to posting the occassional “awww” picture.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 8, 2010

Helen Thomas

I spent as many as eleven or twelve seconds yesterday afternoon  contemplating what the future would hold for newly-retired White House correspondent – and Hamas-talking point propogandist – Helen Thomas. Of course, at least five of those seconds were spent wondering what the hell I was doing wasting the other six on her. Still, it did briefly enter my mind.

As I heard the news that the matriarch of journalistic derangement was calling it quits following her spewing of the most disturbing drek to be heard publicly since Bob Dylan’s Christmas album, a part of me couldn’t help but wonder if it isn’t, in fact, best to have our dippy loons on the left doing what they do in the glow of the spotlight. After all, the best thing – the only thing – to come out of the Obama presidency has been the gift of exposure: unabashed, card-carrying, campus-nurtured, big-government unapologetic leftism on full display for all to see.

In that spirit, maybe having a world-class wacko-lefty moonbat center-stage is good for our side.

But what has been most striking about the media coverage of the entire Helen Thomas affair is that most of the focus has been on anti-Semitism. Very few have attacked this story based on the sheer stupidity of her claims. Indeed, she’s had a long, long career of foot-sucking ignorance that has been as embarrassing and disgusting as it has been amusing. But, if Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite – and who am I to say she’s not – I really couldn’t care less.

I mean that.

As a Jew, let me say clearly – emphatically – that I don’t care what’s in her heart. I really don’t. I care about her deeds. If her actions are anti-Semetic, then it matters to me a great deal. She’s always been a joke to me, in that “let’s visit Great Aunt Gladys at the asylum” sort of way. Whether or not she thinks all Jews need to “get the hell out of Palestine” – to quote her eloquent assessment of the ongoing turmoil in the Middle East – is irrelevant to me.

Instead, I’m more interested in the fact that the content and accuracy of Thomas’ comments on how the Jews are occupying land that is not rightfully theirs – and her comments on how to rectify the problem – are all but being ignored by the lamestream media. I’m not surprised, mind you … just fascinated. Where, pray tell, are all the wanna-be Woodward and Bernsteins out there? Where is Johnny Fact-Checker? And how is it that this “journalist” was able to keep her job for so many years when it’s clear she can’t even manage to get the most basic of information correct?

Helen Thomas is a colossally ill-informed, ignorant cartoon character, and unfortunately, not a lot of people seem to be touching on that.

THOMAS: Remember, these people (Palestinians) are occupied, and it’s their land. It’s not German. It’s not Poland.

REPORTER: So, where should they (Jews) go? What should they do?

THOMAS: They can go home.

REPORTER: Where’s home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

REPORTER: So, you think Jews should go back to Poland and Germany?

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

Of course, the problem with the Helen Thomas Middle East Peace Plan is the pesky little fact that two million Israeli Jews are either descended from, or come directly from, Islamic countries, like Morocco, Egypt, Iraq and Yemen. And let’s not forget about the hundreds of thousand of Jews that came from the Soviet Union.  And Ethiopia.

Israel was not created as a result of the relocation of German and Polish Jews. Israel’s very being has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Germany and Poland. If, as Thomas suggests, the Jews need to “go back home,” they would overwhelmingly have to “return” to despotic nations like Syria and Libya.

The modern Zionist movement began in the late 19th Century. From around 1880, Jews began migrating to “Palestine” – part of the Ottoman Empire – in earnest, and many began purchasing land there. (Keep in mind that from the time of Joshua, Jews have always lived in the land that is now Israel, and at no time was there ever an official nation called Palestine – ever). During the early years of the Zionist movement, no Arabs were kicked off their land, forced the leave, placed in exile, persecuted, victimized or cheated. Jews were legally – repeat legally – buying up parcels of land. (And remember that Jews were already living there, along with Arabs).

And it wasn’t as if prime real estate was being gobbled up by these relocating Jews. In those days, most of what is Israel today was devoid of population and vegetation.

In 1867, Mark Twain visited the Land of Milk and Honey and wrote:

A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds… a silent mournful expanse…. a desolation…. we never saw a human being on the whole route…. hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.

The city of Jerusalem was a small and sparsely populated .

