Archive for the ‘Liberalism’ Category
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.
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.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Democrats, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Obama Bonehead, politics, stimulus bill | Tagged: "out of touch", Barack Obama, Big Government, Economy, leftist politics, liberal politics, Obamacare, post-partisan, stimulus bill | 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?
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.
Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: terrorism, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 28, 2010
This may actually be the best thing to happen to Arizona since the passage of the illegal immigration law. This may be the thing that allures folks to come to the Grand Canyon State on vacation or convinces those still looking for a place to host their convention to go there.
Let’s hope so.
To fracturedly quote a well-known phrase: ‘Ich bin ein Arizonian.’
The muster of numbskulls, dimwits, half-wits and pampered millionaires who say they will be boycotting Arizona because of the state’s new illegal alien law is growing.
Not that any of these blockheads – who have profited beyond their wildest dreams in the land of liberty – know what is in the Arizona law.
Not that these knee-jerk twits actually comprehend what it is they’re supposedly taking a stand against.
Not that these sanctimonious savants of social-consciousness – lunkheads – even have a palpable clue what is in the Constitution of the United States (although they can quote, at will, the “Separation of Church and State” clause, and the government-granted “right” to “general welfare.”)
Now that a host of “artists” have decided to boycott Arizona – including rapper Kanye West and film maker Michael Moore – things are definitely looking up. In fact, Michael Moore’s promised truency from the state immediately ensures that there will be more food available for the metropolitan areas of Tulsa and Flagstaff.
Let the good times roll.
Zack de la Rocha has issued a statement on behalf of an organization called the Sound Strike urging music fans and fellow artists to boycott Arizona “to stop SB 1070,” which he labels an “odious” law.
Among those artists joining de la Rocha’s boycott are Conor Oberst, Kanye West, Rage Against the Machine, Rise Against, Cypress Hill, Serj Tankian, Joe Satriani, Sonic Youth, Tenacious D, Street Sweeper Social Club and Michael Moore.
In de la Rocha’s words, the new law “sanctions racial profiling, straight up,” forcing “cops to hunt down and target anyone they ‘reasonably suspect’ that may be undocumented. And if the people they harass don’t have proof that they were born in the U.S., they can be detained and arrested.”
This is an honest question, not meant to incite anyone, but for the purposes of clarification: Were all of these people born flaming idiots, or was it something that was cultivated over the course of time? Do leftists actually go out of their way to portray themselves as complete dunderheads or are they truly oblivious to the things they say?
What in the name of free enterprise is this dullard talking about?
There is nothing – absolutely nothing – in the law that statess, suggests, implies or hints that police are going to be forced to hunt down anyone.
Is he serious?
Make note of Mr. de la Rocha’s choice of words: “And if the people they harass don’t have proof that they were born in the U.S., they can be detained and arrested.”
There is such wisdom on the left, isn’t there?
To begin with, being “born in the U.S.” is not the only prerequisite to being in this country legally. There are such things as legal aliens.
Second, the law clearly – unambiguously – states that people who are stopped or questioned in lawful ways (e.g., a traffic stop) can also be asked about their legal status if there is a reasonable suspicion that they could be here illegally.
I’m still waiting for an intelligible answer to the question: How exactly is that racist?
The real beef these whack jobs have is that illegal immigration laws are finally being enforced.
How dare Arizona apply laws already on the books.
And if I may get a little personal for a moment: In the spirit of full disclosure, I’ve been told I look a little Hispanic (if I may “profile” myself), and if a law enforcement official – or any proper authority, for that matter – wishes to see my identification, so be it. What do I care? I have nothing to hide.
The fact is, society is filled with measures that are in place to protect citizens while still preserving individual rights. For instance, my bags are checked before I enter Citi Field to see the Mets play. I’ve also had my knapsack checked several times before going on the Staten Island ferry. My pockets are emptied each time I go through an airport secutity checkpoint. My drivers license is produced every time I go to the post office to retrieve a package.
And so on.
I’ve been asked to prove that I live in my neighborhood when the street has been blocked due to a traffic accident or police investigation. I’ve been pulled over for traffic violations and have, undoubtedly, been “checked out” by the police.
He goes on to note that “Some of us grew up dealing with racial profiling, but this law (SB 1070) takes it to a whole new low. If other states follow the direction of the Arizona government, we could be headed towards a pre-civil rights era reality.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Disgustingly wrong. Embarrassingly wrong. Profoundly wrong.
Since when is producing identification akin to Jim Crow?
Being asked for ID, or proper paperwork, is not an infringement of anyone’s civil rights. There isn’t a device in existence capable of measuring how asinine such an assertion is.
This is about illegal aliens – not citizens or legal aliens.
This is about following the rule of law in exercising this nation’s sovereign authority to properly and legally identify those who are not authorized to be here, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity.
This is about protecting American citizens and legal aliens, regardless of their skin color or ethnicity.
This unjust law was set into motion by the same Arizona government that refused to acknowledge Martin Luther King Jr. day as a national holiday. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, they arrested her. As a result, people got together and said we are not going to ride the bus until they change the law. It was this courageous action that sparked the Montgomery bus boycott. What if we got together, signed a collective letter saying, ‘We’re not going to ride the bus?’ “
The Arizona law, by definition, is absolutely just. The only distinction it makes is between legal and illegal.
What is unjust, however, is that illegal aliens are coddled by this country and given places to go where they can’t be punished for breaking the law. What is unjust is that the welfare of illegal aliens – along with winning the favor of the Hispanic voting block – is more of a priority for Obamacrats than protecting America’s own citizens. What is unjust is that the rule of law followed by those who went through the process of being here legally means nothing to those who demand “comprehensive immigration reform” and call those of us who support the sovereignty of this nation racists.
There is no rational or intellectually sound comparison to made between the struggles of black American citizens who were denied basic rights due to Jim Crow and people who are in this country illegally.
The website includes a petition urging President Barack Obama to take action.
“Arizona’s new law is an assault on the US Constitution and an affront to the civil rights that were earned by generations who came before us,” the petition reads. “When states disregard the Constitution, when they sanction mistreatment of communities, it is the imperative of the Executive Branch to take the lead in defending the U.S. Constitution.”
Again, how is the Arizona law an assault on civil rights? What is being denied? Whose liberties are being trampled upon? The only ones extricating liberties from the citizenry are the Obamacrats in charge. (Let me count the ways).
What is imperative is that the President of the United States do what the Constitution charges him to do – preserve, protect and defend this nation.
The only assault on the Constitution is coming from the left.
Update: May 29, 2010 – 9:40 AM
Proof, from the great Proof Positive blog, correctly points out that the proper way to express “We are Arizonians” in German would be:
Wir sind Arizonians.
Indeed, as Proof indicated, I had the choice of choosing the largely unfamiliar “Wir sind Arizonians” or a play on the iconic (and grammatically challenged) JFK line, “Ich bin ein Arizonian.”
I opted for the latter.
Now get to Arizona!
Posted in illegal immigration, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: arizona illegal alien law, boycott Arizona, illegal immigration, Michael Moore | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010
The moral deficiency that is pacifism does not apply to all leftists.
Pacifists may live on the left, but not all leftists are pacifists.
It’s not that the left has an aversion to fighting. Indeed, they’ll get down and dirty with almost as much frequency as anyone. However, what makes most liberty-loving, Constitution-revering, rugged individualists snicker at the thought of a leftist standing up for, and defending, what they believe in is the fact that their “enemies” list reads somewhat differently than that of conservatives.
Conservatives see Islamo-fascists as the enemy.
Liberals see global warming as the enemy.
Conservatives fight terrorism.
Liberals fight greenhouse gases.
Conservatives speak out against dictators, tyrannies and totalitarians.
Liberals speak out against Arizona lawmakers, Tea Party protestors and conservatives.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talks about keeping the government’s boot on the neck of BP until the Gulf oil spill is stopped, but Obamacrats never dare use such language when it comes to the likes of Iran or North Korea. That’s because conservatives fight despotic thugs. Liberals fight American corporations and “excessive” profits.
And where exactly has this Obamacratic “enemies” list left the United States of America? What good has come from the post-partisan, post-racial, post-common-sense messiah-in-chief – the one who was going to pummel through Bush-era barriers and get the entire world cuddling up together by virtue of his mere existence?
How about an all-time-high number of terror attacks against the United States? How about a Messianic Age that has seen more acts of evil perpetrated against America by terrorist punks than at any time in her history?
Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas of ABC News write:
The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report issued on Friday, May 21.
The report notes chillingly that while US officials “lack insights” they believe that “operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.”
The DHS “Intelligence Note,” a short, non-classified report, makes concrete the concerns of a number of homeland security experts who have discussed with ABC News the pace and nature of the individual attempts. The report notes that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Pakistani Taliban have “expanded their focus” to include the United States.
Not that this administration is actually using the word “terror.”
Not that high-ranking Obamacrats – like Attorney General Eric Holder, for instance – will admit that Islamic fundamentalism has anything to do with these attacks.
Not that former Presidents – like William Jefferson Clinton, for instance – while addressing students at an Ivy League school actually bothered referring to the Times Square bomber as evil. (Instead, Clinton referred to the terrorist a “poor, tragic man.”)
Not that it is any secret that our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, is better qualified to fold sweaters at the Big K … maybe.
Not that America’s enemies don’t pay close attention to all of this.
That sound you hear is the chant from caves and terror cells alike, from every corner of the world, of “Four more years! Four more years!”
See? Obama is a unifier.
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: appeasement, leftists, Liberalism, liberals, Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 26, 2010
You’ve got to love Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd.
Well, not really … but his faculty to actually believe the things he says while continuing to live in exile from the land of rational thought borders on impressive. It’s one thing to keep drawing talking points and flaccid strategies from the ancient Democrat playbook. It’s quite another to sound as if your points of argument were hijacked from an underground leftist blog created in mommy’s basement … or from Chris Matthews’ diaries.
It is a case of Bush Derangement Syndrome on steroids … and the syringe is still sticking out of Senator Dodd’s tush.
The Senator was a guest on Don Imus’ radio program yesterday. According the Nutmeg State nut, the Gulf of Mexico oil spill can be blamed only on one thing: George W. Bush.
From Real Clear Politics:
When asked by Don Imus on his morning program if the Obama was to blame for lack of response to the oil spill, Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) blamed the Bush administration. “Well, you know, they come into office a year ago with all of this. And so, after the last eight years,” he said.
At that point, Imus interrupted and asked if he has “lost” his mind for blaming Bush. “The President has been in office for a year and a half and they’ve been dragging their feet and even people like James Carville said that his behavior ‘has been at the very best lackadaisical and naive’ and you’re still going to try to blame Bush?” he said.
“To lay this at Obama’s doorstep, in light of years and years of regulatory permissiveness when it comes to these kinds of operations occurring — it didn’t occur in the last year and a half,” he said. “I mean, you know that as well as I do. You can’t lay this all at Obama’s door anymore than I can say,” Dodd responded.
That must mean that Senator Dodd places the blame for the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks squarely on the shoulders of President Bill Clinton, right?
It stands to reason.
George W. Bush was in office a little less than eight months when America was attacked. Barack Obama has been in office sixteen months, and yet, Senator Dud somehow blames Obama’s predecessor on something that occured almost a year-and-a-half after Bush went home.
Using the Senator’s method, President Clinton practically commandeered the planes into the twin towers himself.
As far as the Gulf oil spill … thirty-nine days and counting …
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "blame bush", BDS, Bush Derangement Syndrome, Chris Dodd, Guld oil spill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 24, 2010
Massachusetts Governor, Deval Patrick
So, let’s see … the fantasy of a well-know New York Times columnist is that America, for just one day, should become like China. Whether that includes the denial of even the most basic human rights, the cultivation of organ farms, or the elimination of 60 million humans is unclear. Maybe the columnist, Thomas Friedman, only meant the really cool parts of China.
And it’s funny how an Obama dictatorship, as suggested by Woody Allen, appeals to him as much as it does, when so many like him are quick to pull out their Nazi cards in criticizing the supposed overreach of conservatives into our everyday lives. Whether that means that only the more appealing and family-friendly characteristics of Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao would be harnessed by the Messiah is unknown at this time, but if nothing else, such thinking will continue to pass as intellectual and deeply nuanced.
And it’s funny how libs are quick to cheapen language by comparing the American “heath care crisis” to the Holocaust, for example. Or call those who defend the traditional definition of marriage as homophobes. Or come up with a veritable rainbow of “rape” to help regretful young women deal with indiscretions the morning after. Or call those who oppose Barack Obama racist.
In fact, to oppose Barack Obama doesn’t just mean one is a bigot anymore.
According to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, Obama critics are almost at the level of “sedition.”
From MyFox Boston:
Gov. Deval Patrick says national Republicans are bordering on “sedition” as they oppose his good friend and fellow Democrat, President Barack Obama. Patrick decried criticism of his own governing efforts on Monday during a forum for students at Suffolk University’s Rappaport Center.
But he says that “seems like child’s play compared to what’s going on in Washington.” He said partisanship in the capital “is almost at the level of sedition,” or bordering on insurrection.
Mocking Republicans, he says, “If the president says ‘up,’ we will say ‘down.'”
Later, the governor sloughed off his own sedition comment, calling it a “rhetorical flourish.”
It’s funny how often Democrats have to come back and retract, redefine, restate or apologize for the things they say. Fortunately for them, all they have to do is say they were speaking off the cuff, or trying to make a complex point, or illustrating something that is far too multifaceted and easy to misunderstand, and all is once again well.
Just curious … Are conservatives capable of “rhetorical flourishes?” Rand Paul, anyone?
And incidentally, if the President actually said, did or stood for something that is consistent with our founding document, the Declaration of Independence, or actually behaved like he knew what was in the Constitution of the United States, he’d have more supporters from the right … and, for that matter, the center.
If the President says, “up,” we say, “you mean our taxes and debt?”
Does Governor Duval actually know what the word ‘sedition” means? Has he any concept of how serious a term that is?
Sedition, by definition, encourages the overthrow, or insurrection, of a lawful authority, like a government. It isn’t as serious as treason – which is the actual attempt to destabilize and/or overthrow the government – but it is the act of encouraging such an undertaking.
No one in the Tea Party movement, no prominent conservative, nor any Republican elected official – repeat no one – has ever suggested or hinted that Barack Obama’s administration should be removed from power in any way other than the method outlined in the Constitution of the United States.
As Hillary Clinton famously screeched: “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration.”
In a statement released a few hours after his comments were posted on Boston.com and other websites, the chairwoman of the state Republican Party criticized Patrick.
“Apparently our First Amendment rights are only guaranteed if we agree with the tax-and-spend policies of Deval Patrick and Barack Obama,” Jennifer Nassour, chairwoman of the state GOP, said.
She added, “the governor should focus on the critical issues at hand, like (lowering) property taxes and controlling rampant spending, instead of defending his buddy President Obama.”
It sure would be nice if one – just one – Democrat stopped making it his or her life’s mission to stand up and defend this President and do a little defending of the United States of America.
They would, of course, need Felipe Calderon’s permission first.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "rhetorical flourish", "sedition", Deval Patrick, friend of Barack Obama, liberal hypocricy, Massachusetts governor | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 17, 2010
Woody Allen - his stepdaughter's lover
There is something to be said for American leftists who do not attempt to disguise the fact that they are, in fact, hard core, moonstruck leftists. It’s somewhat refreshing – in a perverse sort of way – observing an angry moonbat from the dark side of the aisle allowing his or her totalitarian feathers to bristle in the breeze a little bit. In the spirit of “clarity over agreement” (the main credo of radio talk show host Dennis Prager), I almost feel the need to applaud those who comprise that most resplendent group of ungrateful, morally bereft leftist dullards – those who make no bones about their veneration for despotism and tyranny.
On those occasions when I am afforded the opportunity to listen to the bemoaning of some exceedingly wealthy, self-centered, elitist ingrate – one who has reaped the benefits of being a citizen of the freest nation on God’s green Earth – refusing to go through the trouble of having to fake a love of liberty, and instead openly admitting to having a man-crush on authoritarianism, I have to tip my hat.
Indeed, whenever a successful, spoiled-brat, whiny leftist – perhaps an athiest to boot – steps up and says that an oligarchy would be good for this country, I walk away a little impressed.
Because some people don’t realize (or care) how mournfully demented and dim-witted they sound – and that’s a quality almost worth admiring.
However, there’s an illuminating point to be made here.
Note how such courageous declarations usually don’t take place on American soil. Generally, these brave loonbuckets make sure their feet are planted on foreign ground before they spew their excremental pontifications, often speaking to small, out-of–the-way media outlets that will all but be ignored by the American mainstream media.
And they’re right.
If not for the conservative blogosphere, no one would ever hear these things.
Take the latest commentary from film director, Woody Allen – a man who has the distinction of being his own (unofficial) step-daughter’s husband.
It turns out that Woody is not only in love with President Barack Obama – in that “wow, he is totally awesome” Elena Kagan sort of way – but he thinks “a lot of good stuff” could come from an Obama dictatorship.
From Jim Hoft at the great Gateway Pundit blog:
Woody Allen wants Barack Obama to be dictator for for a few years so that he can completely socialize America. The article published today, May 15, 2010, did not make it into any English-language paper. The article quotes Allen as saying [first in Spanish, then in English from a trusted reader] –
“Estoy encantado con Obama, creo que es genial. El Partido Republicano debería quitarse de su camino y dejar de intentar herirle.”
“I am pleased with Obama. I think he’s brilliant. The Republican Party should get out of his way and stop trying to hurt him.”
And, the money quote:
“…sería bueno…si pudiera ser un dictador durante algunos años, porque podría hacer un montón de cosas buenas rápidamente.”
The translated quote:
“…it would be good…if he could be a dictator for a few years because he could do a lot of good things quickly.”
Of course, this comes as a complete shock.
What is it with these leftist loons and their passion for socialist dictators?
… because according to that master-theorist and intellectualist, Woody Allen, a quick perusal of the history of dictatorships on planet Earth has sufficiently proven to him that an Obama-led dictatorship could actually reap a lot of “good stuff” for the American people.