A fast walker could go outside the walls of Jerusalem and walk entirely around the city in an hour. I do not know how else to make one understand how small it is.”

The point that is lost on most is the reality that while Jews were migrating to the Holy Land in terrific numbers during that period – from 1918 to 1948 – the Arab population actually grew faster than the Jewish population.

At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, there actually were Arab leaders willing to accept the existence of a Jewish State in “Palestine” if the rest of the Middle East could be placed under Arab control. However, Arabs in “Palestine” were vehemently against Jewish immigration and the existence of a Jewish State of any kind.

The modern Palestinian movement was born.

And when the British finally left in May, 1948 – and the tiny little partition that was alotted for the Jews declared themselves an independent nation – all of the Arab nations simultaneously attacked her. It was the Arabs who would not accept that in the vast expanse of the Middle East a small area could be designated as a Jewish State.

Israel miraculously defeated her Arab enemies – and have done so in every Arab-Israeli conflict since.


I’m sure these things simply slipped Thomas’ mind, constipated professional she is.

And I’m certain someone in the lamestream media would have pointed these things out at some point.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Antisemitism, Media, Moral Clarity | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010

160,000 men landed on the beaches of Normandy on 6 June 1944 to take part in the greatest military campaign in all of human history. On that day, 2,500 Americans were killed. Nearly 2,000 Allied troops also lost their lives.

Five days later, the allies landed over 325,000 men on the beaches as part of “Operation Overlord.”

7,000 vessels – including over 1,200 combat ships and 4,100 landing ships – participated in “Operation Neptune.”

It was the decisive campaign of World War II, leading directly to the defeat of Nazi Germany. It literally changed the course of human history.

To this day, the beaches of Normandy are still known by their invasion names: Omaha, Juno, Utah, Gold and Sword. At historic locations such as Pointe du Hoc and Pegasus Bridge, there are memorials and museums. In Sainte-Mère-Église, there hangs a dummy paratrooper from the church spire.

Total Allied casualties on D-Day are estimated at 10,000.

D-Day took place sixty-six years – plus one day – ago.

Survivors – heroes – of the D-Day invasion still exist.

And yesterday, the President of the United States, Barack Obama – the leader of the free world – didn’t even bother to take any time to acknowledge it.

Not a word.

No further comment necessary.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010

When ObamaCare became the law of the land in February, the majority of Americans did not approve.

Not that it mattered.

Obamacrats knew what was best for the citizenry; and if you would have asked any one of them, they’d have told you so.

While conservatives, Republicans, tea-partiers and sane-minded Democrats (few as they were) unceasingly crunched the numbers to expose a sham of a plan that would all but bankrupt the United States – and ensure mediocre health care for practically all Americans – Democrats sidestepped the land mines of reality and transformed the debate from substantive to emotional.

As Republicans were going through the two-thousand page monstrosity to illustrate how destructive the bill would be to both the economy and the medical industry, Dems were ushering out some of America’s uninsured,  presenting sob-story after sob-story, sad-sack tale after sad-sack tale, woe-begotten heartstring-tugger after heartstring-tugger, in an attempt to convince the American people that government-run mandatory health care was an absolute necessity before the bodies started to pile up.

Dems were countering cold-hard facts and analysis with syrup and schmaltz.

Ultimately, thanks to major Democrat majorities in both houses of Congress – and some last-minute vote-buying – two thousand pages of vastly unread government control became law, contrary to the will of the American people.

Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.

Amazingly, Democrats truly believed that once ObamaCare cleared the final hurdle and officially hit the books, the American people – those cretins, those self-involved, unrefined, God-fixated, gun-loving ninnies – would turn their thinking around, see the wisdom in President Obama’s big-government vision, accept the price tag, and move on.

We didn’t.

More than ever, the American people are opposed to ObamaCare – as well as everything else President Obama and his out-of-touch collection of retro-revolutionaries and college campus theorists have been doing.

Let’s summarize some of the highlights from Obama’s Big Book-O-Accomplishments: A Stimulus Bill that has done absolutely nothing except guarantee that money will be taken out of the pockets of the American people; an unemployment rate hovering at near 10%; a private sector that has all but stagnated while the number of government jobs increase; nonexistent leadership in the face of mounting international challenges (e.g., Iran, North Korea); the inability to do anything except deflect blame for everything wrong to the previous administration; the lack of understanding of the dangers of espousing moral equivalency (e.g, Israel and the Palestinians); the ineptitude and lack of leadership in not having the feds take control of the Gulf oil spill efforts; the capacity to transform the mightiest nation on the face of the Earth – the protector of goodness and liberty – into a bastion of weakness and appeasement; and his refusal to hear anything other than his own out-of-touch, arrogant brand of leftist crapola have all contributed to a Presidency that almost makes Jimmy Carter’s palatable.

Not only is President Obama turning out to be a gravely ineffective and embarrassingly incohesive, Americans now feel the first “post-partisan” President is anything but.

Of course, we all knew that by the Spring of 2008.

Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:

One of the 2007-08 Obama presidential campaign’s changes that Americans believed in by the many millions was his oft-repeated promise to work with all sides no matter what and change the harsh political tone of Washington.

Good luck with that tired professed aspiration. George W. Bush promised the same thing a decade ago. That worked well for several minutes.

Well, Bush is gone and the majority parties have switched places. Now Democrats run the whole D.C. show.
And after almost 17 months of Democrat Obama’s White House administration, it appears Americans have given up on his promised bipartisanship, or even on less partisanship. It’s an impressive squandering of good will from his inaugural glow.

A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds 61% of likely voters believe the nation’s capitol will see more, not less, partisanship during the next year. Which includes, of course, the unfolding midterm election campaigns leading up to Nov. 2.

Michael Goodwin of the New York Post says that O just isn’t up to the job, writing:

The high point of his presidency came the day he took office. Since then, a majority of Americans has opposed virtually all his major policies and he has prevailed on several only because of large Democratic congressional advantages.

The problems are growing, but he’s not. If he were, we’d see green shoots of improvement.

Instead, the White House is going backwards at home and abroad and shows no ability to adjust. Like a cult, it interprets every reversal as proof of its righteousness and of others’ malignancy.

What started out as a whiff of rookie incompetence has become a suffocating odor. It’s hard to find a single area where Obama’s policies are a convincing success.

To be fair, one thing most Americans will probably be able to agree on is that Barack Obama is magnificent – unbeatable – as a campaigner. Indeed, he has been in campaign mode ever since announcing his candidacy for the Presidency a million years ago.

That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.

And with few exceptions, the lamestream media are still eating it up.

But many Americans – even those who rode the original Bam-o-licious disciple train – are growing tired of his baby-carrying, whistlestop schtick. Young girls just aren’t fainting anymore at his mere presence. And with each body of water he trods upon, Obama’s ankles are growing increasingly more wet.

The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.

Still, no one – and this is hardly debatable – can bow to foreign heads of state and dignitaries like our own Bam.

Although Secretary of Defense Robert Gates could give him a run for his money.

Secretary of Defense Gates taking a page from the Obama Appeasement Chronicles.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 6, 2010

It was sixty-six years ago today.

D-Day New York Times

D-Day LA Times


D-Day 2

D-Day 3


D-Day 5

D-Day 6

Posted in military | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 5, 2010

Six years ago today, the 40th President of the United States, Ronald Reagan, died.

He was 93 years old.

The days following his death would be remarkable in that the outpouring of love, affection and admiration for him was far beyond anything even I would have expected.

Just five days after his death, I wrote a short little tribute – a portion of which I was fortunate enough to have printed in the New York Post.

From January 10, 2004, here is the article I wrote in its entirety called It’s Love, Mr. Reagan:



Somewhere amongst my belongings, buried deep beneath a lifetime’s debris in some old box under the bed, is a post card I received in the spring of 1981. It was a “thank you” card from the White House in response to a letter I wrote to President Ronald Reagan following his assassination attempt in March of that year. Although it wasn’t a hand-written response, it was still incredibly impressive and meant a lot to me. I marveled at it for days after receiving it. I can still remember almost everything about it, including the image of the printed signature of “Ronald Reagan” on the front. My younger brother and I hung it on our wall, where it stayed for quite some time.