Besides, according to Allen, Obama is “cool” – perhaps, the most important criterion of an effective leader to a leftist.
What could be better for America than a “cool dictator?”
Stalin, for instance, had that push-broom moustache and wore heavy wool. Very uncool.
Hitler’s cookie duster was painfully small, and his boots were loud. Besides, he wasn’t very good looking and couldn’t make shots from outside the arc. Squaresville.
And Mao? Sure, he may have been a philosophical superman, but he didn’t exactly have matinee-idol appeal and certainly wasn’t hip to the latest tunes.
A loser, really.
Barack Obama, however, is “cool” … and if you can’t take the word of a man who is married to a girl he met when she was ten (and he was forty-five), who can you trust?
Add to that the fact that Barack Obama is “brilliant,” and one can actually begin to understand why someone like Allen doesn’t bother believing in God. Why should he? An invisible Supreme Being living “up in the sky” hung up on millenia-old morals could never match up, in terms of style and substance, with Chicago’s favorite teleprompted metrosexual socialist.
Note how that seems to be the superlative of choice among libs in describing the President: “brilliant.”
Exactly why Barack Obama is supposed to be so “brilliant” has yet to be revealed, but he continues to trigger orgasmic adulation among those who still look to Neil Young and David Crosby for their political inspiration. Exactly what he has done to warrant such an assessment has yet to be realized, but he does enjoy waffles – just like us common folk do.
That the President’s head moves like a well-greased weather vane from side to side as he switches from one teleprompter to another could be part of it.
Anyway, it would only be for a few years, according to Allen.
It would be for our own good.
Can you say “swastika”?
Posted in American culture, Dumb Liberals, Entertainment, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: Barack Obama, dictatorship, leftism, Obamamania, Woody Allen | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2010
As I did last year, I’d like to take this opportunity to share with you how I intend to spend Earth day, 2010.
As a rule, I prefer to keep the details of my personal life as private as possible, but in this age of environmental awareness and climate dysfunctionality, I thought it might be illuminating to share some of the more choice tidbits that are taking up slots on my Earth Day docket, the forty-first annual Earth Day.
I’ll forego the morning hygiene rituals and move right into the meat of my morning.
The first thing I will do upon rising is run out to the driveway and warm up my diesel-engine car for thirty minutes (even though it doesn’t need it). I will then enlist my twin daughters to help me turn on every television and radio in the house after giving each toilet a good flush. I will, of course, make sure we throw sizeable wads of triple-ply bathroom tissue into each bowl before doing so.
And don’t think I won’t be scolding them if they forget to leave the refrigerator door open.
I will, of course, then have them separate the laundry into thirty-six different loads and place them on the floor around the washing machine so that we might needlessly run the washer and dryer for three weeks.
After we finish breakfast – which we will eat on styrofoam plates – I will max out my carbon credit card by throwing the empty plastic milk container into the regular garbage pail instead of the recyclables can.
(I’m a wild man, I know).
I will then drive my daughters to school while puffing on a cigar with the window open, making sure the exhaled smoke fills as much of the lower atmosphere as possible. By the time I return home – emitting fifty miles worth of diesel engine pollutants into the air along the way – I will stop off to buy paper towels and more bathroom tissue. (While I do keep Handi Wipes in the kitchen under the sink, I find reusable rags somewhat disgusting. It’s easier and far more satisfying to fill my garbage cans – and ultimately the landfills – with endless clumps of paper towels.
In fact, I know I will get so caught up in the spirit of the day that I will purposely create spills in the kitchen just to go through an entire roll of super-absorbancy paper towels before 11AM. It will be as exhilarating as it will be inspiring … and messy.
As far as bathroom tissue is concerned, let’s just say there won’t be many septic tanks sending me happy notes.
I will then walk around the house arbitrarily spraying aerosol cans into the air.
Borrowing my friend’s fossil-fuel munching Hummer, I plan on driving around in circles until I find a Chinese Restaurant that specializes in MSG-laden foods and uses only energy-inefficient gas guzzlers to make their neighborhood deliveries.
Following lunch, I will go back to the supermarket and buy up all of their reusable “enviro-friendly” green shopping bags so that everyone who visits the store after me can get their groceries stuffed into those landfill choking “plastic” bags.
Before returning home, I will pull off to the side of the road and let the Hummer idle for three-and-a-half hours while I cut up the reusable grocery bags into kitty litter box liners.
Then, as I pull into my driveway, I will remember that I need to go out and run twelve more errands. I will drive the Hummer into Manhattan and purchase a little egg timer (as suggested by some of the Earth Day literature I had been looking at yesterday) so that I might be able to time my showers in the future to save water … and the planet.
When I finish with my dozen errands, I will drop off the Hummer at my friend’s place and sit in my idling diesel car for fifty-eight minutes as I reflect on my busy afternoon, puffing on yet another cigar, contemplating the earth’s fragility and the Mets’ lousy offense.
Later, I hope to find some time to plant a tree in honor of Earth Day, as President Barack Obama and former-President Bill Clinton did last year, but I’ll almost certainly wind up eating two Yodels and cleaning up after the dog instead.
After a quick bout of global warming-inducing flatulence, I will watch an episode of “The Critic,” take a Tylenol, and go to sleep.
It will be a day I’ll never remember.
Happy Earth Day everyone!
Posted in American culture, environmentalism, Global Warming, humor, Liberalism, Science, Silly Stuff | Tagged: Earth Day 2009, Earth Day 2010, environmentalism, global climate change, Global Warming | 6 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 20, 2010
“Disgust” isn’t even the right word anymore. I feel almost inadequate to the task of maintaining this blog because the appropriate words escape me. How many different ways can one express contempt at the way this administration does things? How many variations of a single theme can one articulate before it loses its effectiveness? How often can one say that he or she weeps for the future of this most magnificent nation before its impact becomes meaningless?
If Ronald Reagan saw America as the shining city on the hill, Barack Obama is erecting iron gates around that city.
If Ronald Reagan reminded us how splendid this nation of liberty is, Barack Obama is reinventing America as a nation of equality – the left’s most important value.
If Ronald Reagan believed in the power of the individual, Barack Obama believes in the power of government.
These days, a mere fifteen months into the Messianic Age, one cannot swing a dead beaver without smacking into yet another Barack Obama initiative meant to extend the reach of government into the private sector. With every turn, with every step, this President pushes for some new transformation – he uses the word “reform” – some new way for the heavy hand of government to involve itself in our lives.
Obamacrats hate the free market system, carry disdain for the Constitution, look down on Americans who voice dissent, believe they have a mandate to reshape this country into their Marxist-light soft tyranny, and operate with a degree of arrogance and detachment that is almost beyond comprehension.
Sure, I can use the word “disgust,” but it is utterly insufficient. Even armed with a thesaurus and a respectable way with words, it is difficult to accurately convey my repulsion at what this President is doing to the United States.
In two days, the Messiah-In-Chief will arrive in New York to deliver what will essentially be a verbal beat-down to Wall Street. His so-called “financial overhaul package” proposal will be yet another cavalcade of regulations and restrictions placed on the private sector – more government say-so in areas they have no business being involved in.
It is absolutely sickening.
During the Bush years, all we heard from the left is how totalitarian “W” was – that he was the anti-freedom President. All we heard was how he and his right-wing cronies wanted to run everything and control our lives. Swastikas accompanied Bush’s face on protest posters. Comparisons to Adolf Hitler were commonplace. And despite today’s round of phony righteousness from the left at how some people dare refer to the Obama administration as a “regime,” back in the day, mainstream media tongue-flappers used that word to describe the Bush administration, including MSNBC’s own beacon of saliva-projection, Chris Matthews.
Yet, what seems to elude leftocrats is the fact that, by definition, conservatism means less government, less involvement, less control. It is Barack Obama and his bureaucrat fat cats – and that is precisely what they are – who want to dip their stinky little fingers in everyone’s cup cake.
Where are the Bush-era freedom lovers now?
The answer: Barack Obama is on the bridge. Therefore, the narrative needed to change.
Under George W. Bush, the encroachment of conservative oppression and fascism needed to be fought off by freedom-conscious dissenters. Under Barack Obama, Bush-era cowboy-style, money-hungry, out-of-control capitalism needs to be tamed by the soothing and nurturing hands of government.
The “financial overhaul package” will hit the Senate floor this week.
Democrats, of course, say these “reforms” are essential.
Republicans, thus far, are unanimously opposed.
And just for kicks, here’s a tasty little wrinkle to the story: No one in the White House bothered to inform the Mayor of New York that the President was coming to his city on Thursday to essentially beat New York’s bread and butter into government-controlled submission.
Arrogance, thy name is Obama.
Maggie Haberman of the New York Post writes:
Mayor Bloomberg learned from reading about — not from the White House — that President Obama is heading to the Big Apple on Thursday to talk about Wall Street reform at Cooper Union.
“I just saw on the blogs this morning he was coming, so I haven’t talked to anyone in the White House,” Bloomberg told reporters.
As it happens, Bloomberg has an Earth Day event scheduled at the same time as Obama’s speech.
The whole thing suggests that City Hall wasn’t given a heads-up about the visit.
Bloomberg has been less than warm and fuzzy about the proposed Wall Street crackdown by the Obama administration — saying it could hurt the city disproportionately.
“There’s no [government] regulation that will ever match self-regulation if it’s done correctly,” Bloomberg told reporters. “Just because the government can never keep up with everything. These are complex worlds we live in. That’s not true only of finance. That’s true of everything the government regulates.”
I assure you, I am no fan of Mike “Screw The Term Limits” Bloomberg, but he is right in opposing Barack Obama on this one. The result of the Obama iron boot to the throat of America’s financial center will be a whole lot of corporations – whose tax dollars are essential to New York City’s, and ultimately America’s, well-being – saying “bye-bye” and finding other places to operate … perhaps outside of America.
And what perfect timing.
Just as it was announced that there has been fraud at big bad Goldman Sachs – one of those evil corporations hell-bent on crushing average Americans like me – the President coincidentally announced he would be going to the epicenter of Western capitalism, New York City, to tell them how badly Wall Street needs reform.
There are no coincidences in politics.
When it comes to the Goldman Sachs investigation, Bloomberg said, “My concern is for all the people who work on Wall Street. My concern is for our police officers and firefighters and teachers and everybody else. They get paid by the taxes the financial industry and many others, but to a great extent the financial industry, generates in this city.”
The next Obama “shovel-ready” project may be the burying of Wall Street.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Wall Street | Tagged: arrogant Obama, Barack Obama, Big Government, Cooper Union, Cooper's Union, financial overhaul package, Mike Bloomberg, New York City, Wall Street | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 9, 2010
(Actually, quite believable).
There is ostensibly nothing – absolutely nothing – the current administration will not endeavor to involve itself in (except competent national security). Perhaps a better way to state it is that this administration believes nothing should be beyond the reach (and direct influence) of government.
With an audacity remeniscent of a chorus of crunching jackboots slowly approaching from just over the hill, Obamacrats – the same folks that recently turned over the student loan system to the federal government simply because they felt like it – is on a no-holds-barred course of seizing and controlling as much of the private sector as it possibly can.
I am well aware of how that sounds, but I assure you, this is not paranoia.
These are not radical right-wing talking points.
If you want radicals, just look to the White House and Capitol Hill.
America has never seen anything quite like the way this administration operates. The will of the people be damned, and to hell with the Constitution, never has a President ever attempted, in such a short amount of time and in such a brazenly agenda-driven anti-American way (yes, anti-American), to imbue the heavy hand of government in everything possible. Not like this. The President, in fact, seems to have made it his central focus to thrash whatever maxims of American liberty repulse him (which, being a disciple of Saul Alinsky, means just about everything). He’s doing so with a deaf ear and an iron mallet of relentless leftism – the master overseer of the largest, most intrusive and controlling government monster ever to occupy this part of the North American continent.
This is just the latest episode of “Power To the State!”
It seems that Bammy and Crew have decided that they are not happy with the concept of the unpaid internship. In fact, the Labor Department is now looking into the legality of having someone serve as an intern, without pay, at any for-profit enterprise in the United States; and if the President gets his way, these private sector unpaid internships – meaning free-market, free-enterprise agreements made between private business owners and willing individuals (almost always college students looking to gain critical experience as well as college credits) – will go the way of betamax machines, rotary telephones and (eventually) American liberty itself.
From Fox Nation:
“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy Leppink, deputy administrator of the department’s wage and hour division, according to a story in the New York Times.
It’s easy to view the action as the inevitable mischief of Democrats, irritating but not fatal. Such an attitude, however, overlooks what a blow this policy can represent to young people trying to establish careers.
Back in our parents’ or grandparents’ days, interns were mostly thought of as physicians-in-training. Eventually, an internship came to mean an initial training experience, perhaps unpaid, for people on the cusp of entering the workforce. This stepping stone to a hoped-for paid job became commonplace in many industries and a rite of passage for the college set, especially Ivy Leaguers.
These temporary positions became popular partly due to prosperity. During the past half century, many U.S. college students enjoyed the luxury of trying out different fields whereas previous generations had to make career choices quickly.
In other words, the Chief Executive of the United States is telling (nay, dictating to) this nation’s young people – America’s future, I’ve heard the President call them – that they will no longer have the option (the right to choose, you might say) of volunteering his or her time with a privately-owned, free market enterprise. The point of such internships, of course, is to afford prospective interns the opportunity to gain vital experience that will, in turn, make them productive and valuable assets in the work force. Yet, the President of the United States has decided, by whim and whisper, that he will put the kibosh on a system of learning, training and invaluable networking that has helped sustain the very existence of America’s free-market system by literally helping to provide for its future in the best and most efficient way possible.
Not that Barack Obama is particularly enamored with free enterprise.
Incidentally, one needn’t receive money to be “paid.” Experience is often a more valuable commodity in the work force at that early stage of a person’s professional life. Unpaid internships are wonderfully important resume fillers. Bosses look for things like that.
The real question is: How in the world is doing away with unpaid internships good for America? How does eliminating such a thing benefit this country’s young people looking to prepare for their futures?
This is simply unbelievable.
(I keep saying that. Actually, it’s very believable).
Mr. President, these are individual choices made by free Americans! Stay the hell out of it!
Erick Erickson at Red State points out, if Obama gets his way, young people will still have the option to volunteer with the government.
If you want to work as a Congressional or White House intern, for Organizing for America, or any other non-profit, they’ll let you do it. But if you want to actually work for a business that produces goods and services in the free market? You’re screwed as is the business. And guess what? Existing workers will be spread more thinly and college kids will wait longer and longer for jobs.
My next question (in a long list of thousands) would be to ask whether or not this policy applies to non-profit organizations as well. Would these new anti-intern laws pertain to left-wing “community organizing” groups, too? Or will some enterprising Capitol Hill Democrat try to devise a workaround of some sort to allow the likes of ACORN (or whatever it’s called now) to indoctrinate – er, take on interns?
Or is this just a blatant, in-your-face, no-need-to-cloak-it assault on the free-market system?
Honestly, there can be no other purpose here than to intentionally hamstring free enterprise.
The President of the United States does not – repeat, does not – have the authority to curtail rights guaranteed to the people of the United States in the Constitution – namely, the freedom of assembly (and, by extension and definition, the freedom of association). How is it possible for the Chief Executive to say that it will be against the law for me, or anyone, to volunteer my time anywhere I damn well please (assuming that institution is not engaging in illegal activity)? Do I not have the right to charge an individual or company for my services, if I so choose? And if I decide to charge nothing for those services, do I not have that right as well?
These are choices that I make, as an individual.
This has nothing to do with the President, Congress, the government, the cleaning lady or anyone other than the privately owned enterprise that wants to have an intern, and the individual who wishes to be an intern.
No one is being taken advantage of, no one is being cheated, no deception of any kind is taking place.
We leave that to the government.
Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Nanny State | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Big Government, college students, Department of Labor, for-profit employer, free enterprise, free market, President Obama, unpaid interns, unpaid internships | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 8, 2010
You can say it over and over again, but it is irrelevant to liberals. Regardless of the numbers – no matter how lopsided the percentages are – it will never be enough for America’s leftocracy.
They use beguiling words and phrases like “fair share” and “impartiality” but don’t really mean it.
They go on and on about equality – liberalism’s most important value – but in practice, spit upon the concept … or should I say spit upon America’s most successful citizens.
The fact is: the top ten percent of wage earners in the United States pay nearly three-quarters of all income tax.
Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Obamacrats.
In truth, there is no such thing as “enough” when it comes to leftist confiscation (and redistribution) of the private property of America’s money makers.
The President, and his free-enterprise-pulverizing band of economy-crippling sadists, are hell-bent on creating some sort of sweeping “equality” by knocking down America’s top performers a few pegs (i.e., punishing them), rather than encouraging people to elevate themselves.
Meanwhile, on the other end of the scale, the bottom chunk of wage-earning Americans actually make a profit from the federal government.
That’s right … make a profit.
Stephen Ohlemacher from the Associated Press writes:
The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.
“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.
This year, nearly half of all Americans will pay no federal income tax.
Not a penny.
About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.
In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.
The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education.
In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.
There’s fair … and then there’s fair.
The reality that more money in the pockets of Americans is actually a good thing – that people do not respond to having more of their own earnings to spend by stashing it away under the high school yearbook in the upstairs closet – absolutely eludes the left.
Facts can be awfully tenacious.
More revenue finds its way into Uncle Sam’s tax collection box when people have more of their own money available to purchase goods and services.
Even my nine year old nephew gets that.
Of course, he hasn’t been to university yet.
Posted in Liberalism, Taxes | Tagged: 47% pay no income tax, federal income tax, higher taxes on the rich, income tax, leftist, Liberalism, liberals, progressive income tax, soak the rich | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010
The news today is that the President of the United States is set to “rewrite” America’s policy on nuclear weapons sometime next week. What that really means is the President has decided a weaker America is a more lovable America.
The immediate objective is to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal while refraining from developing new systems. The ultimate objective is to do away with nuclear weapons altogether.