I was a rambunctious thirteen-year-old that spring, the year Mr. Reagan took the oath of office as the fortieth President of the United States. Eight years later, as he took his final bow from public service, I was a twenty-one year old know-it-all, with more chutzpah than know how. Now, fifteen years on from that, I am a thirty-six years old father of two, married to the love of my life for thirteen years, unwavering in my support of President Bush and our troops as the War on Terror continues. Yet, to this very day, through all that has come and gone during the formative years of my life, Mr. Reagan’s is the image I most associate with the office of President. Not unlike those of my grandparent’s generation who saw Franklin Roosevelt as everything quintessentially presidential, so did I when it came to Ronald Reagan.

As one who is wont to expressing his thoughts through prose, I was moved to write something about this extraordinary man, looking deep inside myself for the appropriate words, hoping to successfully tap into the wealth of emotions within. His passing has invoked such an outpouring of sentiment and affection that I felt compelled to pay tribute in my own way. For me, he embodied what I always characterized as the soul of America – the true spirit of this nation. Mr. Reagan exuded a magnificent confidence in the people of the United States without ever placating or patronizing them. Like he did many times as a young lifeguard all those years ago, he came to the rescue in the nick of time, resuscitating a nation’s faltering self-assurance from Jimmy Carter’s malaise. And while I never had the honor or pleasure of knowing him personally, his very words convinced me that he knew who I was; that I was part of the America he knew was still alive and itching to reemerge – the proud America he loved and believed in. His America was, indeed, my America. His vision and purpose for this country served to strengthen each and every one of us. He, indeed, made the world a far safer place. He defeated liberty’s enemy – the Evil Empire – and brought freedom to millions who could once only yearn for it. Tributes abound in Eastern Europe to their liberator, Ronald Reagan.

In the days since his passing, I have been warmly reminded of his infectious charisma and good cheer, his disarming smile, his renowned sense of humor. The power of his words and the steadfast conviction in the positive vision he had for America were glorious to revisit. Yet, during these days of sadness, reflection and celebration, I have been struck by something I hadn’t quite anticipated. It hit me as I was witnessing the colossal logjam of cars on the expressways of Southern California. It hit me even harder watching the tens of thousands of people from all walks of life standing on lines – sometimes as long as ten hours – for the chance to pay their respects and spend just a few seconds in the same room with late President.

In the truest sense, I have been witnessing the affirmation of a love affair of epic proportion. This inestimable outpouring of emotion for President Reagan has, without a doubt, been about unadulterated love … and I do not mean “love” as defined by the purveyors and disciples of pop culture. And I don’t even mean the kind of love that he and Nancy shared for more than half a century. I mean love in the purest, most genuine sense of the word – the variety that moves people to want to see others strive to be the best they can be; the kind that moves people to believe that success by any measure is derived from the individual through a higher power; the kind of love that moves and induces us to be better people for having had the privilege of feeling it and knowing it.

This was Ronald Wilson Reagan.

His love for this country and the people in her was as much a weapon as it was a God given blessing. With his hopefulness, strength and confidence, he crushed the confusion, malaise and disappointment that gripped us in the 1970s. He shattered the cynicism and negativity that permeated the American landscape. He helped us to feel good about this nation again. Thanks to him, it was okay to love America again. This was the gift of Ronald Reagan’s love – a gift that has once more brought America together, to mourn, to pray, to reminisce, to take inventory of ourselves, and understand and believe in the goodness of our people and the greatness of our nation. We pay our respects and remind ourselves how fortunate we were to have him, and that our best days are, in fact, ahead of us.

This entire week has been about love.

Indeed, America loves Ronald Reagan.

It is a love affair for the ages.

Thank you, Mr. Reagan.

Posted in Ronald Reagan | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010

And just think … ObamaCare hasn’t even taken effect yet. And the Bush tax don’t expire until after this year.

If the economy continues to improve like this, we ought to reach “sick” by Christmas.  Lucky us, the Messianic Age will be shifting into overdrive soon.

The “good” news, as peddled from the top, is: Unemployment is down (from 9.9% to 9.7%) and over 430,000 new jobs hit the books in May.

But numbers can be very deceptive.

Many Americans have simply given up looking for work all across Obamanation; And of the 431,000 jobs created, a little more than 90% of them were government census jobs.

Only 41,000 private sector jobs were created in May – about 150,000 less than expected.

The President, in Maryland (on his way to Louisiana), spewed optimistic: “This is the fifth month in a row that we’ve seen job gains. And while we recognize that the recovery is still in its early stages, and that there are going to be ups and downs in the months ahead – things never go in a completely smooth line – this report is a sign that our economy is getting stronger by the day.”

If he wants to see a “smooth line,” he ought to look at his poll numbers.

The President believes the economy is getting stronger by the day, but in May, private sector job growth dropped by 81% from the previous month. 

I’d hate to see what “getting worse” looks like.

The sad fact is that the temporary census-taker jobs responsible for Obama’s “stronger economy” were literally unproductive. Nothing was created. The economy was not made stronger by paying temporary government workers to count people. Taking private money out of the economy and (in effect) redistributing it to government employees has stimulated nothing.

The creation of government jobs is never – repeat never – an indication of how well the economy is doing. How can it be? Private businesses haven’t the ability to print money. Private businesses haven’t the ability to expand the tax burden on the rest of us. With each government job created, that’s more private sector money being removed from the economy. While the private sector has the ability to create genuine wealth, the government only has the ability to confiscate and redistribute it.

That’s what the Obama Stimulus Bill was all about: creating government jobs.

Note to the President: Why not have a census every year? We’ll be down to 8.5% unemployment quicker than you can say, “We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010

At times, I still find myself surprised by some of the things I come across. For instance, did you know that Newsweek magazine is still around?

Who knew?

I thought they went the way of hoop skirts and coherent liberals. I couldn’t believe Newsweek still had a pulse. And it didn’t take long to discover that they are still as vapid as they ever were.

Take a recent article posted at their blog, “The Gaggle.”

The headline alone speaks for itself.

Does Killing Terrorists Actually Prevent Terrorism?

As tempting as it is to pull that plum off the tree and woof it down, the real fruit of the post in inside.

Chasing terrorists in Waziristan with missiles clearly is not going to end, or definitively win, the “War on Terrorism,” and whether we should think about a diplomatic rapprochement with these groups instead of fighting an endless war with them is a legitimate question. If the U.S. could avoid war with the Soviet Union, a.k.a. the “Evil Empire,” why not Al Qaeda or the Taliban?

To begin with, the headline asks the wrong question.

Killing terrorists clearly – definitionally – prevents terrorism. But it doesn’t prevent all terrorism. No one ever said it did. And the fact that all terrorists will not be eliminated by this country’s continuing efforts to wipe out as many of these thugs as possible doesn’t mean that it’s time to scrap that approach and invite Al Qaeda to lunch for a heaping helping of falafel and tea.

Should the police quit doing their job because there will always be criminals? Should law enforcement sit down and try to come to mutual understandings with child rapists and cold-blooded murderers?

We continue to fight the war – on all fronts – because we must. And that includes killing as many of the enemy as possible.

That’s because the only way to stop those who idealize and pray for death is to give them exactly what they want before they can take any innocents with them.

Second, the United States avoided direct war with the Soviet Union because the Reds did not crave death as do the followers of radical Islam. The USSR was not a suicidal regime. The Soviets truly wanted to expand their evil empire and sphere of influence. They were a genuine nation with borders, a constitution, a standing army and a leader. And they believed that an all out nuclear war with United States would result in mutually assured destruction. They certainly didn’t want that. They wanted to survive; not find ways to make it to the afterlife for a cabana full of virgins.

Third, whereas throughout all of human existence nations who have been defeated in war surrender to the victor, the current battle against Islamo-fascism is unlike any we have ever fought. There is no nation of Islamo-Fascist-Land with defined borders, a constitution and a standing uniformed army who will wave a white flag when handed a major military setback (like the killing of a terrorist leader). Islamo-facists exist in all countries. They live in caves as well as inner-cities. They exist in terrorist training camps and among us. They can be our neighbors or those charged to defend this country. They fight on the battlefield and shelter themselves in civilian neighborhoods. They target innocents and do not compromise. And because they don’t fear death – they revere it – they have an advantage no enemy of the United States has ever had.