From the Times of London, via Fox News:
After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Obama is expected to reject the doctrine on nuclear weapons — the “nuclear posture” — adopted by George W. Bush, which included the possibility of the United States launching an attack on a non-nuclear state.
In January, I commented on this painfully asinine, immeasurably naïve and potentially catastrophic approach to national security.
Because this is such an important issue – and because the commentary is timely – it is definitely worth revisiting:
The screeching unclean masses say that war is not the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. The socially conscious (and perpetually stoned) regale the world with chants of “give peace a chance,” but peace without victory only means the side of goodness has acquiesced for the time being. The President once said that the United States will extend its hand if the enemy is willing to unclench its fist – bend-overism at its best.
But such a gesture is not, and never can be, proffered from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The enemy exploits it.
Can there be anyone quite as naïve as a man – the most powerful man in the world, let’s say – thinking that a nuclear weapon-free world is not only something to aspire to, but something that is realistically attainable?
Liberals are almost adorable when they try to be serious. Unfortunately, the stakes are way too high for fun and games.
Why, first of all, is it at all desirable to do away with nuclear weapons given the realities of human existence? What, exactly, would such a feat accomplish? If the world is rid of them – which really means, if the West is rid of them – what then? Does the technology suddenly not exist?
That must be it.
Just like the “War on Terror” doesn’t seem so “George Bushy” if we simply call it an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” or Islamo-fascist terrorism don’t seem so pervasive if we call terrorists “isolated extremists,” the world will seem like a far better place if those nasty bombs are dismantled and filed away next to the aging surplus of pet rocks and mood rings.
Out of sight, out of mind wins the liberal day.
Regardless of the reasons, or the projected effects, or the feasibility, one of President Obama’s stated goals is to do away with all nuclear weapons. To children, dope smokers, tenured professors and MSNBC anchors, it all sounds so stone-cold groovy. No more nukes, baby! Whether or not the President will dispatch disciples to shove flowers into the rifle barrels of military personnel is unclear, but one thing is for certain: there are lots of fists that need unclenching, and lots of hugs just waiting to be shared.
And Obama is the man to make it happen.
To Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, this isn’t a values issue. It’s about the technology. Rather than focus on the ideologies and religious fanaticism that make these weapons a genuine threat to countries like the United States and Israel, the weapons themselves – along with the fact that the United States possesses so many of them – is really the problem.
Shall we all just pretend that such capabilities are make-believe? Will the world magically be safer when those blasted mushroom cloud making boom-booms go away? Is it reasonable to assume that the bad guys will then rethink what they’re doing when they see nations like the United States and Israel disarming?
The naivety and silliness of wishing to make the world a “nuclear weapon-free zone” cannot accurately be charted. Technology has not advanced that far. Childish wish-lists and theoretical gobbledygook contrived in the halls of academia have little to do with the real world.
Perhaps the better question is: why is it so desirable for the “good guys” to do away with them? What example are we trying to set? That the powerful shall not defend themselves? That only rogues, terrorists and despots shall have such weapons? This is akin to arguing with an anti-Second Amendment zealot who can never explain why weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are a bad thing.
The fact is, nuclear weapons exist because they must exist.
(“What?” ask libs, confused, confounded.)
Deadbolts and car alarms must exist because some people steal. Pepper spray and mace must exist because some people assault the innocent. Police must exist because some people do bad things.
It’s really quite simple.
And if countries that wish to “lead by example” do away with the most powerful weapons in their arsenals, knowing that evil does exist, they are as stupid and careless as someone who leaves the door to his or her home swinging wide open when they go out.
The world is in no danger with free nations in possession of these – or any – weapons.
If, for example, in a Barack Obama world of fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies, the United States and her allies were nuclear-weapon free, and a nuclear attack should take place in a city like New York or London or Tel-Aviv, then what? We should feel good that, at least, we stood by our principles?
In the real world, such cartoonish objectives aren’t rational, as Bammy is finding out.
Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:
President Obama’s ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.
Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.
The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as “spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented.”
What kind of deterrence is the President in favor of in a nuclear weapon-free world? Name calling? A threat not to have Obama’s hand extended to them? God forbid, sanctions?
The world shivers and shakes.
The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.
The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.
Also looming this year are other elements of Obama’s nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.
The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.
For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.
Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.
Indeed, the threat in a world with nuclear weapons is in who has them – which means it isn’t about the weapons at all, but rather the values of those who seek to possess them. That means the United States (i.e., the President) must be able to summon, with crystal-clear clarity, the courage to make judgments and, without equivocation, openly name the evils that threaten us.
For those who came in after the credits, I’ll repeat … there is no threat whatsoever when the good guys – yes, we are the good guys – possess nuclear weapons.
It’s all about values, values, values.
In other news, liberals still cannot be trusted with national security.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: arms control, Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, phasing out nuclear weapons | 6 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 18, 2010
This is more like it.
This is the kind of thing that gets us pro-Constitution types singing around the campfire. This is the type of thing that’ll get Obamacrats screeching about us gun-and-God-clinging bigots even more than they already have. In a sense, one could think of this as a kind of legislative tea party – a push back at the soft tyrants running the show in Washington.
Yes, the gesture is largely a symbolic one, but it does matter – except to Democrats, of course.
Thirty-seven states are in line to follow what Idaho did yesterday.
John Miller of the Associated Press writes:
Idaho took the lead in a growing, nationwide fight against health care overhaul Wednesday when its governor became the first to sign a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government if residents are forced to buy health insurance.
Constitutional law experts say the movement is mostly symbolic because federal laws supersede those of the states.
But the state measures reflect a growing frustration with President President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
With Washington closing in on a deal in the months-long battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers opposed to the measure are stepping up opposition.
(Idaho Governor C. L. “Butch”) Otter, a Republican, said he believes any future lawsuit from Idaho has a legitimate shot of winning, despite what the naysayers say.
“The ivory tower folks will tell you, ‘No, they’re not going anywhere,’ ” he told reporters. “But I’ll tell you what, you get 36 states, that’s a critical mass. That’s a constitutional mass.”
“A constitutional mass,” as Otter calls it – the overwhelming rejection by the American people of this unprecedented encroachment of the federal government on their liberties – is a very good thing, even if it is symbolic; although I’d like to believe that genuine legal action actually could be taken in some form should ObamaCare become the scourge of the land.
Still, the rejection of ObamaCare from every sector of American life is unquestionable … and fascinating to watch.
It’s as if the Body American is reacting instinctively – intuitively – dispatching antibodies to fight the infection of government-run health care. The irony, however, is that the ones reacting without thinking – the ones who are on ideological auto-pilot – are the Democrats.
They are not hearing the American people.
They don’t care what we think.
They’ve told us we will know all about the bill after its been passed. They have tried to sidestep and rework every rule, and still cannot – and will not – accept that they do not have the votes to get it done. They are even attempting a measure that would enable the Senate version of the bill to pass the House without a vote ever having to be taken there – something that would have summoned the lynch mobs had Republicans ever dreamed of doing such a thing.
When the rules get in the way, they change them.
When the people get in the way, they stomp on them.
The funny thing is, the Constititutional process is working, and it pisses off Obamacrats. Thus, they effectively urinate on the Constitution and call it Miracle-Gro.
Just as America rejects ObamaCare, Dems reject Americans, as Congressman Dennis Kucinich proved yesterday, when he admitted that he took his cues on how to vote on the bill from his wife and friends – not his constituency.
Posted in Constitution, Economy, health care, Liberalism | Tagged: Forced to buy health care, Governor Otter, health care reform, Idaho Governor, Obamacare, sue Congress, unconstitutional | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 17, 2010
On Sunday, Ohio Representative Dennis Kucinich had a column published in the Cleveland Plain Dealer that said, in part:
Unfortunately, the president’s plan, as it currently stands, leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies. It requires all Americans to buy private health insurance policies, while failing to ensure those policies do what they are supposed to do — protect people from financial catastrophe caused by injury or illness.
But Sunday was a long long time ago, and even socialists have to deal with things as they truly are, not as they would like them to be.
After a ride onboard the big Presidential jet with Barack Obama, Kucinich is changing his ObamaCare vote from “no” to “yes.”
From Fox News:
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, announced Wednesday that he would vote for the Senate health care bill, becoming the most prominent House Democrat to reverse his opposition.
With Kucinich’s switch, Democrats now have 212 votes in favor of the bill, four shy of the 216-threshold needed for passage.
“This is not the bill I wanted to support even as I continued efforts into the last minute to try and modify the bill,” he said at a news conference. “However, after careful discussions with President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, my wife Elizabeth and close friends, I’ve decided to cast a vote in favor of the legislation.”
Kucinich didn’t vote for the original House version of the bill when it passed in November, and up until earlier today, was adamantly opposed to the Senate version because of its lack of a public option.
He is, however, a Democrat … so anyone surprised by Kucinich’s lip-licking after this latest serving of Payoff Pie better pull his or her head out and refocus.
The real question is … What, pray tell, was the People’s Watchdog – the unflinching, never-corruptible, always-true-to-his-principles, Dennis Kucinich – promised for his vote?
What was he given on that big ol’ jet airliner that made him switch sides on something he said he could never compromise on?
How much “courage” does it take to flip-flop votes after a ride on Air Force One and a promise of who-knows-what?
Note how Kucinich never once mentioned the people he is charged to represent.
It was only after “careful discussions” with the Messiah and the Nancy Pelosi that he decided to switch sides. It was only after he talked it over with his wife and friends that he had his change of heart.
His wife and friends?
What about his botanist?
Or Sally in Accounting?
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: "public option", D-Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, health care reform, Obamacare | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 15, 2010
A tip of the chapeau is in order for NBC’s ever-zealous, nitty-gritty, down-to-the-bone political dynamo, Andrea Mitchell. In the spirit of clarity over agreement (as talk show host Dennis Prager is wont to say) – and at the risk of sounding as if someone spiked my Sunny D with weapons grade narcotics – I believe Mitchell is worthy of some conservative respect.
(insert the sound of eyebrows crinkling here)
No, I am not insane.
No, my little red wagon has not gone chug-chug-chugging around the bend.
I truly believe she is deserving.
Too often, journalists claim to be objective, straight-down-the-middle, impartial disseminators of information, reporting the news in an unbiased and fair way.
Unfortunately, reality refutes this fairy tale. The mainstream news media, save for a couple of far-and-few-between outlets, is infected with liberalism. Like dirt in an open blood blister – or Nancy Pelosi speaking in front of any microphone anywhere in the world – it is a pervasively ugly reality.
But that isn’t what irritates me.
The fact that the news media is liberal is not what is so frustrating. That would be like being angry that water is wet. What annoys me are lib journalists (redundant, I know) claiming to be objective and impartial when they clearly aren’t.
That’s why Andrea Mitchell gets my “attaboy” award – or “attachick,” rather – for removing all doubt as to where her political allegiance lies.
She’s hiding nothing … and for that, she deserves a little respect.
Speaking with Congressman Elijah Cmmings on MSNBC late last week, Mitchell said the following:
Bottom line, what happens if you don’t get health care for this president – this is really all-or-nothing for the sense of his power, for his legacy, he’s invested so much in this, in this first year. You’ve got to get this for him.
Cummings said he agreed with her a million percent.
If Mitchell could have said anything that was more pro-Obamacare in that context, I don’t know what it could have been – other than, “Have my love child, you health care God!”
Remember, the issue isn’t whether or not the mainstreamies lean left. The matter at hand isn’t whether or not “journalists” from the alphabets are unabashed libs.
This is about a flaming lib letting her leftism bust through without concern for how she would be perceived.
This is about a lib journalist looking America in the eye and saying, “Yes, I’m leftist. Yes, I want ObamaCare to pass. No, I won’t hide it any longer. No, I am not objective, and I’m okay with that.”
This is about coming clean.
This is about Andrea Mitchell breaking down a huge barrier the likes of which Walter Cronkite, Peter Jennings, Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw never had the courage to.
This is about hoping all non-opinion mainstream news media types will step out of their confining charades and declare, “We’re journalists! We’re leftists! And we’re in your face!”
It is in this context, that I tip my cap to Andrea Mitchell.
Of course, after all of that, if she still believes she is a down-the-middle, unbiased, straight-shooter who doesn’t let her leftism creep into her “objective journalism,” I take it all back.
Posted in Liberalism, Media, Media Bias | Tagged: Andrea Mitchell, health care, liberal bias, MSNBC, NBC News | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2010
Liberals profess that it is a subjective morality that determines whether or not ripping the life from a woman’s womb is right or wrong, yet they are quick to call the act of smoking a universal immorality. Liberals gripe about wanting government out of their bedrooms, but have no problem if it shows up in the kitchen … or at work.
If you could take a time machine back to, say, 1980 – or even 1990 – and sit down for a chat with someone from that time about some of the societal changes that await them, what are the chances that someone might think you were under the influence of some sort of hallucinogen if you were to tell them that smoking cigarettes in bars would be illegal? In bars! Or that privately-owned restaurants would be banned from using certain cooking oils? Or that it would be mandatory to post the calorie content of food in restaurants?
They’d probably look at you like you were sporting three heads.
Welcome to the future.
In yet another example of how health is leftism’s new morality, the first shot has officially been fired in the War On Salt – and leave it to a New York City legislator to pull the trigger.
Six days ago, a bill was introduced by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz of Brooklyn that would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking. Any violation of the salt statute would result in a $1000 fine.
A band of jackbooted Sodium Smashers could be showing up at your favorite eatery if its discovered that the chef salted to taste.
Care to guess what Ortiz’s political party affiliation is?
Arun Kristian Das of MyFox NY writes:
Some New York City chefs and restaurant owners are taking aim at a bill introduced in the New York Legislature that, if passed, would ban the use of salt in restaurant cooking.
“No owner or operator of a restaurant in this state shall use salt in any form in the preparation of any food for consumption by customers of such restaurant, including food prepared to be consumed on the premises of such restaurant or off of such premises,” the bill, A. 10129 , states in part.
Ortiz has said the salt ban would allow restaurant patrons to decide how salty they want their meals to be.
“In this way, consumers have more control over the amount of sodium they intake, and are given the option to exercise healthier diets and healthier lifestyles,” Ortiz said, according to a Nation’s Restaurant News report.
No, this is not an article snatched from the pages of The Onion. This isn’t taken from an old Soviet cuisine mag. This isn’t the feature story in the March issue of Better Fascists And Gardens.
This is free-market America.
This is the land where liberals demand that government stay out of their business – and their bodies – when it comes to terminating a human life, but where private-sector restaurant owners are told by the government what oils they can cook with and how they can season their food.
The sad (and frightening) thing is: This all makes perfect sense to the modern liberal. None of this seems contradictory or conflicted. None of this seems out of order or unusual. This is all for our own good.
Personally, I can’t help but wonder why there is so much lollygagging going on. Why not leapfrog over the baby steps and take this proposed ban on salt to its natural conclusion?
Why not just ban food from restaurants?
Considering how catostrophic it would be for the restaurant industry in New York, it makes perfect sense.
Better yet, why not introduce a bill that bans death altogether?
That’ll put an end to all of this mamby-pamby health-related legislation.
That such thinking, which would have seemed inconceivable even fifteen years ago, could lead to the introduction of legislation as absurd as this reveals two absolute truths. One, that freedom is easily eroded incrementally over the course of time, in the name of “good.”
And two, human beings unchecked don’t know when to stop.
That’s about as good a definition of liberalism as there is.
How long will it be before the Supreme Court declares salt a poisonous mineral?
Posted in Health is the New Morality, Liberalism, Nanny State, New York City | Tagged: Felix Ortiz, Mike Bloomberg, Nanny State, New York City, New York State legislature, War on Salt | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on March 1, 2010
I don’t doubt for a moment that billionaire George Soros is feeling a touch unsatisfied with the first thirteen months of the Messianic Age.
It hasn’t exactly been fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies.
For Soros – and other lefties – it’s been more like intestinal polyps and impacted molars.
For one, the banks were never nationalized. Soros desperately wanted it to happen.
Second, America never “unified” under the new boy Socialist king the way many had envisioned. Despite Bam’s wish to be the “great uniter,” it never materialized.
That’s because the “rest of us” – the thinking class – never bought into it.
And thank God for that.
The word “unity,” in a political context, is only a gimmick.
It is the most disingenuous word in politics.
What Soros really means is that more people didn’t fall in line with Obama’s liberal agenda. That’s really what “unity” means when a candidate says it, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from – getting everyone to think like he or she.
Personally, I couldn’t care less about “unity.” I’m a “clarity” guy.
Of course, America’s “disunity” is not really the fault of President Obama or his widely unpopular agenda, accoring to Soros. Yes, it take two to play pinochle, but it’s really the rest of us that are to blame.
“He wanted to be the great uniter and he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring it together. But the other side has absolutely no incentive to do it. So it takes two to tango. So that approach has failed.”
I have more of an incentive to lick my fingers after manually cleaning out the bathtub drain than “unite” in the lobby of Club Marxist.
It is no secret that most of the country – a significant majority – does not buy into the Obamacratic vision of nanny-statism and intrusive government.
But, like Howard Dean, he’s making the barren-brained mistake of thinking that what has happened in places like New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts – namely the ass-kicking of failed big-government liberals – is a sign from the electorate that those in power are not being liberal enough.
But Obama “got the message” when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, as Ted Kennedy’s successor, Soros said.
“I hope that, actually, now, he’s [Obama’s] taking the health care back to Congress and overcoming the filibuster — the 60 percent vote requirement,” Soros said. “I think that’s the right reaction. So he’s sort of taking a tough stance. And that may be the turning point. It depends on how he follows it up.”
It makes perfect sense.
The people of bluer-than-blue Massachusetts – liberalism’s uterus – were so behind the proposed government take over of 17% of the American economy that they elected someone who ran almost exclusively on being the “41st Republican,” namely Scott Brown.
Maybe the electorate was angry – furious, even – that Obama hadn’t proposed more of the economy being sucked up by the government.