That anyone can honestly ask the question, given the endless amount of examples of the nature of Islamo-terrorism, why Al Qaeda and the Taliban cannot be reasoned with is still astounding.



wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 3, 2010

No one will ever forget the White House wang-dang-doodle that took place during Mexican President Felipe Calderon’s visit to America last month. The glitz-and-glam White House state dinner honoring the man who runs the country that supplies America with the bulk of its illegals was a memorable evening of spinelessness, delectable cuisine and Latin rhythms.

It was about recognizing “bonds,” rejecting borders, bashing Arizona and giving the uninteresting George Lopez something to talk about on his painfully stagnant television program. It was a much-needed escape for an over-worked, distressed Messiah with only so much of himself to give who had spent his every waking moment – every molecule of energy and focus – trying to figure out how to stop the Gulf oil spill.


The highlight, of course, was Calderon’s harsh criticisms of the Arizona illegal immigration law, delivered on American soil – in front of a joint session of Congress, no less – culminating in a standing ovation from Democrats.

For those who may have thought that such a golden treasury of memories could never be duplicated, you thought wrong.

Enter Sir Paul McCartney – former Beatle, songwriter extraordinaire, uncouth moron.

On the soil of the country that solidified his legend – on the very ground of the nation that has embraced him and deified him for more than four decades – he took a page from the Ungrateful Rich Bastards handbook and decided to toss dignity onto the fecal pile of civility by insulting a former President of the United States. Without a shred of dignity – with the grace of a lanced boil – the author of such classic songs as “Hey Jude,” “Yesterday,” “Eleanor Rigby” and “Let It Be” decided it was appropriate to play panty-waste politics at an event that was to be decidedly non-political – his receiving the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song – and take a jab at an ex-American President.

After extending his thanks to the Library of Congress, the 67-year old Mother Nature’s Son said, “After the last eight years, it’s good to have a president that knows what a library is.”


Such class.

Of course, Barack Obama has been President for 17% of the last eight years, but we know what Paulie meant.

And incidentally, George W. Bush –  a voracious reader, by all accounts – reads books that would short-circuit the lovely Liverpool lad’s brain and cause his head to explode.

As a lifelong Beatles fanatic, collector of Beatle memorabilia, and one who has a genuine reverence for the genius of McCartney’s songwriting, I don’t give a damn how great “Hey Jude” is, or how much I adore “Can’t Buy Me Love,” or how impressed I am with “For No One.” This man – this foreigner – has some pair of iron apples to stand on American soil and insult a former Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America.

It isn’t only improper, it is a thoughtless, selfish jab at half of his audience.

Why would he go out of his way to alienate a sizable chunk of people who love his work by going political?

Where is his graciousness? 

What did it accomplish?

Well, another White House party, of course.

From the Washington Post:

Arguably the most influential musician alive, the 67-year-old pop architect was in the East Room to receive the Library of Congress Gershwin Prize for Popular Song, celebrating an unparalleled career that spans his years with the Beatles, Wings and on his own.

“In a few short years, they changed the way we heard music,” Obama said of the Beatles before presenting McCartney with the prize. He added that he was “grateful that a young Englishman shared his dreams with us.”

The president also welcomed an array of artists to perform McCartney’s tunes and genuflect before the maestro. Stevie Wonder, Dave Grohl, Faith Hill, the Jonas Brothers, Jack White, Elvis Costello, Emmylou Harris, Herbie Hancock, Corinne Bailey Rae and classical pianist Lang Lang each offered thoughtful reads on the McCartney songbook.

But McCartney was the first to perform, and despite feigning nerves at a Tuesday news conference, he waltzed into the East Room as if it were his living room. He dived into “Got to Get You Into My Life,” plunking away on the same Hofner bass he played on “The Ed Sullivan Show” in 1964 — his once-boyish yelp now an older, coarser shout.