Maybe this entire trend of toppling Democrats is America’s way of saying that they are sick of the free market, and if liberals can’t get the job done, they’re willing to punish America with a little infusion of liberty from the right.
At least Obama saved America from a deep recession or depression.
Seven billion jobs saved or created, I think the count is up to, as of this morning.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats, politics | Tagged: "unsatisfied", bipartisanship, George Soros, great unifier, Obama, post-partisan, Soros unsatisfied with Obama, unity | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2010
Congressman Anthony Weiner
I live in New York, so I am well acquainted with the bellicose sniveling of Congressman Anthony Weiner. If ever there was a quintessential poster child for a New York Democrat, Mr. Weiner is it. To Weiner, the self-sufficient among us are involuntarily obligated to carry the load for everyone else through incentive-raping taxes and government-led smackdowns of free enterprise. Corporations, big businesses, wealthy people and, of course, conservatives are to blame for everything wrong in society and need to be roundly punished for whatever successes they’ve amassed. After all, achievement is largely a matter of luck, inheritance, and successful cheating, right?
On the floor of the House of Representatives, pulling out his “corporations are evil” card, Weiner called Republicans a “wholly owned subsidiary” of the insurance companies. Granted, it wasn’t a particularly intelligent or original thought – he is a liberal’s liberal, after all – but because he happens to be quite good at class warfare rhetoric, I thought it was worthy of mentioning.
After some objections, Weiner decided to revise his comments by being less general in his assertions, saying that every Republican he had ever met is wholly owned by the insurance companies.
Gee, that was better.
That Weiner and all Democrats are wholly owned by the teacher and labor unions is probably largely irrelevant.
That Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by enviro-fascists, pro-abortionists, the race-baiting left and the New York Times probably means nothing.
And despite the fact that the cost of a college education has gone through the stratosphere in recent years – and no one on the left seems to be complaining about the out-of-control education industry – the fact that Weiner and the Democrats are wholly owned by big education probably should be overlooked.
Just ignore the man behind the curtain.
“Wholly owned by the insurance companies”?
In what way?
What in the world in Weiner talking about?
I honestly believe that liberals do not know what it is they’re actually saying. They’re like Slinkies. They just reflexively move along – alone or in pairs – until they can’t anymore.
I know this is a difficult point for leftocrats to comprehend, but I’ll try to write in small letters …. Dems like Weiner can blame the Republicans all they like, but up until a short time ago, it was the Democrat Party that had super majorities on both houses of congress. They should have been able to pass through a peptic ulcer with that kind of power. They blew it – not the GOP.
That the Dems couldn’t get anything passed for President Obama’s salivating pen has nothing – repeat nothing – to do with Republican dissent.
Not a damn thing.
Other than Republicans are on the right side of the issue, of course.
Posted in health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: "wholly owned", Anthony Weiner, Democrats, health care bill, health care reform, Insurance Companies, leftist, Liberalism, Republicans | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2010
The approach here is akin to pushing down on the mound of overflowing garbage in the kitchen trash can to avoid having to take it out. With only slight manipulation, everything suddenly looks better … even though nothing has changed. Of course, that’s all that matters to today’s liberal: how things look.
Think of it as typical Democrat strategizing.
Keep this in mind as you read about the White House’s latest plan of action.
Earlier today, Salem Radio Network (SRN) News reported the following:
RICH THOMASON, ANCHOR: And with the President’s poll numbers down, and his agenda in trouble, the White House is fine tuning its media strategy.
GREG KLUSTON, REPORTER: White House aides say they’re adopting a more aggressive, more streamlined approach to getting out the President’s message. The strategy includes a faster, more direct response to criticism, and more events at which the President speaks directly to the public without the filter of the news media, such as town hall meetings and online discussions.
This is the same thinking that gives birth to the notion that if the word “cripple” is replaced with the phrase “physically challenged,” the reality somehow changes.
There are a multitude of reasons to fall over in fits of uncontrollable laughter over this story.
Leave it to leftists to once again believe that the rejection of liberal ideas is rooted in the fact that they’re either not getting their message out adequately, or a vast right-wing conspiracy is at play, diabolically deflecting the truth from the citizenry.
Here’s a little reality check: the President’s poll numbers are down – some would say subterranean – precisely because his message is coming through loud and clear to the American people.
Naturally, Barack Obama’s response to his failing presidency is to get more aggressive – to do more to get his Leftopia agenda out there to the people.
That, in and of itself, is mind boggling.
How such a thing could be physically possible is beyond human comprehension. This president is so overexposed – except, of course, when terrorists try to blow up airplanes in Detroit – that it is inconceivable he could actually become more aggressive.
God help us all if he does.
This is the man who once appeared on five Sunday shows on the same day to hawk his Marxist visions. This is the man who could single-handedly neutralize the national debt if he had a dollar for every time he used the word “I” and “me” in any given speech – including his now infamous commentary on the fall of the Berlin Wall last November, which he had nothing to do with, but managed to make himself the focal point of.
Keep in mind that the President has specified that he will do so without the “filter” of the news media diluting his message of hope and change. He’s going to win back the love he’s lost by circumventing the traitorous fourth estate and return to his community organizing roots (i.e., staying in full campaign mode).
The news media, liberal to their core, clearly are not be distributing the Obamacrat Kool-Aid packets effectively enough for Bam’s liking. They’ve obviously stumbled in his eyes. They’ve dropped the ball. Thus, he’s decided to sidestep them so that his message can really be heard – finally. To him, it’s been thirteen months of distortions, obstructionism and half-truths. How can he possibly get anything done if he can’t get his message out there?
He will be putting on his campaign trail shoes in the hopes of coming back down off the cross to dazzle the masses. It’ll be done through town hall meetings – which apparently are great vehicles for getting one’s message across (providing they’re leftist messages), unlike those blasted Tea Party types who are only interested in causing trouble – and online discussions.
And speaking of “online,” perhaps the White House might try a revamped version of their failed tattletale website from last year.
Remember that one? When the President asked citizens to snitch on other citizens who might have had dissenting opinions about ObamaCare?
If at first you don’t succeed …
Does the President realize how all of this sounds? Does he realize he is sticking a knife into the guts of the very saliva-dripping lapdogs who made him the Messiah he truly believes he is?
Again, in the eyes of Obamacrats, leftist policies are not the problem with the American people; it’s a noncompliant, unfair news media bending and twisting the realities of what the president is trying to do, coupled with a battalion of powerful right-wing, negro-haters who will obfuscate the truth to keep Obama from enjoying any successes whatsoever.
Dems are almost adorable when they try to do stuff.
Yeah, this’ll work fine.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Media, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats | Tagged: aggressive White House, Barack Obama, low favorability, low poll numbers, more aggressive Obama, new approach | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 16, 2010
Professor Phil Jones
It’s only the latest kerplunk in a bucket filled with what is already the foulest-smelling lie one could dream up – a collection of untruths that should have long ago put an end to the biggest sham of the last half century, if not longer.
This matters … or it should matter.
That is, it should matter to the American mainstream media, because by any objective standard, this is big news. In fact, the entire arc of this continually unfolding and unraveling lie is tremendously big news.
They seem to understand that in Great Britain.
Their media is all over this.
It’s a big story because this preposterous hoax has infiltrated, poisoned and redefined all conventional wisdom on the matter to the point that to deny it is to deny the Holocaust. It’s a big story because of the unprecedented, industry-crippling, economy-altering changes being proposed to combat it in almost every industrialized country of the world.
It’s a war that needs not be fought because the enemy doesn’t exist.
It’s a fairy tale.
It is the Granddaddy of all flimflams … and it just keeps getting better.
Unfortunately – and predictably – the New York Times, Washington Post and alphabet channels all but ignored the original “ClimateGate” scandal when it broke late last year. It was as damaging as anything could have been to the pseudo-scientific, agenda-driven, enviro-fascist movement that has continued to claim that human beings are ruining the globe by their very existence.
Most ironic is that all of the evidence – yes, genuine evidence – suggests that the man-made global warming crisis is nothing but a hyper-hysterical cartoon, promulgated and promoted by the most unscientific methods, ubiquitous with manipulated (or made-up) data and anecdotal jabber… all for the sake of pursuing a leftist, anti-capitalist agenda.
It has all but been ignored by the American media.
Where is Dateline NBC?
Where is 20/20?
Mark Landsbaum from the Orange County Register – not 60 Minutes – has a devastatingly comprehensive article enumerating the most outstanding of these global warming frauds – a sensational list of the various climate change “-gates“:
ClimateGate, ChinaGate, HimalayaGate, SternGate, PeerReviewGate, RissiaGate, IceGate, and many others.
As he points out: The Himalayan glaciers will not be gone in twenty-five years, as claimed by the doomsdayers. The Amazon rainforests will not be wiped out due to global warming, as professed by the enviro-nutbags. The exclusion of data from cold climate weather stations in Russia has resulted in nearly a half-degree’s shift upward in average temperatures. The fact that nearly 4,500 surface-temperature weather stations in the United States were taken offline between 1970 and 1990 – most of which existed in colder regions – has also skewed averages upward.
There’s much more.
Jonathan Petre from the UK Mail Online writes:
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
If anything bears repeating, it’s this.
The Maharishi of the manmade global warming farce – the man at the epicenter of the ClimateGate scandal – the high-lord and master of the climate-change lie, Professor Phil Jones, has admitted that for the last decade-and-a-half there has been no global warming.
He has conceded that the medieval world – free of fossil-fuel burning SUVs, disposable diapers, CFCs, fireplaces and big screen televisions – may have actually been warmer than it is today.
He doesn’t say …
I may be going out on a limb here – a please feel free to correct me if I’m wrong – but the end of the Ice Age would suggest, to even a layperson as myself, that there had to be some kind of pre-Industrial Revolution warming taking place without the benefit of jet planes and coal burning. After all, that was a lot of ice.
Still, I don’t exactly see a problem for Professor Jones. True, much of the data used to formulate the global warming fraud has been lost, but he’s a clever man.
He can always make up some more.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: climate change, Climategate, enviro-fascist, Global Warming, hoax, Manmade global warming, myth of global warming, Phil Jones | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 8, 2010
City Hall, Chicago
Only those on the left could ever come up with such towering propositions as granting terrorists the rights of citizenship, making public restrooms and college campus dorms co-ed, and offering needles to junkies at taxpayer expense.
You’d have to be a liberal to ever fashion such absurdities and consider them reasonable.
Enviro-fascists, one of leftism’s more colorful sub-groups, want – nay, demand – we clean ourselves with uncomfortable, xerox-paper smooth, sensitive-skin scraping bathroom tissue (because it’s better for the earth); they insist we install mercury-filled squiggly light bulbs in our homes in favor of planet-killing incandescent bulbs; they say we must re-use those flimsy plastic shopping bags when we go marketing because when thrown away, they strangle wildlife; they would also have us believe that we can control the weather by making environmentally-friendly “lifestyle changes.”
Inside Chicago’s City Hall, yet another one of these glorious, earth-saving, enviro-chummy, go-green, leftist ideas has met with some unintended – yet obvious and easily foreseeable – consequences.
To be frank, it stinks at City Hall. Words like repulsive, repugnant, putrid and rank come to mind.
It smells like liberal spirit.
It smells like – well, urine.
Two words: waterless urinals.
Fran Speilman from the Chicago Sun-Times writes:
There’s been a stench coming from the second floor of City Hall — and it has nothing to do with the steady stream of Chicago aldermen convicted on corruption charges.
Waterless urinals installed to promote water conservation in the public men’s room outside the City Council chambers have turned into a stinky mess. The odor got so bad that the “green” urinals are now being ripped out and replaced with the old-fashioned kind at a cost City Hall has refused to disclose.
The men’s room is now closed while the marble wall is “removed” and new urinals are installed.
Rumor has it, because human exertion causes an increase in breathing – which means an increase in CO2 – City Hall is planning on doing away with all emergency exit staircases. In the event of an emergency, such as a fire, pillows will be placed on the ground underneath windows to accommodate escapees.
It makes good environmental sense.
Since the air will already be polluted from the smoke of a potential fire, the obligation of humans, as stewards of our fragile planet, to cut back on any additional atmospheric poisons is obvious.
In short, if people aren’t hustling down staircases, they cannot needlessly contribute to egregious increases in greenhouse gas levels.
You can almost hear Mother Earth sigh with relief.
Incidentally, the “flushless toilet” experiment is being given a few more months.
In other news, another foot of global warming is expected to fall here in New York City on Tuesday night,
Posted in leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: Chicago City Hall, leftism, Liberalism, waterless urinals | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2010
Well, that didn’t take long.
I expected some sort of grace period. I thought there would, at least, be a reasonable amount of time allowed to pass before the President’s second face emerged. I would have guessed that Obamacrats would let the freshness of the President’s State of the Union words blur into our collective memories before diving back into the “politics as usual” pool.
That’ll teach me to have expectations.
Not twenty-four hours after President Obama castigated lobbyists in his State of the Union performance, saying that Washington needed to put an end to their “outsized influence,” guess who’s being invited into the Messianic inner circle with open arms?
Bob Cusak at The Hill writes:
A day after bashing lobbyists, President Barack Obama’s administration has invited K Street insiders to join private briefings on a range of topics addressed in Wednesday’s State of the Union. The Treasury Department on Thursday morning invited selected individuals to “a series of conference calls with senior Obama administration officials to discuss key aspects of the State of the Union address.”
The invitation, which went to a variety of stakeholders, was sent by Fred Baldassaro, a senior adviser at the Treasury Department’s Office of Business Affairs and Public Liaison.
The invitation stated, “The White House is encouraging you to participate in these calls and will have a question and answer session at the end of each call. As a reminder, these calls are not intended for press purposes.”
Another call … is on government reform and transparency.
The briefing on “government reform and transparency,” which was scheduled to happen earlier today, was not open to the public.
Frankly, lobbyists don’t concern me any more or any less than any other cog in the wheel of the Washington political contraption. It’s reality. Lobbyists serve their purpose as well as their masters. It is what it is. If I had a dollar for every time a politician was going to kick lobbyists to the curb, or do away with the “special interests,” I could pay off the deficit myself and have enough left over to buy waffles where the Obamas shop.
There is, however, the reality that this President is so far out of league and so out of touch – showing so much contempt for the American people and their ability to see right through him – that he absolutely has no concept of how to appear like he actually means what he says. Despite his raging metrosexuality, he would make a horrible woman because he simply hasn’t the ability to fake it. From saying his administration was lobbyist-free (when it provably wasn’t), to saying that the heavy influence of lobbyists on Washington politics would be a thing of the past – which is like saying the heavy influence of the sun on earth life would be a thing of the past – Barack Obama continues to act like he’s still halfway through his probationary period as a tour guide at Universal.
Why go through all the trouble of blasting lobbyists if you’re going to turn around and invite them to closed door meetings that the public is obviously going to find out about?
If, indeed, these “briefings” are taking place to let the K-Street crowd know that things are going to be different from now on in Washington – which they aren’t – why couldn’t the President have said something during his State of the Union like, “…And beginning tomorrow, the “outsized influence” of these lobbysists will come to an end as I usher in a new era of transparency with a series of briefings …”
He certainly could have handled it better – if not looking like a moonbat was on his docket.
And if these calls are not to serve the purpose of putting lobbyists in their place – and I don’t think there is an organism on the planet who believes that’s the case – then everything that came out of his mouth on the entire subject is a lie.
Not that it would surprise anyone.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: Barack Obama, lobbyists, State of the Union Address, two-faced Obama | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2010
I’m actually surprised that some inventive young Obamacrat didn’t try to devise a way to put together a bailout package for Air America. I can’t help but wonder why someone from the “hope and change” wing of Obama’s Big-Box-O-Government didn’t just save or create jobs at the ever-struggling lib network using some of that stimulus money. After all, the spendulous package has already saved or created billions and billions of jobs in all fifty-eight states. What’s one more company?
Not that Air America ever had too many listeners who weren’t bedridden paraplegics without the ability to get up and change the channel, or dope-deadened change-the-world types who couldn’t discern bad radio from Cheese Whiz, but the post Al Franken/Rachel Maddow era took the scarcely patronized liberal radio network from rock bottom to catastrophically subterranean.
The death of Air America – like the demise of Pauly Shore or the release of Godfather Part III – is leaving the nation with more questions than answers, like: “Does this shirt make me look fat?” and “Did I leave the light on downstairs?”
From Fox News:
Air America Radio, a progressive radio network that once aired commentary from Al Franken and Rachel Maddow, said Thursday it is shutting down immediately.
The company founded in April 2004 said it ceased airing new programs Thursday afternoon and will soon file to be liquidated under Chapter 7 bankruptcy. It began broadcasting reruns of programs and would end those as well Monday night.
Air America said 10 consecutive quarters of declining ad revenue and the difficulty of making money on the Internet contributed to its financial woes.
“The very difficult economic environment has had a significant impact on Air America’s business. This past year has seen a `perfect storm’ in the media industry generally,” the company said in a statement on its Web site.
The network had some 100 radio outlets nationwide.
Franken, a Democrat, hosted his own show from 2004 to 2007 before going on to become a U.S. senator from Minnesota last year after a close election. Maddow went on to host her own TV show on MSNBC.
The “difficult economic environment,” oddly enough, seems to have been less of a problem – if any at all – for conservative talk radio. In fact, many right-minded raconteurs have actually thrived while the “perfect storm” took its toll elsewhere in media.
And to be perfectly honest, who needs a radio network to reinforce leftist values when there are already newspapers, television, music, motion pictures, academia and Manhattan to drive the point home?
Rest in pieces, Air America.
Oh, somewhere in this great big world, the sun is shining bright,
Radios are playing somewhere with talkers from the right,
And somewhere folks are listening, and at home, in cars, in parks;
But there is no joy in Leftville — Air America has gone dark.
Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Talk-Radio | Tagged: Air America, Al Franken, bankrupt, liberal radio, Rachel Maddow | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
Actually, Barack Obama is very transparent. There’s really nothing cryptic or mysterious about him – except maybe his college transcripts. He is a floundering leftist without a single intelligible plan (other than punishing achievement and the free market), without a single accomplishment to speak of, and void of any sense of what it means to be Commander-In-Chief.