Let’s pretend the “party all the time” White House machine was grinding along with a Republican at the helm while the Gulf oil spill continued to wreak havoc more than a month after it began. And let’s pretend that instead of Paul McCartney, the honored performer was someone a little less liberal – a country singer, perhaps. And let’s pretend it was the second White House bash inside of two weeks while unemployment continued to tickle 10%. And let’s pretend there was a scandal brewing about the White House’s involvement in promising jobs to people for dropping out of specific political races.

The outrage would be incalculable.

The fallout from a White House so “out of touch” would be downright toxic.

But to so many, Barack Obama is like a hot babe. He’s a Beatle. He’s just too cool for the rest of us to be harping on issues like ineffectiveness and weakness. He’s the Messiah we can touch and smell and gush over – unlike invisible men in the sky who pass judgments. He’s the one who can see the other side – unless that other side is conservatism. He’s the one who will bring the world together – except longtime allies of America. He’s what all of us – including Paul McCartney – have been waiting for.

Paul, do me a favor.

Get back to where you once belonged.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Music, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 2, 2010

I have taken to the ever-growing national past time of blaming former President George W. Bush for every malady, affliction and woe in my life. It just seems to make everything better somehow. Whether it is a physical impediment, an emotional burden or a natural occurrence beyond my control, it feels good to place the blame on the last pre-Messianic Age President ever to serve in the White House.

And it really does feel good – like finally making it to the restroom after holding it for so long.

It’s a relief.

Thus, as I take inventory of all the ills and imperfections on and around me, big and small, the unseemly weight of personal responsibility and accountability is thrust off my sagging shoulders.

Freedom never felt so good.

Those hangnails that sit like surf boards off the side of my big toe can now be blamed on former President Bush. Cracked molars that absorb the cold of ice cream with the subtlety of an anvil to the skull can be attributed to the man who couldn’t say “nuclear.” Volcano eruptions, twelve-car pileups, fragrant flatulence, unsweet cantaloupes and canker sores can all be laid at the feet of the Crawford, Texas King Daddy … and I can finally kick back and focus on writing poetry and complaining about stuff.

Even divorce can be blamed on “W.”

The news of the separation of climate god, Al Gore, and his wife, Tipper, has spread like wild rice on a tea saucer.

It was the latest chapter in the BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) anthology.

From CBS News, via Real Clear Politics, via Zip, at Weasel Zippers:

“It’s been ten years since that oddly public passionate kiss at the Democratic convention. That was followed by Gore winning the popular vote for President but losing the electoral vote. Family friend Sally Quinn says that may have done the marriage irreparable harm.”

QUINN: He obviously suffered a lot. And still is suffering. He’ll never get over that, and neither will she.

George Bush’s election in 2000 did irreparable harm to the Gore’s marriage?

I’m willing to be a sport and accept that there are a host of things that can be pinned to the juggernaut that was the evil of George W. Bush – hail storms, gas pains, in-grown hairs, muscular dystrophy, Keanu Reeves – but the break-up of the Gores?

Sure, I can see blaming Bush for the Gulf oil spill, the Tennessee floods, chronic halitosis, third-world hunger, seasons seven through eleven of M*A*S*H and painful rectal itch, but this too? Al and Tipper’s marital demise?

Very well.

Who am I to say any different?

However, reports that cancer is now being linked to Bush cannot be confirmed.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Al Gore, George W. Buah | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2010

Tavis Smiley

Ask a liberal this question: If a black man commits a crime, is he, by default, doing so in the name of his blackness? Assuming the criminal did not specifically designate the crime as such, is it fair, or accurate, to say it was a “black” crime, perpetrated in the name of being black?

If a woman commits a crime, is she, by default, doing so in the name of her sex? By virtue of the fact that she is a woman, does it mean that the wrongs she does are automatically assumed to be enacted in the name of her genetalia?

On both counts, it would be a ridiculous assumption … unless evidence supports the claim.

If, for instance, person A (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and shouts, “I dole out this justice in the name of my black skin!” can one reasonably assume that the crime was committed in the name of his blackness? Certainly, in his mind, it was … hence, the proclaimation. And what if it is discovered through subsequent investigation that he possessed anti-white literature and posted frequently at militant black-power websites and blogs? Would it then be safe to assume he did so in the name of his blackness?