And those are his strengths.
His first year in office has been a case study in impotence and infirmity. Still, he is driven by an enormously overpowering, yet completely translucent, conceit. He’s grossly misread the American people, taking them for fools, assuming that his mere existence would be more than enough to push through his radical leftist agenda. But other than catapulting America’s deficits to unseen levels, he has nothing to show for his first year other than his flair for downplaying the importance of national security, and a record-setting number of rounds of golf.
President Obama knows that his big and bold plans for transforming America aren’t popular. He sees growing dissatisfaction and anger spreading across the country. But part of him truly cannot believe that his plummeting poll numbers have anything to do with him specifically. He is convinced the American people simply don’t grasp the reality of the situation (as he sees it), namely that he inherited so many catastrophic problems from his predecessor – perhaps the worst any President has ever inherited at anytime in history – that even his messianic skills aren’t sufficient to the task. Thus, he has abandoned his pie-in-the-sky, messianic aspirations (for now) and has fallen back into a posture of predictable, transparent desperation.
When all else fails, pull out the old standby: the anti-capitalist card.
Let’s get populist. Let’s go after greed:
Mike Allen at the Politico writes:
Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”. At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be “fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives.”
In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”
I hate to use a hackneyed phrase, but you cannot make this stuff up. Deficits have never been higher. Unemployment has gotten worse under this President. The President is on a course to spend this nation into near financial oblivion for generations to come – and wants to add to it with his proposed government takeover of health care – and yet, he whines and cries about Wall Street taking the money and running?
What? Is he serious?
Who takes more money out of the pockets of Americans than the federal government?
Yes, Americans want their money back – but not back in the hands of the unaccountable, irresponsible, expansion-happy feds. How dare Barack Obama talk about an era of “greed and irresponsibility” when it is our government, under Bam, spending and spending unheard of amounts of money, putting future generations on the hook.
Can anything be more transparent than big government liberalism and the games leftists play?
Sure, blame Wall Street. It’ll strike an emotional chord with those who have been raised to be class warriors – those weaned on modern liberalism’s teet. After all, it sounds good to go after big executives, CEOs, rich people and other selfish pinchfists. Go ahead and blame corporate America. It sounds so right to slam big companies. They don’t care about the “little guy.” They only care about fattening up their highly-paid cats at the common man’s expense. Why not blame greed itself? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Especially when a bend-over-and-grab-the-ankles-for-the-big-unions President says it.
At the rally for (candidate for Massachusetts Senator, Martha) Coakley, (President Obama) added: “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”
Good God, Mr. President, is that really the best you’ve got?
“Bankers have plenty?”
What is he? In an eighth grade debating class?
Blame money, capitalism, free markets, corporations, Wall Street or George W. Bush all you want, Bammy; you are the reason the Democrats are dissolving like a graham cracker in a bowl of milk … and the reason the next Senator from the State of Massachusetts will be the Republican, Scott Brown.
You’re damn right today’s election in Massachusetts is a referendum on this administration.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, greed, Obama transparency, Obama's new fee on big banks, Wall Street | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010
Here’s a phrase I haven’t heard in a long time: Doomsday Clock.
Next to chia pets, seasons nine through twenty-one of The Simpsons, anything with Leonardo Dicaprio in it, and purple white-out, there is hardly anything more pointless to human existence than the Doomsday Clock. (Maybe Keith Olbermann).
Talk about a blast from the unwanted past.
I honestly haven’t thought about the Doomsday Clock for years. I had no idea it still existed.
When I read this story, it was like coming across a gas station with leaded gas, or discovering that my Crazy Uncle Hank with the bad breath and perpetually unzipped fly was still alive even though I thought he was crushed by a backhoe in 1986.
My impression was that attention on the Doomsday Clock long ago went the way of solid state televisions and metal Snack-Pack cans. The fact that anyone – even the most hysterical among us – would place any stock in, let alone care about, such a ridiculous, Chicken-little contraption is beyond pathetic. Even back in the day, when Ronald Reagan was supposed to lead all of humanity into a nuclear winter, I felt the whole concept of a Doomsday Clock was too stupid for words.
However, it not only still exists, it’s about to make a move.
The world waits.
From the Mail Online:
The minute hand of the famous Doomsday Clock will be moved at 3pm tomorrow afternoon, for the first time in two years. The timepiece in New York conveys how close humanity is to catastrophic destruction, which is represented by midnight.
It was created by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists in 1947, two years after the U.S dropped the first atomic bombs on Japan in World War II. It was originally set at seven minutes to midnight. The clock has been altered 18 times since then by the Bulletin’s scientific board. This now includes Professor Stephen Hawking and 18 other Nobel laureates. The latest recorded time was two minutes to midnight in 1953 as the Cold War heated up between the U.S and Soviet Union.
In 2007 it was wound on to five minutes to midnight, to reflect the failure to solve problems posed by nuclear weapons.
Today the public can watch the change for the first time via a live web feed. A spokesman said: ‘Factors influencing the latest Doomsday Clock change include international negotiations on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, expansion of civilian nuclear power, the possibilities of nuclear terrorism, and climate change.
Just last month environmentalists criticised the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, after leaders failed to reach any real consensus.
I can’t help but ponder … if the hands actually do strike midnight – which means “catastrophic destruction” – does that mean that the destruction has already happened, or that it is imminent?
If it’s already happened, then who would be there to actually turn the hands? And who would be paying attention at that point anyway? And if it’s imminent, what can humanity do about it anyway? After all, we’re talking catastrophic destruction here.
The way I see it … the expansion of civilian nuclear power is a good thing; and with global temperatures falling, which will, in turn, afford polar bears more breakaway blocks of ice to sit on, that ought to set the Doomsday Clock to more like 10:30 or so, wouldn’t you think? And what about President Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize? The clock ought to read supper time after that one.
Incidentally, nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists are always a major concern and something to be taken very seriously. The only reason they would be more of a threat today than, say, a couple of years ago, is that the President of the United States is less interested in fighting the enemy and more focused on trying to make nice-nice with very bad people. In that respect, a few more years with Barack Obama at the helm could push the hands of the clock to a quarter past twelve.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Everything Else, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: Doomsday Clock, Doomsday hands set to move, five minutes to midnight, liberal hysteria | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
This is taken directly from the great Breitbart.tv website . It is the text of eight – count ‘em eight – different instances where the President of the United States said that negotiations on the health care bill would be televised for the entire nation to see. You recall, it was part of his promise of transparency, a new kind of relationahip and openness between the federal government and the citizens of the United States that would forever transform the presidency.
“..Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.” – CNN Debate, January 2008
“I would put my plan forward, and I would welcome input and say, ‘Here are my goals, reduce costs, increase quality, coverage for everybody. If you have better ideas, please present them.’ But these negotiations will be on C-Span. And so, the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” – San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2008
“I respect what the Clintons tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one really big mistake, and that is they took all their people, and all their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly. It’ll be on C-Span. It will be streaming over the Net. – Google Q and A, November 14, 2007
“We will have the negotiations televised on C-Span , so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Virginia Town Hall, August 28, 2008
“But here’s the thing … We’re going to do all these negotiations on C-Span, so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations.” – Ohio Town Hall, March 1, 2008
“Drug and insurance companies will have a seat at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every single chair. And we will have a public process for forming this plan. It’ll be televised on C-Span. I can’t guarantee it’ll be exciting, so not everybody’s going to be watching, but it will be transparent and accountable to the American people.” – Keene Sentinel, November 27, 2007
“So, the drug and the insurance companies who are still going to have a lot of power in Washington, and are still going to try and block reforms from taking place … so that’s why I’ve said, for example, I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-Span.” – St. Petersberg Times, May 2008
“So I put forward my plan, but what I’ll say is, look, if you have better ideas, I’m happy to listen to them. But all of this will be done on C-Span, in front of the public.” – Indiana Town Hall, April 25, 2008
You can see the video from which these quotes are transcribed here.
I blame George W. Bush.
One blogger at Breitbat.tv wrote the following:
“… It’s time the government tightens down on all of this “freedom” that you neocons have been screaming about and puts some money and assets in the hands of the less fortunate in this country and around the world. The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country. We need healthcare NOW and if Obama has to use a little secrecy to get us there then that’s okay. He will do what is best for us in the long run. Some may not like it now, but we will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people…”
Take a moment and re-read two of those lines. When you do, you’ll have a handle on modern liberalism:
“We will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people.”
“The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country.”
No further comment necessary.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, C-Span, eight campaign lies, health care debate, health care negotiations, health care reform, Obamacare, PelosiCare, ReidCare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
Yesterday, the President of the United States once again blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba for boosting Al Qaeda recruitment.
It is a devastatingly idiotic contention that makes him – and this nation – look stupid and anemic.
At the risk of coming across as an aimless bomb thrower and smear merchant, I truly have to believe that Barack Obama and his senses are no longer on a first-name basis. Despite rumors to the contrary, his ability to dabble in coherence appears to be nonexistent, almost mythical.
I sincerely mean that.
To listen to him say anything anymore is both exasperating and frustrating. With each syllable that bounces out of his pie hole, he embarrasses himself and weakens my country. With the world watching – and with America’s enemies feeling as if they’ve been left the keys to daddy’s Porsche – Barack Obama continues to master the art of clueless charisma, showcasing his inability (or unwillingness) to grasp the real world, reprimanding his own country for the creation of terrorists elsewhere.
It’s not about the bad values or evil deeds of our enemies, because Lord knows if this country only gave in a little bit more, peace could actually become a reality.
No, it’s Gitmo’s fault – which translates into being George W. Bush’s fault – that the “underwear terrorist” was this close to carrying out his mission.
I assure you, I derive no great pleasure in saying that, as a Commander-in-Chief, Barack Obama has earned a photograph next to the enty for “mortifying” in the Encyclopedia Do-Nothinga.
It’s as if the realities of terrorism have been annoyances to Obama, drawing attention away from his real work, temporarily derailing his Messianic train, throwing a monkey wrench into his Messianic machine, messing up his great Messianic plan. Such inconveniences, such pests these terrorists are.
As soon as he started talking yesterday, the stomach juices started gurgling in anger. My left eye began to jump.
How on Earth can the President look at his teleprompter with a straight face and effectively bend over like the noodleheaded wartime leader he is, grabbing his ankles for the throat-cutters and suicide bombers of radical Islam, and make the imbecilic claim that Gitmo’s existence is a “recruiting tool?”
This is an explanation I, for one, would love to hear.
Terrorist A: “Hold on, Mohammed. They’re going to be closing that Guantanamo Bay prison.”
Terrorist B: “Praise Allah. Do you think I can get my money back on these pipes, nails and fertilizer?”
Why the hell do liberals think they have the ability to transcend the space-time continuum and make terrorists see the evil of their ways and repent?
Wasn’t the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia a “recruiting tool” as well, according to Osama Bin Ladin?
How did that withdrawal work out for us?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, Osama Bin Ladin issued a statement in which he specifically blamed the existence of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay for an increase in the number of recruits into the ranks of Al Qaeda. And let’s say that the Yemeni division of Al Qaeda came out with their own statement saying that because of Gitmo, they’re recruitment numbers are up eighty-seven percent in the last twelve months. And what if Al Jazeera hosted a round table of Al Qaeda terror cell representatives from sixteen nations, and among the resolutions agreed upon is one that says recruitment increases among aspiring terrorists are directly attributable to the existence of Guantanamo Bay? And what if a petition that read, “You are right, President Obama … Gitmo has been our greatest recruiting tool. Love, Al Qaeda” undersigned by twenty million terrorists were presented to the Commander-in-Chief, notarized and framed?
Even if all of those things actually happened – and even if Al Qaeda opened up a recruiting office in the heart of Times Square with posters all over the windows and doors saying, “Thank you, Gitmo!” – so what?
What difference should it make?
Does the United States now take its cues from the enemy?
Apparently so, because the sad reality is, the President of the United States is closing Gitmo because it agitates the terrorists.
And he is not kidding.
Welcome to “hope and change” national security.
what is with the big belt, Mrs. Obama?
One can only guess the Obamacratic response if, for instance, Al Qaeda claimed tomorrow that US battleships on the open seas are provoking them to murderous actions. Or that American aircraft carriers are making their otherwise disaffected males jump up to join the ranks of the terrorist class. What if they said they were angered because we don’t do enough in this country to make Ramadan more prominent? Or that MTV drives them to slaughter infidels? Will an emergency session of President Obama’s Cabinet be called to discuss “toning things down a bit” so we aren’t so provocative?
Does the United States now take into consideration that which may or may not offend those who are at war with her?
Seriously, since when does the President of the United States concern himself with the feelings, sensitivities and concerns of Al Qaeda? Since when does the President of the United States have the audacity to blame his own nation for the actions of those sworn to slaughter innocent Americans? Since when does this country acquiesce to the butchers who would slice the throats of our President’s daughters if given the chance?
Honestly, I don’t get it.
What happens once Gitmo closes? Does Al Qaeda finally calm down a bit? Like they did after American troops withdrew from Saudi Arabia?
And if Al Qaeda announced that NBA basketball caused recruitment to jump, would the President suspend play? If the terrorists said that Rachel Maddow was to blame for the boost in new recruits, would he move to have Rachel taken off the air? And what if Osama Bin Ladin said that Michelle Obama’s big black waist belts were to blame for Al Qaeda recruitment increases, would Bammy lay down the law and tell his wife she couldn’t wear them anymore?
On second thought …
One last question … if the closing of Guantanamo Bay was so critical to national security, as professed by Obamacrats across the board, shouldn’t it have been closed immediately?
As it stands now, it could be two years (or more) before it actually shuts down. That’s a long time to compromise the security of the country.
Posted in Afghanistan, Evil, Foreign Policy, Iran, Iraq, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Al Qaeda recruitment tool, Barack Obama, closing Guantanamo Bay, Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 3, 2010
It isn’t only the fishes in the deep blue sea who will be thrilled. It won’t only be the oaks and maples who will breathe a sigh of relief. And don’t think that power lines everywhere won’t be doing their electrified happy dance at hearing the news. The District of Columbia has decided that they’ve had enough of polluted rivers, besieged tree branches and inundated power lines. They’re even standing up for poor storm drains.
God bless America’s capital city. They’ve put a five cent tax on each plastic bag DC shoppers use when they go shopping.
The new tax went into effect on New Year’s Day.
From the great Breitbart website:
“I signed this law in July to cut down on the disposable bags that foul our waterways,” said Mayor Adrian Fenty in a statement last month, saying that one particularly urban waterway, the city’s Anacostia River, has been particularly befouled by the plastic shopping bags.
“Our research shows that plastic bags are a major component of the trash in the Anacostia River,” said Maureen McGowan, interim director of the city’s environment department.
“By taking disposable bags out of production and out of the waste stream, everyone who goes to the store can help keep the waters clean,” McGowan said.
And Fenty noted that part of the money collected will be spent toward cleanup of the Anacostia.
“We want everyone to know that you can save the river, and five cents, if you bring your own reusable bag to the store instead,” the mayor said.
To prepare for the change, the city government has distributed some 122,000 reusable shopping bags to elderly and low-income residents who complain that their limited spending power will be further hampered by the levy.
Of course, it only makes sense to have taxpayers pay for other people’s shopping bags.
But if the goal is to genuinely keep thsoe pesky plastic bags from destroying Mother Earth, how about this idea … why not have the store pay shoppers five cents for each plastic bag they bring back from previous shopping trips? After all, those plastic bags are, too, reusable, aren’t they? The store can then be given some sort of tax credit for helping to keep the planet safe from the plastic menace. I’d be willing to bet that kind of incentive would yield better results than the “tax our way to cleaner rivers” approach.
Oh wait … democrats … taxes … taking money out of people’s pockets … never mind.
Posted in Big Government, environmentalism, Liberalism, Taxes | Tagged: 5 cent plastic bag tax, five cent tax, plastic bag tax, Washington D.C. | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I can see it now … I can envision the Dancing Obamacrats explaining to the American people how this administration is proving that it is, indeed, the most open and transparent in this nation’s history. I can hear the leftist phlegm gurglers tell us how it is this President who has broken down the barriers that have separated the common citizen from the seats of power. This will be the most accountable administration ever, they told us. This will be the most open government we have ever seen, they said.
But is this what Barack Obama meant by a more open government?
Declassifying hundreds of millions of pages of Cold War-era documents? Reversing a national security decision made by George W. Bush? Figuring out how to keep more documents from being labeled “classified” in the future?
This is the transparency he spoke of?
The exposing of national secrets from other administrations?
From the Associated Press via CBS News:
President Barack Obama on Tuesday ordered the federal government to rethink how it protects the nation’s secrets, in a move that was expected to declassify more than 400 million pages of Cold War-era documents and curb the number of government records hidden from the public.
Among the changes is a requirement that every record be released eventually and that federal agencies review how and why they mark documents classified or deny the release of historical records. A National Declassification Center at the National Archives will be established to assist them and help clear a backlog of the Cold War records by Dec. 31, 2013.
Obama also reversed a decision by President George W. Bush that had allowed the intelligence community to block the release of a specific document, even if an interagency panel decided the information wouldn’t harm national security.
Advocates for a more open government are cautiously cheering the move.
In the spirit of openness, I suppose Mr. Obama’s college records will finally be made public at some point.
And so, the new era of open government and unprecedented accountability is upon us … Astronomical spending bills sped through Congress without scrutiny; Backroom deals, midnight votes and Christmas Eve rush jobs on unread, unposted legislation; Behind-closed-doors buy outs and pay offs … (feel free to add your own).
It’s good to know we’ve made it.
Pot, meet kettle.
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: accountable government, Barack Obama, Cold-War era documents, declassified documents, National Declassification Center, national secrets, open government | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009
I'm the President of the United States. See how I can bow?
If ever a President looked and sounded as detached, disconnected and disinterested in the events of the day as Barack Obama, I’m not aware of it. Jimmy Carter, for instance, never behaved as if the things he had to contend with were an annoyance, as Barack Obama does. He was simply an extraordinarily incompetent man who made appalling decisions. (And an anti-Semite to boot).
Bill Clinton, too, never made it seem like everything on his plate was as much of an inconvenience as Bammy does. While Slick Willie could charm the trousers off his frothing admirers, President Obama famously dismisses things in that eye-rolling, I’m-far-too-superior-for-this-kind-of-crap way that has become all too familiar. Obama always looks like he’d rather be talking about himself or nibbling on a waffle than tending to the real business of America.
For example, it was quite nice of the President to find the time, before hitting the links, to denounce the recent violence in Iran. For that, he gets a “credit where credit is due” sticker for his notebook. But he looked as if he had a thumbtack poking him in the roof of his mouth, or that he was wearing an over-starched pair of shorts. His apathy – body language, tone and overall demeanor – was as conspicuous as a piece of breakfast potato caught in Michael Moore’s beard. He didn’t even bother to wear a tie, looking as if he hastily grabbed the shirt Michelle had thrown over the top of the chair before he hit the podium.
Two days ago, in his initial statement after the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack, Barack Obama was as weak and pathetic as he has been at any time during his presidency. His response was, to say the least, frail and bungled; and in the aftermath of a terrorist attack that was essentially a success until the very last moment, seeing and hearing the leader of the free world sound as if the keystone cops wrote his remarks was feebleness at its finest. Within a half-hour of saying how “we will not rest until we find all who were involved and hold them accountable,” he was teeing off at the Luana Hills Country Club.
Obama called the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack an “isolated incident.” His Homeland Security Chief said the “system worked.” Not once in his response did the President have the courage to identify radical Islam as the enemy. Never did the President use the word “terrorist.” Never did he summon the strength or show the necessary leadership in defining the evil that threatens America, as Ronald Reagan did when he called the “evil empire” exactly what it was.
These things matter.
It is simply not possible to develop a strategy against the enemy if one is not willing to identify it and understand it.
Oh yeah … yesterday, the President tried again, making another statement regarding the terror plot. Call it, “take two.” It was better than his first performance, but nothing more than a slice of “too little, too late.”
Leadership, thy name is Obama.
William McGurn, in a column published in the Wall Street Journal yesterday, called “Obama Puts the Dis in Dissonance,” writes:
Here’s a timely New Year’s resolution the president might do well to deliver to his National Security Council: “When it comes to nasty regimes that brutalize their people, we will never again forget that the most powerful weapon in a president’s arsenal is a White House photo-op.”
The December headlines remind us that we have no shortage of these nasty regimes. In China, the government sentences Liu Xiaobo to 11 years in prison for writing a letter calling for legal and political reforms. In Iran, security forces fire on citizens marching in the streets. In Cuba, pro-government goons intimidate a group of wives, mothers and sisters of jailed dissidents—with President Raul Castro characterizing these bullies as “people willing to protect, at any price, the conquests of the revolution.”
In all these cases, the cry goes up: Where is the president of the United States?
For a man whose whole appeal has been wrapped in powerful imagery, President Obama appears strikingly obtuse about the symbolism of his own actions … With every statement not backed up by action, with every refusal to meet a leader such as the Dalai Lama, with every handshake for a Chavez, Mr. Obama is defining himself to foreign leaders who are sizing him up and have only one question in mind: How much can we get away with?
All of that overseas apologizing for America has had an effect. Each and every bow to a foreign head of state (e.g., the King of Saudi Arabia and the Emperor of Japan) has had an impact. All of that coddling of America’s enemies does matter. All of the nose-thumbing at friends and allies does make a difference.
The world does pay attention.
These are the snapshots of Obama’s first year that will be forever burned in the brains of people across the globe, friends and enemies alike.
Posted in Foreign Policy, Islam, leftism, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: attempted terrorist attack, Barack Obama, Northwest Flight 253, terrorism, weak foreign policy, weak presidency, William McGurn | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 24, 2009
When Harry met Nancy
The function of a journalist long ago metastasized from being one that reports what is happening in as objective a manner as possible to one who fancies himself (or herself) a kind of modern day crusader, desirous of righting the wrongs around them, revealing injustices, and saving the planet from second-hand smoke, greenhouse gases, God, and conservatives (quite possibly in that order).
Interesting is how the glossy veneer of the mainstream media’s troubling charade continues to remain uncompromised – amongst themselves. Their facade of impartiality is still foisted onto the American people daily, but because they exist primarily within their own forest, they almost always miss the trees. They distinguish themselves as straight down the middle, detached from affiliation, objective purveyors of whatever they deem to be news, ready to involuntary activate the “neutral” switch when the situation calls for it. (Recall the famous line attributed to theater critic Pauline Kael in 1972 after Richard Nixon’s landslide victory: “How could Nixon have won? I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” Whether the quote is apocryphal or not is irrelevant, because the sentiment, as it pertains to the relationship between the main stream media and the rest of the country, is spot on). Media bias is not self-evident primarily because the mainstreamers find themselves in a fraternity that is overwhelmingly liberal (i.e., normal).
The concept of mainstream media objectivity is certainly pleasant enough – much like calorie-free milk chocolate or world peace – but not very realistic.
Some can adhere to it.
Think of how the mainstream media would be covering this wham-bam-thank-you-ma’am health bill that passed the Senate earlier today if Republicans were in charge. Try and imagine the level of outrage and indignation that would be leveled at GOPers had a bunch of sweetheart deals been brokered for Republican pet projects in order to get this unread, unreviewed, two-thousand page legislative atrocity passed. How many times do you think the word “tyranny” would have been tossed about by the punditocracy? How often would the American people be hearing about “the least transparent administration in history” or the “cloak and dagger” way the President is running his ship? Would the media stand for it? Or bend over for it?
Now that reconcilliation is next on the docket, how, pray tell, would the media handle a not too far-fetched scenario being suggested by John Fund of the Wall Street Journal, where the tag-team tandem of Pelosi and Reid all but thumb their noses at the process of trying to reconcile the House and Senate versions of the bill in conference, sidestepping protocol, tradition and accountability? How would the mainstream media report on GOP attempts to breach every code of conduct, foregoing the normal process of coming up with a compromise between the two houses, so that a bill could be rushed through to passage without the opportunity for the American people to know what’s in it?
John Fund of the Wall Street Journal writes:
Look for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to try to circumvent the traditional conference committee process by which the different versions of health care reform passed by each house will be reconciled. If so, it will be the latest example of violating principles of transparency and accountability in the single-minded pursuit of legislative victory.
Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi would love to come up with a way to bash heads in private and skip any public discussion that further reveals just how incoherent and unworkable both the bills are. Luckily, there is a subterfuge readily available that wouldn’t require the House to swallow the Senate’s bill unchanged but also ducks the traditional give-and-take of the conference committee.
When Democrats took over Congress in 2007, they increasingly did not send bills through the regular conference process. “We have to defer to the bigger picture,” explained Rep. Henry Waxman of California. So the children’s health insurance bill passed by the House that year was largely dumped in favor of the Senate’s version. House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel and other Democrats complained the House had been “cut off at the knees” but ultimately supported the bill. Legislation on lobbying reform and the 2007 energy bill were handled the same way — without appointing an actual conference.
Rather than appoint members to a public conference committee, those measures were “ping-ponged” — i.e. changes to reconcile the two versions were transmitted by messenger between the two houses as the final product was crafted behind closed doors solely by the leadership. Many Democrats grumbled at the secrecy. “We need to get back to the point where we use conference committees . . . and have serious dialogue,” said Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama at the time.
But serious dialogue isn’t what Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid are interested in right now. Look for the traditional conference committee to be replaced by a “ping-pong” game in which health care is finalized behind closed doors with little public scrutiny before the bill is rushed to the floor of each chamber for a final vote.
Now that the Democrats have got their Senate bill passed, just in time for turkey and mistletoe, be prepared for a cavalcade of lies about how “the American people want this change,” and “Last November, the American people chose to move in a new direction,” and whatever else they’ll say to stir the stomach acids of a bamboozled American public. Brace yourself for a whole lot of nauseating “blah, blah, blah” and gut-churning “yada, yada, yada.” Expect to hear the word “historic” a few thousand times, and waist-deep-in-the-fertilizer deceptions about how the deficit will actually be lowered thanks to the eventual passage of this disastrous bill into law. Get ready for dancing Democrats to find their way to every camera within spitting distance, sporting that look of sweet victory, claiming that the American people are the real winners. (Barf bag manufacturers might make a killing over the next few days).
It will be as disgusting a display as one could imagine – donkey faces all aglow in the fleeting hours before Christmas as they move that much closer to grabbing 16% of the American economy and crushing our liberties.
Merry Christmas, indeed.
There isn’t a device in all the world capable of measuring how utterly unfathomable and unAmerican Congress’ actions have been up to this point in getting this bill passed.
It is stunning.
The most transparent administration in history?
Posted in Big Government, Harry Reid, health care, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: 60-39, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, RediCare, Senate health care bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 23, 2009
Building off my piece earlier today “Sweetheart Dealin’ Frauds” is the story of the Democrat shoot-down of Senator Mike Johanns – the other Senator from Nebraska. Yesterday, Senator Johanns asked that the Senate “strike the special carve-outs from the Senate health care bill” (i.e., get rid of the sweetheart deals).
There was a higher probability of seeing Hillary Clinton in the Penny’s catalogue modeling the latest in thong wear.
Nothing moves faster than Democrat lips saying “no” when their bribes comes under threat from pork smashers.
Said Senator Johanns:
There should be no special deals, no carve-outs for anyone in this health care bill; not for states, not for insurance companies, not for individual senators.
All of the special deals should be removed. If the bill cannot pass without carve-outs, what further evidence is needed that it is bad policy? No senator should vote for the final cloture vote until all of the carve-outs and special deals are removed.
Nebraskans don’t want a special deal, they want good policy. They don’t believe the Federal Government is the answer to every problem and they don’t like backroom deals.
This was precisely the point of my article earlier today.
These earmark whores couldn’t care less what is or isn’t fiscally sound for this country. They haven’t invested an inkling of critical thought into the matter of deteriorating quality of care. They’re not interested in the unprecedented financial discord that lies ahead for the country.
What else is needed to convince those who still support ReidCare that the bill is no good? What more does one need than to watch Senators fall in line only after they are bribed to do so?
Here are some of the goodies Senator Johanns was hoping to have cut out of the bill:
– Eliminating or reducing the Medicaid unfunded mandate on Nebraska, Vermont, and Massachusetts (starting on page 96, line 9)
– Exempting certain health insurance companies in Nebraska and Michigan from taxes and fees (starting on page 367, line 6)
– Providing automatic Medicare coverage for anyone living in Libby, Montana (starting on page 194 – section 10323)
– Earmarking $100 million for a “Health Care Facility” reportedly in Connecticut (starting on page 328)
– Giving special treatment to Hawaii’s Disproportionate Share Hospitals (starting on page 101, line 6)
– Boosting reimbursement rates for certain hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut (starting on page 174 – section 10317)
– Mandating special treatment for hospitals in “Frontier” States like Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming (starting on page 208 — Sec 10324)
Dems told him to take a walk.
Most of them ought to be home just in time for Christmas Eve pumpkin pie.
And what is the upshot of all of this, if there is one? Dennis Prager said it on his radio program today – that it affords Americans the opportunity to really see leftism in action.
The compassion, the hope, the promise of modern liberalism sure sounds peachy in the brochure, but once the Left is in power, those latent totalitarian tendencies bubble up to the surface.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Political Corruption, politics | Tagged: health care debate, Mike Johanns, Senate debate on health care, sweetheart deals | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009
Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.
I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?
The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.
Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.
The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.
As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”
An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).
We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.
Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.
This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.
It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.
In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:
If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.
Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.
“Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”
Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?
The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.
Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?
We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.
So what? What does that mean exactly?
If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.
And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.
Another thank you to President Obama.
If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.
I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: detention center, Gitmo, Illinois, national security, Obama, terrorism, terrorists, Thomson Correctional facility, Thomson Illinois | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 16, 2009
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. That goes for Joe, too.
As President Obama’s approval rating continues to do its best anvil-falling-out-of-a window imitation, and with poll after poll showing the American people do not buy into the liberty-raping fairy-tale that is ObamaCare, Democrats continue to demonstrate that they are impervious to the people they are charged to represent. The American people do not want what Obamacrats are hawking, yet Dems disdainfully forge ahead in their crusade to sign into legislation something – anything – “historic.”
It is their arrogance that is historic.
Yesterday, Senator Joe Lieberman – often extoled by many conservatives as a political compatriot (specifically on the War on Terror) and a liberal with a conscience – ostensibly informed the world that there are limitations to his principles, and that, much like Louisiana Senator Mary Landieu, he can be bought. Now that he’s got what he asked for – the dropping of both the public option and the Medicare buy-in from the Senate version of the health care reform bill – he’s back in the fold.
Said Senator Independent, “I think what’s beginning to emerge – and I know some people are not happy about it – is an historic achievement: health care reform such as we have not seen in this country for decades.” Talk show host Laura Ingraham called it Lieberman’s “verbal flatulence.”
There are many on my side of this debate – which, incidentally, are the majority of Americans – expressing dismay, and even betrayal, at Lieberman’s apparent shift back into the Leftocrat womb (which, incidentally, he never left). I’m not exactly sure why anyone would be surprised by this. It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone. He is still a liberal’s liberal on just about every issue. Dropping the public option, as good as that sounds on the surface, doesn’t make the bill any less government-centric, nor does it suddenly make it cost friendly. It’s a ruse. Indeed, Lieberman can gush about the historic nature of this debacle – comparing it to the “achievments” of Medicare and Medicaid, rivaled only by Social Security for their inefficiency and cost-ineffectiveness – but the fact is, once this bill passes (public option or not), 16% of the economy falls under government control just like that.
Insurance companies will be heavily regulated by the feds. A glut of new agencies and commissions will spring to life. Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer describes what will emerge as a kind of “proxy system” where health care will essentially be run by the government through under-their-thumb insurers.
Lieberman, meanwhile, is trying to be all things to all people. He certainly doesn’t want to ruffle the feathers of his insurance company constituency, but he must also remain true to his social liberalism. Standing up against the public option is a nice bone for insurance providers, but the rest of the nearly two-thousand page bill appeals to his big government approach to handling health care reform.
He is no dope.
Health care delivery will belong to the federal government even without a public option. That’s why Dems were willing to give him what he wanted in exchange for his support. Leftists who are mad at Lieberman need to relax and look at the bigger picture. Good times could still be ahead. From a socialist/marxist perspective, if the bill is passed, it’ll still all good. You’ll see.
Posted in Democrats, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: "public option", health care debate, health care reform, Joe Lieberman | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 13, 2009
On Friday, talk show host Rush Limbaugh aired an audio clip of Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse speaking from the Senate floor in which the Senator accused Limbaugh-led Republicans for being anti-Obama obstructionists. Limbaugh, he said, was leading the charge to inflict maximum political damage to the President by opposing health care reform.
Blah, blah, blah … and so on.
To Whitehouse, the debate isn’t about the concern over astronomical costs to the American taxpayer or the inevitable decline in quality of health care. It isn’t about the contraction of liberty, or the expansion of government control or even free markets.
It’s really all about Barack Obama.
This is about creating a political defeat for the President of the United States on their side. Nothing to do with health care – entirely about creating defeat for this new president … when in the face of all the obstruction the distinguished Senator from Michigan described so eloquently – this record-breaking, unprecedented in the history of the Senate obstruction that we’re seeing, the person who I think right now seems to characterize the leadership of the radicalized right wing that is running the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, is telling the other side that they haven’t been obstructive enough.
Besides speaking somewhat disjointedly, Senator Whitehouse is wrong on several counts.
First of all, if Rush Limbaugh was “leading” or “running” the Republican Party, you can bet a vital appendage that John McCain would not have been the party’s standard bearer in the last election.
Second, the term “obstructionist” is nothing more than a cheap buzz word that the Rachel Maddows of the world can sink their ever-lovin’ teeth into as Dems desprately – frantically – try to connect with fleeing independents. By definition, those who oppose a given policy and wish to see it defeated, regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on, are obstructionists. That the vast majority of Capitol Hill Republicans are adamantly against a government take over of health care is no more obstructionist than a slew of Dems voting against a Republican plan. (Of course, it isn’t obstructionism then … just good old fashioned, healthy checks and balances).
I’m also inclined to ask … Which party has control of both houses of Congress and the White House? What obstructionists?
Third – and most important – no one on the right side of the health care debate (both literally and figuratively) gives a rat’s ass who the President is. This cry-baby, foot-stomping whining about how the big bad right hates poor Obama – and would be willing to do anything to see his initiatives defeated because he is Obama – grew stale in fairly short order. It is all utter nonsense. The fact is, the President of the United States is a raging leftist, and in the minds of limited government conservatives, the policies born from leftism must be squashed for the good of the country.
From the tea parties to the town hall meetings, from talk radio to Capitol Hill rallies, the fervent (and continually growing) opposition to what Obamacrats are trying to do has nothing – repeat, absolutely nothing – to do with Barack Obama. This is not about defeating this President. This is about defeating any President who would promote these asinine policies. To keep this nation from adopting dangerous European models of health care delivery, a political defeat for Obama is necessary – but this isn’t about Obama. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around him. This is only about the policy.
If, for instance, J Fred Muggs was running the show, each and every single Republican who currently opposes ObamaCare would also oppose MuggsCare (although the influence of the banana lobby could hardly be overstated).
In this context, Barack Obama must fail.
And, by the way, what the hell is the “radicalized right?“
What, pray tell, has the right done to make them “radical?”
Here’s a quick lesson…
It is the Left that wants to completely overhaul the greatest health care system the world has ever known. That sounds fairly radical. It is the Left looking for all-out transformation, as opposed to minor corrections. Again, radical. By definition, it is the Left who wishes to follow the radical path – just as they wish to redefine marriage, manage worldwide carbon emissions, and escalate deficits to unheard of levels thanks to unprecedented spending.