And what if, person B (a black man) walks into a convenience store, blows five people away and says absolutely nothing about skin color and makes no overt references to the melanin in his skin? Can one conclude the crime was also committed in the name of his skin color? And if ensuing investigations reveal a person who did not involve himself in racially charged activities and did not post at black power blogs, should we still infer he did what he did in the name of being black?

What does the evidence show?

(On a side note, I am vehemently opposed to hate-crime legislation and all the silly post-it-note classifications that liberals attach to crimes. The action is either a crime or it isn’t. The mother of a slain daughter will not feel any better knowing that her baby was murdered by a non-bigot. It’s a matter of values.)

In this country, the overwhelming vast majority of people are Christian.

Does that mean that crimes committed in this country by Christians are necessarily to be considered Christian crimes, even when perpetrator has made no mention of faith and has not referenced his or her faith in the undertaking of the act?

PBS’s Tavis Smiley, an intelligent man by all accounts – and a card-carrying, hard-core liberal – seems to be a tad confused on the matter.

During a recent television interview with Ayann Hirsi-Ali, a Somalian-born Dutch activist and politician who is openly critical of Islam, Smiley broke out his trusted “moral equivelancy” card in discussing the dangers and threats Americans face on a daily basis from radical Christians.

The exchange went like this:

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: The people who were engaged in terrorist activities look like you and me. They look like everyone else here. Major Nidal Hasan, the military guy who, in November, shot thirteen of his colleagues and injured thirty-two – he’s going to be on trial pretty soon, I think this week – (and) the young man, Faisal Shahzad, in Times square, who tried to blow innocent people that he doesn’t know up, these guys are acting on conviction. Somehow, the idea got into their minds that to kill other people is a great thing to do and that they would be rewarded in the heaeafter.

SMILEY: But Christians do that every single day in this country.

AYANN HIRSI-ALI: Do they blow people up-

SMILEY: Yes, Christians, every day – people walk into post offices, they walk into schools … That’s what Columbine was. I mean, I could do this all day long. There are so many more examples of Christians — and I happen to be a Christian, that’s back to this notion of your idealizing Christianity in my mind, to my read — there are so many more examples, Ayaan, of Christians who do that than you could ever give me examples of Muslims who have done that inside this country in which you live and work.

One can only find themselves detached from reality in this way if they are on the left. It is because of Smiley’s leftism that he can say such a thing … and absolutely believe it. (See Attorney General Eric Holder’s unwillingness to admit that radical Islam could be – I say, could be –  a factor in recent domestic terrorist attacks and attempted attacks: “I don’t want to say anything negative about a religion.”)

To begin with, since the beginning of 2006, there have been two post office shootings in the United States, both of which occurred that year.

As horrible as these crimes were, neither of them – nor any of the nearly 40 post office incidents that have occured since 1986 in the United States – were done in the name of Jesus Christ.

School shootings, such as the murderous rampage at Columbine High School, were also not undertaken in the name of Jesus. Rather, these were perpetrated by those who wholly rejected the Christian faith.

The threat of terrorism that exists to the American people by Christians who do so in the name of Jesus Christ is nonexistent. The number of terrorist attacks that have taken place on American soil – or anywhere for that matter – in the name of Christianity is equally quantifiable.

John at the Verum Serum blog writes:

But even if a church-goer gets angry and shoots his landlord today, that’s not at all what Hirsi-Ali was talking about. She’s talking about religiously motivated violence. And when you get to this category, you can bring up the murder of Dr. Tiller, Dr. Slepian and Dr. Britton. Those murders are arguably religiously motivated. But that’s three incidents in 12 years, four if you include Eric Rudolph. And as already noted, that’s compared to three incidents of attempted mass murder (successful in once case) by jihadist in just the last six months.

Has it officially been ruled out that the Times Square bomber was jilted by a girlfriend? Or that he was dissatisfied with Barack Obama’s health care reform bill?

As talk show host Dennis Prager says: “Leftism deprives you of wisdom because it creates a world in which you cannot see clearly.”

wordpress statistics

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