It’s not difficult to understand.
Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: health care debate, health care reform, Rush Limbaugh, Senate debate on health care, Sheldon Whitehouse | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 12, 2009
The epoch of earmarks had seen its last days, the American people were told. Government waste was a thing of the past, Americans were advised. Fresh sounding, twenty-first century words like “transparency” and “post-partisan” were peppered into the national dialogue from a guy with great dulcet tones. Things were going to be different. Even people on the right were excited about the dawning of the new age.
Remember what the new guy told us: We were the people we were waiting for.
He was going to be everyone’s president, we were assured. He was going to hear our voices too, he promised. The Transformation Express was boarding on Track Forty-Four, and everyone was invited to grab their slice of the American pie.
But quicker than someone could say TARP, the new guy in charge – The One, we called him in the early days – started doing things that didn’t seem quite right. He spent three-quarters of a trillion dollars on door knobs, hiking trails, the study of rabbit feces, and new computers for government offices, all in the name of stimulating the economy. Not particularly stimulating. Without batting a lash, he mortgaged the future of those yet to be born, burdening them with epic costs so that their predecessors could avoid having to tough it out. He commanded government to take over segments of the private sector – like the auto industry – and made it his primary task to annex 16% of the American economy. He said earmarks were a thing of the past, then redefined the word so that he could let himself off the hook. He said over three million jobs would be created on his watch, only to see at least that many lost.
And now, the most fiscally irresponsible administration in this nation’s history is officially back in the earmark business to the tune of nearly $4 billion. That may not sound like much in today’s trillions-happy environment, but four thousand million is four thousand million … and that’s our money.
Richard Simon from the Los Angeles Times writes:
Reporting from Washington – Getting into the holiday spirit, the House of Representatives on Thursday approved a spending bill loaded with goodies for the folks back home.
Trails for Monterey Bay. An arts pavilion for Mississippi. Bus shelters for Bellflower.
In all, the bill contains 5,224 earmarks costing about $3.9 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group.
Though Democrats say they have cracked down on pork-barrel spending, critics attacked the bill as excessive.
“Clearly, the earmark culture has not been swept away,” Brian M. Riedl, a budget analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, blogged Thursday.
The $447-billion bill, which passed the Democratic-controlled House with no Republican votes and moved to the Senate, combines six spending bills for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1.
The measure brings total earmarks in this year’s spending bills to 7,577 at a cost of about $6 billion, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense. The Pentagon spending bill, the last of the annual appropriations bills, is expected to contain more earmarks than the omnibus bill, said Steve Ellis of the taxpayer group.
In the event you are keeping a score card at home, some of the other pet projects in the bill include a half-million dollars to help build a trench, thirteen-and-a-half million for the creation of a bus lane, a quarter-million for textile research, and almost two-hundred thousand for weather forecaster training.
Oh yeah … I almost forgot two-hundred thousand for the Aquatic Adventures Science Education Foundation in San Diego.
Thank God for that.
“When are we going to say, ‘Enough is enough?’ ” asked House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio), who does not seek earmarks. “I don’t know how worthy any of these projects are, but I do have to ask a question: Are they more important than our kids and grandkids who are going to have to pay the debt?”
It is the very essence of modern liberalism – to act without regard for what happens next. It is what the great Thomas Sowell calls being stuck in “stage one” thinking – failing to consider the ramifications of a policy decision that, for the moment, serves to make the boo-boo feel better.
It is closely related to “Do Something” Disease, which is a mutated strand of “Change For The Sake of Change” Syndrome.
It is a weakness of liberalism best exemplified in how Barack Obama has approached the economic crisis from the outset. To him, Americans aren’t capable of handling tough economic times. We aren’t resilient enough to brave a recession. We cannot face whatever hardships might lie ahead. We need the government to step in and make things better. We need him to tell us everything will eventually be all right. It is imperative that we make our kids and grandkids pay for it tomorrow so that we might live more comfortably today.
Mr. President, that is not America. It never has been.
Not only can Americans handle the most difficult of times, we do so with the understanding that it is our charge – our purpose – to make things better for the next generation. We weather the toughest of storms because there is no other alternative. We roll with the best life has to offer and we bear the brunt of the worst, aware of the immorality in mortgaging the future of our children, our civilization.
For example, what would we think of a parent who secured credit cards in his or her child’s name only to max them out?
I resent the fact that this president has engendered that sense of weakness in a nation built on rugged individualism. That he is willing to make things more difficult for yet unborn generations so that today can feel better may be the most disgraceful thing yet to come from the Messianic Age.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, Ethics, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: $3.9 billion dollars, 5224 earmarks, Big Government, Congressional spending, earmarks, House bill, leftism, Liberalism | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 10, 2009
So, let’s see if I’ve got this straight …
President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize this year based on hope, or change, or whatever. He did nothing to earn it, other than he was not George W. Bush. Embarrassing as it was to be selected – and believe me, it was a joke even to many liberals – he decided he would have to accept the thing in person. That would mean yet another trip out of Washington. (How many excursions does that make since January 20th? He is building up one hell of a carbon credit tab.)
However, the President has decided – much to the chagrin of many Norwegians – that accepting the prize is more than enough. Obama will not be participating in a slew of events normally attended by the Peace Prize winner. That means a ton of cancellations, including a snubbing of the King of Norway.
But is this all about humility? Doubtful.
Or maybe just utter embarrassment? Getting warmer.
A war president accepting the Nobel Peace Prize?
I have no problem with it – other than the prize itself being an enormous sham – but to leftists, this has to be like urinating on a crucifix would be to a Christian.
Gwladys Fouché and Ewen MacAskill of the UK Guardian write:
Norwegians are incensed over what they view as his shabby response to the prize by cutting short his visit.
The White House has cancelled many of the events peace prize laureates traditionally submit to, including a dinner with the Norwegian Nobel committee, a press conference, a television interview, appearances at a children’s event promoting peace and a music concert, as well as a visit to an exhibition in his honour at the Nobel peace centre.
He has also turned down a lunch invitation from the King of Norway.
According to a poll published by the daily tabloid VG, 44% of Norwegians believe it was rude of Obama to cancel his scheduled lunch with King Harald, with only 34% saying they believe it was acceptable.
“Of all the things he is canceling, I think the worst is canceling the lunch with the king,” said Siv Jensen, the leader of the largest party in opposition, the populist Progress party. “This is a central part of our government system. He should respect the monarchy,” she told VG.
It isn’t easy for Bammy to make friends, is it?
When Barack Obama sidesteps an opportunity to hold a press conference and be interviewed for television, it’s time to check and see if there are, in fact, icicles forming in hell.
The committee, however, is taking it all in stride. No biggie, they said.
The paradox of accepting the Nobel Peace Prize only days after committing an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is, undoubtedly, at play in Obama’s mind. The fact that thousands of peaceniks are scheduled to demonstrate in Oslo during his visit there has to be gnawing at him. (Anti-war types staging a protest at the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony doesn’t exactly make for a great White House photo op). After all, he’s the anti-war, anti-nuclear guy. He’s the one who will deliver the world from the clutches of war-mongering and capitalism.
Talk about conflicted.
Indeed, being protested at home by swastika-wielding racists and other conservatives is one thing, but in Europe?
That he will be discussing his decision to escalate America’s involvement in Afghanistan during his acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize is, to say the least, an irony too delicious to ignore. Certainly, this isn’t the way he would have staged it.
Personally, I think he should accept the award on behalf of the United States military, as has been suggested by many pundits and wordsmiths over the course of the last several weeks. They are the real peace makers.
Of course, I’d like to win the lottery as well … and jam with Pete Townshend … and have non-moody teenage daughters.
Posted in Foreign Policy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama-Mania | Tagged: Barack Obama, Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 8, 2009
If not for racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia and any other “ism” or “phobia” they can exploit, exactly what points of argument would liberals ever use to defend their positions? If the issue cannot be compared to some social injustice of the past, or if the policy cannot be framed around tapping into the raw emotions of constituents, or if the opposition cannot be marginalized and characterized as the spawns of Satan, how would liberals ever be able to convince anyone of anything?
To say that Senate Majority leader Harry Reid is beneath dignity is to assume he possesses any – and I’m not prepared to make that leap. The man is a veritable fountain of imbecility, never once failing to prove the point when afforded the opportunity. Even if he never spoke another foolish word, he has long since removed all doubt.
But speak he did from the Senate floor yesterday morning – with an inflection of numbskullery that would make Joe Biden proud.
With the prowess and grace of a can of mushroom soup, and a command of history rivaled by only Congressman Alan “Our Healthcare System is like a Holocaust” Grayson of Florida, Senator Reid said that Republicans who oppose ObamaCare are modern day versions of those who opposed abolishing slavery and affording women the right to vote.
He didn’t go as far as calling GOPers baby rapists, but Reid’s time on floor was limited.
From The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room, Jordan Fabian writes:
“Folks tend to crack under pressure,” said Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) at a press conference. “It is an indication of desperation.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said he was “personally offended” by the remarks that were “beneath the dignity of the Majority Leader…and the Senate.”
Senate Republican Policy Committee chairman John Thune (S.D.) called the comments “inflammatory and irresponsible.”
Speaking on the Senate floor this morning, Reid said “Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right.”
He continued “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough’ … He continued: “When women spoke up for the right to speak up, they wanted to vote, some insisted they simply, slow down, there will be a better day to do that, today isn’t quite right.”
Whether he was trying to be clever by delivering a well-cadenced, “themed” commentary about the infamous “slow downs” of history – his pitiful, weasel-like attempt at a mini “I Have A Dream” missive – or whether he was just “winging it” around some loose index card scribblings, his asininity is epic.
That he could speak as clearly as he did with both feet firmly ensconced in his mouth is the real story here.
Surely Mr. Reid is aware that more Democrats, as a percentage, opposed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 than Republicans. Surely Mr. Reid is aware that the Republican Party was the anti-slavery party. (More on this history in a moment).
But far more relevant than that is the absolute absurdity in trying to compare the concern of American citizens who oppose – or at least question – the concept of revamping the entire health care delivery system to those who enslaved other human beings. It is inconceivable that any clear thinking human being could draw such a comparison in good conscience. The notion that Americans who worry about costs, or who are concerned about the decline in quality of health care, or are wary about the government seizing far too much power, is akin to owning other human beings and denying them their basic human rights is contemptible.
According to Reid, simply by virtue of the legislation being a “health care” bill, it should be reflexively supported by the American people, no questions asked.
The irony is … health care reform, as Reid sees it, creates an unprecedented level of servitude to the federal government.
Recall the famous screeching screed of Senator Hillary Clinton exclaiming how everyone has the right to debate and disagree with any administration, regardless of who they are. (It’s a sound bite well played on talk radio, annoying as it is). That’s all well and good, of course, but when conservatives do it, it somehow harkens back to a time of lynchings and whippings.
But returning to history for a moment … Through the middle of the twentieth century, segregationists overwhelmingly voted Democratic – and that includes four election victories for the patriarch of quintessential modern liberalism, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. University types conveniently ignore this long standing “relationship” of racism and political ideology – that is, until white Southerners began voting Republican in the 1960s. Suddenly, such connections mattered. To academia, the affiliation between racism and liberalism was nothing more than sheer coincidence prior to the 1960s, but once the GOP began drawing Southern whites, the connection somehow became obvious and worthy of mentioning.
Incidentally, I happen to agree that early twentieth-century Roosevelt liberalism was not inherently or philosophically tied to the racism that permeated the Democrat Party (especially in the South).
Precisely my point.
Through the end of the 1960s and into the 1970s, as the Democrat Party continued to shift more blatantly leftward, older segregationists were, in essence, forced to choose between the lesser of two evils in terms of party affiliation. Theirs was a weakening coalition anyway – certainly not strong enough to form a third party – so their leanings, in the absence of anything better, tended toward more race-neutral politics and smaller government.
The Democrat Party, meanwhile, was reinventing itself, becoming the anti-war, big government, welfare party. Liberals were, among other things, promoting abortion rights, bussing and affirmative action.
Many middle class Americans didn’t like what they were hearing from Democrats and began jumping ship – and not just in the South either.
It wasn’t until the 1980s that most white southerners actually identified themselves as Republicans. And it wasn’t until a decade later when Republicans finally held most House seats in the South.
That the decline of racism – particularly in the South – coincides with the steady rise of Republican affiliation is, to say the least, most interesting.
Posted in Harry Reid, health care, leftism, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: civil rights, government run health care, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Racism, Senate debate on health care, Slavery, suffrage | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 7, 2009
Code Pink in action
When pacifists (i.e., dingbats) take to the streets to protest war, they do so not because they genuinely long for peace.
In fact, I invite anyone who genuinely believes these sign carrying, spoiled brat noisemakers in hot pink demonstration smocks actually care about peace to stand on his or her head while balancing fiery coals on the soles of their feet.
If they really did, they would embrace the United States military.
They protest because, first and foremost, they want American soldiers to withdraw from whatever theater of engagement they happen to be in – but not because they care about the slaughtering of innocents by totalitarians. To the contrary, they are absolutely willing to let bad people do whatever they’re going to do to innocents as long as America stays out of it. (Cambodia, Rwanda, come to mind).
The peace movement is about anything but peace.
Rarely (if ever) will these born-to-protest enthusiasts direct their colorful banners and rally rhyming schemes at someone like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro. You won’t often see these flower-in-your-hair socially conscious do-nothings speak out against ethnic cleansing overseas, or terrorist attacks on innocent civilians. Indeed, they’re willing to travel across the country to shake their fists at Americans willing to fight for what’s right, but never find themselves traveling overseas to speak out against whatever oppression they find unworthy of their time and effort.
Code Pink is one of the better known anti-war organizations in the country. They’re pacifists – meaning they’re morally bankrupt cowards. Just a glance at their website reveals everything from “Arrest the War Criminals” banners to calls for the arrest of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, blah, blah, blah. Their misguided, out-of-context, leftist drek is far too extensive to catalogue here. Safe to say, they are immeasurably wrong on each issue they address – unless irrational, emotion-based, bumper-sticker cognition with no practical real-world meaning is your thing.
The question is … how long until Code Pink, and other white flag waving cowards, call for the arrest of Leftist-in-Chief, Barack Obama?
Perhaps they’re on their way.
On their website is a link to their “Woman Say NO to the Escalation“ web page (referring to the war in Afghanistan), which features the following graphic:
From their website:
*UPDATE* The White House called to let us know that they had been receiving too many emails from us! So keep them coming!
Whether or not you voted for Barack Obama, this escalation of 30,000 troops to Afghanistan is not the HOPE he promised.
“If Obama is really honest with the Afghan people, he must apologize and end this tragic drama of the so-called war on terror, end this occupation. Democracy never comes by the barrel of a gun, or by cluster bombs.” –Malalai Joya, 11/07/09
Really, Ms. Joya?
I invite her, and the members of Code Pink, to look up and read about the American War for Independence (i.e., The Revolutionary War).
If I recall … something about guns, fighting tyranny, building a democracy…
Maybe they ought to brush up a bit on German and Japan and the aftermath of World War II.
Posted in Anti-War, leftism, Liberalism, Radical Left, World History | Tagged: Afghanistan, anti-war protests, Barack Obama, Code Pink, Hopeless Escalation | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 3, 2009
Democrats are clearly fed up. The time has come for them to let it be known that something must be done … and now! The “job creation” thing really hasn’t worked out for them (not counting the billions and billions of new jobs created by the Stimulus Package), and the fact that over three million jobs have actually been lost since the ushering in of the Messianic Age – along with a nearly three point spike in unemployment – these are difficult times for donkeys.
So what does a political party with control of the White House and both houses of Congress do when they still cannot get things done their way?
They protest themselves, of course.
Jessica Yellin, CNN National Political Correspondent, writes:
Congressman Bobby Rush
Members of President Obama’s own political party are charging that the White House and the Democratic Congressional leadership are not doing enough to help the unemployed and are threatening to organize a march on Washington of jobless Americans.
“Obviously there’s something that’s not getting through to them,” said Rep. Bobby Rush, D-Illinois. “And we’re going to let the White House and everybody who’s concerned know that we have got people in our districts who are depending on us to deliver for them.”
Rush and Reps. Marcy Kaptur, D-Ohio, and Candice Miller, R-Michigan, chair the new Congressional “Jobs Now Caucus,” which is comprised of 112 Democrats and 17 Republicans.
Of course, the “everybody concerned” that Congressman Rush is referring to includes himself, his Democrat colleagues and President Obama.
The real question is: Will his pleas fall on his own deaf ears? Or will he finally pay attention … to himself?
It is clear that he and his colleagues are damn serious about this because they’ve created a brand new “caucus.”
Unemployment, look out.
It would have been fascinating to be a fly on the wall during the genesis of the idea to organize a march against themselves:
Kaptur: What can we do, Bobby? We really suck.
Rush: Hmm … Hey, I know! Let’s do a protest!
Kaptur: Wow! Sounds great! But against ourselves, Bobby?
Rush: You get the markers, I’ll get the poster board. To the mall!
Meanwhile, just for good measure, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, issued this predictable statement:
“We continue to work with all members of the caucus and with the Administration to build on the recovery package and other initiatives to help create jobs and grow our economy after years of mismanagement by the Bush administration.”
In other news, Democrats are still clueless.
Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, Unemployment | Tagged: "Jobs Now Caucus", Congressman Bobby Rush, Unemployment | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009
235 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan to date – 98 this year alone. Support for the war in Afghanistan continues to drop among Brits, and according to British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the reason can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.
In ten-plus months of stunning, history-book rewriting governance, it has become clear that unless one is a tyrant, a totalitarian or a terrorist, President Obama really isn’t all that interested in diplomacy. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that even an Obama patented classic groveling bow before Gordon Brown (or Sir Paul McCartney) could make things better between the two long-time allies.
While President Obama continued, even this week, to valiantly blame every thing wrong with America – including the war in Afghanistan – on eight years of George W. Bush, Ainsworth pointed his finger at Obama.
James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph write:
Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.
A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.
Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.
The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.
Some who have lauded Obama’s thoughtfulness and deliberateness in coming up with a plan of action for Afghanistan claim that those who criticize his “dithering” are ill-informed partisans hell-bent on finding fault with anything he does. Bammy supporters argue that additional troops would not have been available for deployment until January anyway (according to a “senior US defense official”) so the “dithering” issue is largely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.
But it’s a silly argument.
Whether or not troops are ready to deploy today has nothing to do with whether or not a course of action can be devised. Troop availability today has no bearing on whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces can formulate a war strategy.
The argument isn’t even logical.
For example, people regularly make plans and devise strategies for their futures by setting goals (buying a house, a car, saving for a child’s education, etc.), and almost always when the funds to make those goals a reality are not in hand.
Considering the speed with which the President embarked on his multi-trillion dollar spending sprees, it’s difficult to lend legitimacy to the “Obama is just being contemplative” argument. After all, the President is obviously more than willing to increase government spending to unprecedented levels without having the funds “in hand” to do so.
So, if troops were ready to deploy today, President Obama would have already come up with a plan?
Anyone who believes that, stand on his head.
All deployments take time to organize. All battle plans need preparation. Military commanders have already hinted that it could take several months to get new troops in the pipeline. But the plan must first exist.
There is nothing in waiting months and months to announce a strategy that bodes well for Obama on this score.
And if, for the sake of argument, Obama’s dithering actually was based on the fact that additional troops would not be available until January, wouldn’t he – or any of his dancing Obamacrats – have cited it endlessly it as a reason for the prolonged delay? Wouldn’t the mainstream media, ever quick to give the President the benefit of any doubt, have beaten that excuse to death by now?
Ten months in, and everything is still George W. Bush’s fault.
It isn’t as if Obama is averse to passing the buck … or bowing to it.
Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.
Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.
He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.
“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.
“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”
The President is having a difficult time convincing anybody that he takes the war in Afghanistan seriously.
Ainsworth – the first British minister to publicly speak up against Obama’s turtle-paced approach to prosecuting the war – is clearly not happy.
A set of holiday DVDs presented in a festive gift case ought to put him straight.
Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: Afghanistan policy, Afghanistan War, Afghanistan war strategy, Bob Ainsworth, General McChrystal, Obama, Obama dithering, Obama war decision | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 22, 2009
Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana - the $300 million baby
A little perspective, please.
Don’t let the left’s seizure of the word “historic” after last night’s vote in the Senate convince you that it was anything more than routine. Last night’s 60-39 vote was not historic. It did not make government-run health care a reality. It was nothing more than a procedural vote allowing the matter of health care reform to be formally discussed on the floor of the Senate after Thanksgiving. I’m not even sure that there were many who actually believed that it wouldn’t muster sixty votes. ($300 million can buy alot).
Face it, last night’s vote really wasn’t one that Republicans could win anyway. Did anyone really think that any Democrat was going to deny anyone in their own party the opportunity to talk about this on the Senate floor?
It simply wasn’t as critically earth-shattering as many have made it out to be.
Certainly, I didn’t like it one bit. Indeed, it would have been a pleasant surprise had the winning side fallen short of sixty, but I didn’t expect it to.
One thing is certain: The ultimate passage of this bill would be a disaster for the United States of America. It must be stopped. There is still time. But last night’s vote, to be quite honest, was being built up far more than it needed to be.
The process has only just begun.
More disturbing, however, was some of the commentary from Democrats.
Just before the vote, Senator Chris Dodd spoke of the late Senator Edward Kennedy, saying it would pay Kennedy the highest compliment of all if they were able to fulfill “that quest of achieving the goal that all Americans aspire for, and that is a national health care plan that serves every one of our citizens.”
“Every one of our citizens?”
Hmmm … Call me unnuanced, but that smells an awful lot like government-run health care, doesn’t it?
And of course, Harry Reid himself said, ”Today we vote whether to even discuss one of the greatest issues of our generation – indeed, one of the greatest issues this body has ever faced – whether this nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from the fear of illness and death, which can be prevented by decent health care for all.”
He’d be almost adorable if he wasn’t so frightfully irritaing.
The Senate Majority Leader obviously believes that the federal government can legislate immortality. Death can be prevented? And all it takes is a merely “decent” health care bill? That’s quite incredible. What if it were a “fantastic” health care bill? Or a “sensational” health care bill? Would they also have the power to bring back the dead and make them well again?
Or maybe Reid meant to say that the fear of illness and death can be prevented.
So, if the Senate passes this bill, and it is eventually signed into law, no one will be afraid anymore? No one will fear death? That which has plagued humanity since its inception – the fear of death – will be erradicated by passing a “decent” health care bill?
Why didn’t we elect a Messiah sooner?
And by the way … nice job, Senator Landrieu. $300 million is a nice chunk of change.
You go girl.
Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 60-39, Chris Dodd, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate vote | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2009
Harry Reid, fudging the damn numbers
I’m not sure how many people would sign on to a program that required them to work full-time for a period of four years before being paid; or one that would require four years of insurance payments on a car before being handed the keys; or one – as Senator Mitch McConnell puts it – that required four years of mortgage payments before one can move into a house, but I’m going to venture out on a limb and say not too many.
Just as the House version of the health care bill did two weeks ago, Harry Reid’s incarnation – over two-thousand pages strong – employs that old accounting chestnut: The Ten Year Dupe.
It’s pie-in-the-sky liberal voodoo at its cooked-books best.
Recall that earlier this week, Reid assured Americans that the Senate’s version of government-run health care would be a money-saver. Like the Pelosi bill, it would be cost-effective and still be able to insure billions and billions of health-care starved people without costing Americans an extra cent. In fact, there’d actually be some money leftover to pour into other meaningful things, like doorknobs at inner-city housing projects, the study of orgasms among college girls, and the continued examination of radioactive rabbit feces.
Over ten years, according to Reid, the whole kit-n-kaboodle would cost “only” $849 billion. (In today’s trillion-happy world, that’s chump change).
But we’ve all seen this movie before … and there are too many who still don’t get it.
Although tax increases would be implemented upon the bill’s passage into law, actual spending won’t begin until the fifth year of the bill’s application, 2014; and even then, it will be relatively miniscule. For instance, only $9 billion is slated to be spent that year. However, in 2016, spending reaches $147 billion. By 2019 (the last year of Reid’s ten year projection), it’ll hit $196 billion.
Thus, actual spending of any significance would only take place during the last six years of Reid’s health care debacle.
But, if one were to look at the actual numbers over a fully implemented ten year period, which would start in 2014, the cost is more than twice the $849 billion espoused by Reid – in the neighborhood of $2 trillion, according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
The Ten Year Dupe.
As many as seventeen new taxes will be enacted to help fund everything. As much as $800 billion, according to the CBO, will be sucked from Medicare during the first decade of full implementation and put somewhere else. Plus, hefty penalties for those individuals, families and businesses who fail to comply with guidelines will be imposed.
Let freedom ring.
Seeing as there will be four years of revenue collection before spending really begins – which means four more years of our ongoing American health care holocaust – where is all of that money going to go until it is ready to be spent? Where do four years of taxes and fines get stashed until the government begins saving American lives? Will there be a health care reform fund established? Will there be a secret shoe box hidden at an undisclosed location? Will convicted Congressman William Jefferson of Louisiana allow the government to borrow his freezer?
Or the do words Social Security Fund mean anything to you?
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Economy, health care, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: 2074 page health care bill, CBO, Congressional Budget Office, Harry Reid, health care reform, Obamacare, Senate health care bill | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 18, 2009
Over the past couple of days, the blogosphere has been rife with commentary on 10-year old Will Phillips, the Arkansas boy who made national news by refusing to stand up for the Pledge of Allegiance until homosexuals are afforded the “right” to marry members of the same sex. To Phillips, there can be no “liberty and justice for all” in a country where sexism and racism exist.
He has been called “brave” by the Left. He has been lauded by gay rights groups as “truly courageous.” He is described as “precocious” by the salivating media. He is a hero to those who continue to view the United States as a bastion of repression and discrimination. He has been praised as having the fortitude to “stand up for what he believes in” – and to the American Leftocracy, there is nothing nobler.
But is that really true?
Is “standing up for what you believe in” the be-all, end-all barometer of honor and integrity?
What if Little Will from Arkansas stood up for white supremacy? Would he still be praised?
The act of “standing up for what one believes in” is, in and of itself, meaningless if the values behind it are no good.
Without rehashing everything Phillips said – and without specifically getting into the same-sex marriage debate – there are three points to be made here.
First, for all of his precociousness and expanded vocabulary, little Will is an enormously foolish and naive child – and no one is bothering to clue him in. (Ironically, his childlike idealism is on par with most adult leftist thought, so he is probably being looked upon as a prodigy of sorts, or a future Democrat Senator). That “liberty and justice for all” is not absolute in America doesn’t mean the ideal is not worth saluting. The United States is not a perfect society; and because imperfect human beings comprise that society, there can never be absolute anything for all citizens. If, in Will’s World, that’s what it takes to be able to say the Pledge, no one will ever be able to say it.
Indeed, “liberty and justice for all” is what America aspires to. It is her ideal. It is what the flag (and the republic for which it stands) represents. It is what men and women have sacrificed their lives to preserve. It is what America has overwhelmingly been able to live up to – certainly far more than any other society the world has ever known. But because there exists a federal government, there will always be some encroachments on liberty – like taxes, for instance.
The irony here is that while young Will ridicules America for not being able to provide “liberty for all,” his leftist agenda undoubtedly means he supports bigger, more intrusive government. Surely, someone as bright, articulate and thesaurus-savvy as he knows that the larger the government gets, the less liberty we the people have, by definition.
It would have been interesting to hear the young leftist’s response to that.
Meanwhile, justice, while blind in theory, will never be perfect in this, or any other, society. We strive to balance the scales as best we can in the pursuit of justice, but it isn’t always possible. Think O.J. Simpson.
Waiting for these “perfections” to manifest themselves until such a time when young Will believes the Pledge has become worthy enough to come from his lips is both supremely arrogant and intellectually dishonest.
(But he sounds so smart, bless his heart!)
Second, little Will is an unadulterated narcissistic spoiled brat – not because of his views, which he is entitled to, but because of his wanton disrespect for authority. During the interview with CNN’s John Roberts, he was asked what he said to his teacher following the “grief” he received for refusing to stand for the Pledge.
Said the young Phillips:
I, eventually, very solemnly, with a little bit of malice in my voice, said, “Ma’am, with all due respect, you can go jump off a bridge.”
Roberts, of course, giggled while the young scamp recounted his amusing encounter with the teacher. The boy’s Dad, who was sitting beside Will, put his head in his hands in playful embarrassment.
That this boy was not suspended for telling a teacher to “jump off a bridge” is bad enough. That his father was apparently unconcerned with such a blatant display of contempt for authority is even more disturbing. That his mother said she was proud of him is downright disgusting.
Perhaps someone ought to provide young Will with some pictures and accounts from societies where real oppression exists. Maybe someone ought to enlighten the young scholar as to the realities of slavery, ethnic cleansing and the denial of basic human rights that exist in abundance elsewhere in the world. Someone should probably explain to the young lawyer-wanna-be (that’s what he said he wants to be) that the United States has liberated more people than all other nations in the history of this planet combined.
Someone also ought to instill a bit of humility in this boy. I don’t care how many multi-syllabic words he can rattle off for the cameras, he is a bit too full of himself and too impressed with his own intelligence.
Couple that with his willful disregard of authority, and you’ve got a punk.
As God is my witness, if one my daughters stood up in class after deciding she did not want to sit through a showing of Al Gore’s mythological meterological romp, “An Inconvenient Truth,” and in the process told her teacher to “jump off a bridge,” I can assure you that punishment would be swift and severe.
That kind of insolence and disregard for authority is intolerable regardless of which side of ideological fence it comes from.
I guess it’s kind of “cute” coming from a liberal, but imagine for a moment if Will Phillips was a young conservative. The mainstream media would have split an artery. He’d have been crucified if he chose not to stand for the Pledge because of something Barack Obama did or said. (Of course, conservatives don’t think that way, but you get my point). Think of how the media lambasted Carrie Prejean when she stood up for traditional marriage.
Third, the Pledge of Allegiance does not dictate how someone should think on any given subject. It is not a pledge to conservatism. It is not a pledge to liberalism. It is a pledge to the nation that affords one to think as they so choose, regardless of their politics. Someone ought to remind the boy that the flag he has decided to shun honors everyone who gave up their lives for this country so that he might live free.
That he chooses to forego proclaiming his allegiance to his own country until it adheres to his view of how it should be is the very definition of narcissism.
I don’t support Barack Obama or his initiatives toward socialism, but I still pledge my allegiance to this nation.
I don’t believe Little Will should be made to say the Pledge if he doesn’t wish to. I find it abhorrent that he wouldn’t, but one ought not force anyone to say it.
But he damn well should.
There are millions and millions of dead military men and women who have earned the right to be shown that respect.
Posted in American culture, Ethics, Gay issues, Liberalism, Media Bias | Tagged: 10-year old boy, Arkansas, Pledge of Allegiance, same-sex marriage, Will Phillips | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 18, 2009
Berkeley, California is a special type of place – like ulcerative colitis is a special type of irritable bowel syndrome.
For any number of reasons, I will simply never be able to show my face in Berkeley, California – not that I’m weeping. Primary among these reasons is the fact that Berkeley is one of those enlightened jurisdictions that has declared itself a “hate-free” zone. At the risk of having some sort of thought-warrant issued against me, I have no choice but to avoid the place.
I am a hater.
I admit it.
As one of those “moral clarity” types who likes to draw distinctions between good and evil, I take the passage from Psalm 97:10 very seriously:
“Ye that love the Lord, hate evil; he preserveth the souls of his saints; he delivereth them out of the hand of the wicked”
Deuteronomy 17:7 has always been a cherry-on-top “clarifier” for me as well:
“So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee”
Pretty simple stuff, really: God hates evil. God commands us to hate evil. I have faith in God. Berkeley hates hate. I avoid Berkeley.
Last night, however, the Berkeley City Council considered suspending its embargo on hate by hearing proposals to prohibit the release of balloons at city events.
That’s right, balloons.
Hateful, destructive balloons.
Because balloons pose a threat to the environment. And as everyone knows, it is appropriate (or at least understandable) to hate something that poses a threat to the environment.
…Those in the balloon business say any risk is being blown way out of proportion. Workers at Paper Plus Incredible Balloons have been doing business in Berkeley for 25 years. “This is a latex balloon. It is totally biodegradable,” says Michele Schurman, owner of Paper Plus Incredible Balloons.
However, Schurman has been put on the defensive. She says the proposed ordinance could hurt her business. “I think it’s a feel good measure. I think they think ‘Well, we’re doing something great for the environment,'” says Schurman.
Of course, mylar balloons can take up to six whole months to biodegrade. And the strings can choke animals. And they can find their way into their digestive tracks. There are documented cases.
But Berekely isn’t an island. It is a community of the world.
What about those renegade balloons that float out of Berkeley air space into surrounding communities? What then?
Perhaps a bantam missile defense system of some sort (run by migrant workers) can be installed so the offensive balloons can be shot down before they infiltrate the perimeter of neighboring towns (provided a recovery team is dispatched as soon as humanly to retrieve the remains before any animals are killed).
It could actually create jobs. Everyone wins.
Maybe a Helium Czar should be named.
I’m sure they won’t say so publicly, but city staffers probably hate the fact that the City Council did not make a final decision last night. They’ve been advised to bring back more documentation on the matter before a decision can be made.
It’s a good thing Dorothy didn’t land in Berkeley after the twister. How would the Wizard have left town?
Posted in Liberalism | Tagged: balloon ban, Berkeley City Council | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on November 16, 2009
How many misfiring synapses does it take to enable one to come to the conclusion that moving incarcerated terrorists from a detention facility in Cuba to the mainland United States is a good idea? Uprooting human debris hell-bent on destroying America from a perfectly functioning maximum security military installation so that they can be locked up in America is the embodiment of absurdity. Where else but from the muddled minds of liberals could such thinking come? Where else but from the left could such a plan be born?
President Obama has said that Gitmo’s mere existence has served as a recruiting tool for Al Qaeda. Thus, in Obama-speak, it stands to reason that once these terrorists are transported to the American mainland, recruitment for the terrorist organization will begin to fall off, right? Those who would have thought nothing about strapping bombs across the chests of their children to kill infidels will rethink their positions if the enemies of America could actually be moved here. Osama bin Ladin’s heart will surely soften once these jihadists are living in the midwest.
Makes sense, no?
Setting aside whatever anti-Bush motivations there are concerning this obsessive need among Obamacrats to close Guantanamo Bay, proponents of the terrorist transplant plan claim that it will also be a huge economic boost.
Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times writes:
If [the Thomson Correctional facility] is acquired by the federal government, [it] would be run as a supermax facility housing federal prisoners. A portion of it would be leased to the Defense Department for a “limited number” of Guantanamo detainees — about 100, according to Durbin. About 215 prisoners are now at Guantanamo.
[Senator Dick] Durbin’s office has been quarterbacking the potential sale of the prison through a series of meetings between the White House and [Governor Pat] Quinn, who is looking to generate revenues for the cash-strapped state.
According to an economic impact analysis by the Obama administration, the federal purchase and operation of Thomson could generate $1 billion for the local economy over four years and create between 2,340 and 3,250 jobs.
Sunshine, lollipops and rainbows. Everybody wins, yes?
Here’s the problem.
Every one of those jobs is a government job. That means every one of those employees’ salaries would come at the taxpayers’ expense. That means all of that money would be sucked out of the economy first before it is redistributed in the form of paychecks.
Durbin and Quinn called the possibility of opening such a facility in their state “a dream come true.”
That’s three thousand new jobs that can be added to the billions and billions of new jobs that have already been created by this administration.
Posted in Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: Gitmo, Guantanamo Bay, terrorism, terrorists, Thomas Correctional Facility, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »