Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Media Bias’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 4, 2010

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

Who knew?

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

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

The headline alone speaks for itself.

Does Killing Terrorists Actually Prevent Terrorism?

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

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

To begin with, the headline asks the wrong question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 21, 2010

Friedn to conservatism, columnsit Kathleen Parker

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

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

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

She poses no real threat.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

(see the video, direct from here)

Where to begin?

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

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


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

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

What’s not to be angry about?

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

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

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

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

It's called legitimate dissent, Kathleen

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

I’m curious …

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

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

That being said, Parker’s language is disconcerting.

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

“Go after?”

Now that sounds dangerous.


H/T to the great Weasel Zippers blog.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 26, 2010

Congressman Steny Hoyer (the one on the left)

Incidents abound, say the mainstream media.

They have been born from the kind of hatred that leftists and other children have been warning us about for years. Since late Sunday, when America became less free thanks to the passage of Obamacare into law, it has been manifesting itself in violent outbursts that – according to the mainstreamers – are sweeping across the nation. Angry right-wingers, threatened by the civility and decency of the compassionate class (i.e., Democrats), are fighting back, selfishly desperate to hold onto their bigotries, biases and tax dollars.

From all corners of the mainstream media complex, the reports have been filling the airwaves: threats, gunshots, broken windows – all being perpetrated by furious anti-Obamacrats.

The mood in America is turning ugly, they say. It’s getting scary out there, they claim. The right-wing is becoming unhinged – and since the right is the home of the “God-and-Guns” crowd, fair-minded liberals are now understandably frightened.

That’s what they’re saying.

Congressman Steny Hoyer of Maryland is very concerned about the threat of reprisals from merciless ObamaCare foes who take the Constitution too literally. Congresswoman Betsy Markey of Colorado says her office received a threatening call the day before the vote from someone who said she had “better hope I don’t run into you in a dark alley with a knife, a club or a gun.” A Democratic lawmaker’s brother in Virginia had a gas line cut at his house. Windows were broken at four Democrat offices in three states.

To hear it from the mainstream media, the nation may be descending into right-wing-led chaos.

Even NBC’s Ann Curry (Today Show) – a beacon of impartiality and objectivity – says that Republican lawmakers are “encouraging the violence” against Dems. Sarah Palin, for example, “posted a map highlighting weak Democratic districts…with a crosshair symbol” on her website. Words like “targeted” and “battleground” are incendiary terms, according to Curry, and can incite violence in these “very dangerous times.”

Curry’s psychiatrist was not available for comment.

It goes without saying that threats against politicians or acts of violence of any kind against any public official – Democrat or Republican – are not to be tolerated. Such behavior is repugnant and can never be acceptable.

But some of these “backlash” incidents have not even been verified; and the ones that have are isolated.

Almost immediately, as soon as the media when orgasmic reporting on this new wave of rampant conservative ugliness, Republicans took to microphones everywhere condemning such acts.

Some of the interviews that ensued were almost comical.

Reporters made sure to ask these Republicans – these monsters, these aliens – what they thought about such behavior against poor Democrats who only wanted to help Americans in need, as if there was a genuine possibility one or two of them might say, “Well, I can see their point.” Maybe – just maybe – one of them would slip up and say something that would confirm the fact that conservatives really are violence-loving, rifle-toting, enraged psychopaths.

Unfortunately, despite salivating palettes and “See, I Told You Conservatives Were Bad” demeanors on the part of the mainstream talking heads and print pimps, there simply is no story here. There is no groundswell of conservative violence across America, nor is there any kind of organized movement. A few freaks do not represent nor define how conservatives are wont to handle Obamacratic encroachments on liberty.

Sadly, threats to people in the public eye – including politicians – are made daily. It’s a fact of American life. There are nuts in all sectors of society, left and right, up and down, high and low. The difference, however, is that in the past, such threats have not followed the passage of “historically transforming” legislation enacted by Obamacrats – thus, making them unworthy of air time, bandwidth or page space.

Note that left-wingers are almost never depicted as being inciters of needless violence, nor are the terms “left-wing” or “left” ever used to describe them. Rather, they are portrayed as concerned justice-seekers, compelled to stand for a cause, sometimes forced into unpleasantness by the weight and severity of a given injustice.

That is, unless the act is so heinous, so egregious that it cannot be glossed over.

For instance, is Lee Harvey Oswald ever described as a “left-wing” assassin? If he had been, for instance, a commited fascist instead of a die-hard communist, the words “right-wing” would have become extensions of his name.

Just for fun, I must make it a point to go back through the archives of the major news services and revisit how the “drive-by” media, in all of their objectivity, covered the angry protests of the Left during the Bush administration.

There were probably more Hitler moustaches seen in public during the Bush years than at any time since the days of Joseph Geobbells, but I don’t recall too many stories on the outrage and instability of the “incendiary” Left.

Recall how the letter “s” was given a much-needed rest on protest sign and banner alike, thanks to swastika substitutions in the word “Bush.” Those were the days when dissent was good, remember?

Where was Ann Curry then?

Movies and books that talked about the assassination of George W. Bush must’ve gotten a wealth of coverage as well, although I don’t recall.

And the incivility of students on college campuses across the map attacking such conservative speakers as David Horowitz and Ann Coulter certainly must have had the talking heads expressing concern.


Oh wait …

wordpress statistics

Posted in health care, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a 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.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2010

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

So be it.

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

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

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

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

I digress.

On Wednesday evening, the President said:

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

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

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

They come from the Declaration of Independence.

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

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

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


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

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

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010

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

He wasn’t quite that colorful.

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

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

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

David A. Patten at NewsMax writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frankly, the White House needs better material.


H/T to Weasel Zippers.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 12, 2010

Georgetown Professor Michael Dyson on MSNBC

This has been some post-racial era since the dawn of the Messianic Age, hasn’t it? The topic of race relevancy was supposed to (finally) be an archaic one – or at least one that simply wasn’t going to matter nearly as much anymore – where the significance of American skin tone was going to be irrelevant; where character would finally triumph over color.

The long-desired colorblind American society would, at long last, be upon us once Barack Obama hit the White House and started transforming things – and if, after saving America (and the world) by his mere presence there still existed a surplus of disunity in the country, it could then be rightfully blamed on stubborn conservative racists unwilling to meet the future.

Remember, Obama’s election was “historic,” “groundbreaking,” “game-changing” and whatever other blah-blah-blahs were tendered by the orgasmic media. A new era of understanding, universal love, snuggly puppies and big fat hugs was being ushered in, despite a significant portion of America’s population unwilling to let go of its racist, unjust, slave-owning, prejudice, exploitative past. During the campaign season, news outlets opted to pay minimal attention to Barack Obama’s actual message, choosing instead to latch on to his wonderful sounding platitudes, treating each word he uttered as if it had never before been heard by human beings. They didn’t bother to focus too much on his history (what little we were able to learn), or on his glaring lack of experience (unlike the detailed scrutiny given Sarah Palin). Instead, the media made the 2008 Presidential election all about his skin color – and that alone became the message: he’s black, vote for him, love him, let him take care of things.

It was left’s finest hour.

Barack Obama’s “blackness” made a whole bunch of things okay that probably would have been subjected to far more scrutiny had he been anyone else: an association with a known terrorist, having an anti-American race-baiter for a spiritual mentor, his unambiguous support of redistributing wealth, etc.

After Obama’s election, instead of race issues finally becoming the promised societal dinosaurs they deserve to be, the indomitable crusaders of the left sprung into action, hell-bent on seeking out and proving that racism still existed in this country, lest their own existences be rendered meaningless. In short order, as many had predicted, it became perfectly legitimate to conclude that racism played some of sort of role when one stood up to disagree with Barack Obama. Indeed, in the minds of many, to oppose him was to oppose the election of a black man. Democrat after Democrat told us so.

One thing is clear … Democrats are obsessed with race.

Whether it was Hillary Clinton talking about Ghandi running a gas station in St. Louis, Joe Biden commenting on how “storybook” it was that Barack Obama – a black man – was so clean and articulate, or Sonia Sotomayor talking about the superior judgment capacity of Latinas over whites, Democrats have been no strangers to foot-in-mouth disease. They get away with far more than any conservative ever could because the media presumes to know what exists in the hearts of Democrats – and to liberals, nothing matters more.

Their intentions are good, and that is the bottom line as far as the media is concerned.

Personally, I couldn’t care less what is in a politician’s heart. I don’t care what he or she thinks, and I certainly don’t care what they say in private. I care only about their public actions and statements – not their private ones (unless, obviously, they are breaking the law or are plotting to do so). I care about the deeds of people, not what may or may not be buried in their hearts. Their feelings may matter on a micro level, but on a macro level, their feelings are irrelevant to me.

Let’s say, for instance, a man privately wrestles with feelings of anti-Semitism, for whatever reason. If that man, conflicted as he may be, still manages to do good works that benefit the Jewish community – charity work, for instance – then his feelings are as irrelevant to me as his skin color, his favorite song or what toothpaste he uses. I don’t care. Neither do those in need. His deeds are what matters. Isn’t it more desirable to have someone who may be struggling with their faith or their prejudices doing good for others than to have someone who espouses togetherness and harmony doing nothing? I believe this with ever fiber of my being. As a Jew, it doesn’t matter to me what someone thinks. I care what they do.

Let God deal with what exists in a man’s heart.

What makes people good is their ability to weigh thoughts and feelings privately, whatever they may be, and to ultimately choose to do the right thing. Human beings, indeed, are entitled to their private thoughts and feelings, but they are not entitled to act on those feelings.

In this country, with such travesties as “hate crimes” on the books, private thought is being taken into account where it has no business being. The notion that someone’s feelings can lead to harsher penalties for a crime that is already wrong is outrageous.

By the same token, that someone can say something so disgraceful and contemptible – and get away with it – simply because the media presumes to know what is in one’s heart is indicative of a dangerous trend.

In an appearance yesterday on MSNBC, Georgetown Professor Michael Eric Dyson had the following exchange with the anchor woman (whose name is unknown to me at the time of this posting):

Professor Dyson: Let me tell you this: We should push the President. This President runs from race like a black man runs from a cop. What we have to do is ask Mr. Obama to stand up and use his bully pulpit to help us. He is loathe to speak about race … As a result of that, his disinclination to speak about race means that he won’t even take this teachable moment to help America understand. He shouldn’t do that as a black man, by the way. He should do that because he’s President of the United States of America.

MSNBC anchor: We’re out of time, and I certainly appreciate it, but Professor Dyson, I will have to ask you: Are you going to apologize now for saying that the President runs like a black man from the cops, or are you sticking by that one?

Professor Dyson: I’m sticking by that because the brother runs very well, and he’s running like a brother running from a cop.”

I must give credit where credit is due to the anchor; at least she recognized that the professor’s eyebrow raising comments were, at the very least, worthy of revisiting before ending the segment.

But if, according to Dyson, the President needs to “take this teachable moment” (referring to the now infamous remarks made by Harry Reid) and “help America understand” what is going on – not as a black man, but as Chief Executive – then why was was it necessary to use the “black man running from the cops” metaphor? Why call him a “brother” who “runs very well“?

This is what passes for intellectual discourse at the university level?

A brother who runs very well“?!

Are you kidding me?

If a white man were President, and Harry Reid made the same sort of comments regarding a high-ranking black politician, would anyone say that the President was like a black man running from the cops?

The fact that such a comment would be made at all demonstrates which side remains obsessed with skin color.


wordpress statistics


Posted in American culture, Harry Reid, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 4, 2010

For me, it was a good night.

A very good night.

As a lifelong New York Jets fan still reveling in the gift given to this team last week by the Indianapolis Colts, I was as pleased as a mosquito at a nudist’s convention to see them not only win last night’s season finale, but obliterate the visiting Cincinnati Bengals, 37-0, to earn a trip to the playoffs.

It was a delicious thrashing.

They finished the regular season with a 9-7 record and will face the Bengals again next Saturday in the first playoff game of the year, only this time in Cincinnati.

I highly doubt next week’s game will look anything like last night’s shellacking, but I’ll not worry about that now. For the moment – the morning after – I’m thoroughly enjoying a win that was decidedly not an example of the “Same Old Jets.”

However, there was one thing that kept last night from being the perfect football night. There was one dark spot on an otherwise splendid evening of Gang Green football.

As excited as I was in the hours leading up to the game last night – snack platters at the ready, texting with friends, putting on my handy-dandy Joe Namath Mitchell-and-Ness home jersey, etc – the NBC pregame show was like a puss-filled blister on an otherwise smooth and silky complexion. It was a game-changer, a buzzkill, a stopper. Within seconds of hearing that voice, I had to turn the channel. The acids in my stomach started to churn. The house supply of Pepto Bismol was soon gone.


Two words: Keith Olbermann.

Yeah, yeah, I know. I’ve written about this before.

Repugnance knows no limit. That I’m revisiting the topic makes it no less valid.

Why it is that NBC still utilizes the contemptible and always nauseating lefty mudslinger on their Sunday night NFL pregame show is beyond me. Why it is that this lying, disgusting excuse for a broadcaster is brought in to comment on professional football is more than perplexing. Why it is that someone so polarizing, so controversial, so sleazy, so leftist, is asked to speak on the air in a a non-Marxist, non-socialist context puzzles me. I don’t give a damn what he did in OnceUpon-A-Time-Land. I don’t care how “witty” people thought he was a billion years ago. He has long since traded in his scores-and-highlights hat for an angry, radical, left-wing shirt and tie. Frankly, no one really gives a rat’s nipple what he thinks about the NFL anymore, and it isn’t as if his “football perspective,” whatever it may be, is so brilliantly unique that his presence is required to make Sunday Night Football watchable.

Is there no one else in all of broadcasting – someone not a controversial scumbag – around to comment on football?

No one?


Back on September 14, 2009, in my post Keith-O Has Got To Go, I wrote:

Sure, I knew Olbermann used to be a sports guy in a previous life, but that train has long since been dismantled. He doesn’t do sports anymore. He makes his bones as a raging lunatic leftist kook. Despite what he used to do in his early days, he is currently synonymous with far left politics. He long ago ditched his sardonic sports desk persona to become an angry liberal windbag who throws things at the camera and calls it witty analysis. Like toe jam, ear wax, and that thing that’s been in back of the refrigerator since Saint Swithin’s last birthday, it is incalculably disgusting that such a dreadful little man – who is as hateful as he is uninteresting – is an NFL commentator with NBC.

He is one of the most detestable human beings in media today – not just controversial or provocative – but a mudslinging, unintelligent boob; and the fact that he is given the opportunity to show his mug on NBC’s Sunday Night Football is literally enough for me to turn the channel and not bother coming back until I know the game has started.

I know I am not alone.

(Advertisers need to pay close attention here).

Olbermann is not just your garden variety, Obama-is-our-savior, big-government liberal – like Bob Costas, for instance. Rather, Olbermann is a lying dirt bag of a man who constantly spews outright slanderous nonsense about those he doesn’t like. He is not a journalist in any sense of the word. He doesn’t substantiate his bogus claims and he lives on personal attacks. He is a spoiled brat, angry, liberal ass-kissing cowardly smear-merchant who will never debate those who oppose him. His ratings on MSNBC’s Countdown are horrific, his reasonability is nonexistent, and his clever Dennis-Miller-wannabe “smart guy” shtick is tired and tedious.

Yeah, what I said …

And Go Jets!

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Media Bias, New York Jets, Sports | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

Indeed, this is sad.

I’m not suggesting that anyone in the mainstream media would ever claim that it is in any way acceptable to blow up nearly three-hundred innocents in an airplane with a crotch bomb. I’m not saying that Western journalists would ever condone stuffing one’s shorts with a groin blaster for the purposes of detonating it on a commercial aircraft. After all, even those who live left of center have to acknowledge that a terrorist is a terrorist, right? (Unless, of course, he is a freedom fighter, a Muslim holy warrior, or a jihadist). There are some, however, who may not be so quick to refer to the “Ding-A-Ling-Bomber” as the cold-blooded killer he is without trying to understand what drove him to commit the terrorist act he was about 85% successful in executing on Christmas Day.

You see, in the minds of those charged with reporting the news, it’s too simplistic – too monolithic – to suggest that Islam played the prominent role in this man’s evil deed.

It’s a dangerous trend. Americans are guaranteed to hear words like “alleged” and “suspected” long before they hear “terrorist.”

Think back to the Fort Hood terror attack. 

Recall how everything other than Islam was bandied about as the possible motivation behind the murder of thirteen innocents.

It’s no different this time.

It could have been anything that drove Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab to his radical undertaking on Flight 253 four days ago.

Was he lonely, perhaps? Could this have been the trigger?

Jon Gambrell of the Associated Press says it appears that way:

Internet postings purportedly written by a Nigerian charged with trying to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day suggest a fervently religious and lonely young man who fantasized about becoming a Muslim holy warrior.

Throughout more than 300 posts, a user named “Farouk1986” reflects on a growing alienation from his family, his shame over sexual urges and his hopes that a “great jihad” will take place across the world.

Those posts, beginning in 2005, show a teenager looking for a new life outside his boarding school and wealthy Nigerian family.

Most of all, they paint a portrait of someone who seems lost and needs someone to hear him.

After reading that, I can’t help but blame the non-Islamic portion of the planet for what Abdulmutallab did .

After all, it takes a village to build a terrorist.

Why couldn’t someone – anyone – take time out of his or her busy life to simply hear him? I’m sure he was a great guy otherwise. (Where’s Dr. Phil when you need him?)

If only there were more licensed therapists assigned to terror cells, perhaps through a central planning office, people like Abdulmutallab wouldn’t have felt so isolated, so alone, so prone to mass murdering people on a plane with an underwear bomb.

People think it’s all virgins and salvation, but it’s no picnic being a terrorist.

In another posting, Farouk1986 describes how alone he feels and acknowledges feeling lust, chastising himself for not lowering his gaze around unveiled women. At another point, he warns how “the hair of a woman can easily arouse a man.” He writes that he was considering getting married at 18, as his family “could help me financially.” Abdulmutallab’s father is a prominent Nigerian banker, but nothing apparently came of his marriage wishes.

No wonder he brought an underpants blaster onto an America-bound airplane. It all makes sense now.


I need to stop being so amazed at the level of inanity that exists in so many of the things I read.

Honestly, why in hell is this AP story necessary?

What is its purpose?

To make human excrement more palatable? To take us on a fascinating journey into the mind of a murderous thug? To tug on our heart strings?

And where is the word “terrorist” in this story?

Just asking.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez

From the “If I Say It Enough, It Will Magically Become True” file …

Perhaps more germane than the age-old question, “How many licks does it take to get to the tootsie-roll center of a tootsie pop?” is the ever-perplexing, “How many times does one have to say something before it becomes true?”

Admittedly, it isn’t easy adding ingredients to the stew of conventional wisdom, but once they hit the pot, it is nearly impossible to flush them out.

These days, a compliant media complex is essential in giving credence to falsehoods, frauds and other fairy tales. (See “Global Warming.”)

Mike Bates at NewsBusters reports on a delicious quote from CNN’s Rick Sanchez illustrating this point. Sanchez was speaking with Octavia Nasr, CNN senior editor for Arab Affairs, about terrorism.

Nasr was commenting on how much of a “hot zone” the border between Yemen and Saudi Arabia is. She talked about how the attempted Christmas Day terrorist attack on Northwest Flight 253 was a response to what terrorists believe is ongoing United States assistance to the Yemeni government in fighting Al Qaeda and the Houthis.

Rich Sanchez, in his most matter-of-fact demeanor, seized the opportunity to reinforce his “article of faith”:

SANCHEZ: And good, good, good, good, good, good. You see, this is a point that I’m trying to make, Octavia.

The terrorists weren’t in Iraq. We know that now. There was really a small band of them along with the mujahedeen which became al Qaeda in Afghanistan, as we know. But we have known for 10 years now that these really bad terrorists, the guys we really should have been going after a long time ago, are in Yemen. We knew that a long time ago.

So, the fact that we are now seemingly or the U.S. government seemingly now is putting an emphasis on there and that some of these folks are mad at us for putting an emphasis there, I can’t help but see that finally as the United States maybe going militarily in the right direction in this war on terror.

NASR: You’re right about al Qaeda being everywhere, Rick. It’s very true.

Let’s think about what Sanchez is saying here. (It is the default position of the vast majority of the mainstream media).

His claim is the nation of Iraq, headed by the murderous dictator, Saddam Hussein, was essentially a terrorist-free zone until the United States came along. Terrorism existed in every corner of the world except Iraq. Hussein was minding his own business, bothering no one, until the war mongers from the West swooped in to turn that nation into a terrorist breeding ground. Iraq was a wonderland of fuzzy bunnies, swaying daisies and frolicking kittens until Uncle Sam’s baby-killing machine came a-callin’. If not for the United States, the nation of Iraq would have been free to pursue a life of peace and religious fulfillment.

The problem with the Sanchez argument is … there is not a stitch of evidence anywhere to suggest that Iraq was not a terrorist state. The evidence is overwhelming that Iraq was a steadfast supporter of terrorist activity and a protector of terrorist groups.

Bates quotes from the Clinton State Department’s Patterns of Global Terrorism 1999 report:

Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999. Although Baghdad focused primarily on the anti-regime opposition both at home and abroad, it continued to provide safehaven and support to various terrorist groups. . .

Iraq continued to provide safehaven to a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups, including the Abu Nidal organization, the Arab Liberation Front(ALF), and the former head of the now defunct 15 May Organization, Abu Ibrahim, who masterminded several bombings of US aircraft. Iraq provided bases, weapons, and protection to the MEK, an Iranian terrorist group that opposes the current Iranian regime. In 1999, MEK cadre based in Iraq assassinated or attempted to assassinate several high-ranking Iranian Government officials, including Brigadier General Ali Sayyad Shirazi, Deputy Chief of Iran’s Joint Staff, who was killed in Tehran on 10 April.

Let’s not forget every Democrat who went on record declaring Hussein’s Iraq as a genuine threat:

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.” -President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

“Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.” – Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” – Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998.

“There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.” – Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction.” – Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force if necessary to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” – Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.” – Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.” – Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

The invasion happened because following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Iraq was considered, at the time, by almost everyone on both sides of the political aisle, to be the greatest threat to national security as well as to peace in the Middle East and around the world. There is simply no doubt that Saddam Hussein was linked to a host of terrorist organizations. His nation was an undeniable sponsor of terrorism. How could any of that be ignored?

This is not to say that he or Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. No one has ever made such a claim. It was never the position of the Bush administration. But this was a country that violated seventeen UN resolutions. It was a country that had used weapons of mass destruction before. It was a country that repeatedly fired upon American military aircraft. It was a country that had already harbored known terrorists. On those grounds alone, an attack was completely justified.

Think of all things that didn’t work up to that point (the crown jewels of the liberal foreign policy playbook): negotiations, no-fly zones, UN sanctions, pat-a-cake, etc.

The United States no longer had the luxury of simply reacting to Saddam Hussein. Iraq was a nation deemed by both Republicans and Democrats to be a genuine threat – and rightly so. President Bush could not just sit idly by and wait. He warned Hussein. He gave Hussein opportunity after opportunity to comply with the UN resolutions. Hussein scoffed. America took action.

No Commander-In-Chief worth his weight in gold, with his nation at war, presented with the very same intelligence and evidence President Bush was, could do nothing.

President Bush was smart enough to realize that “safe haven” was not just an Afghani phenomenon.

Six years later, our success in Iraq has, indeed, made America safer.

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

wordpress statistics

Posted in 9/11, Iraq, Media Bias, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009

Someone ought to get MSNBC’S Chris Matthews a towel … or a cigarette. His incessant gushing over everything the President does and says is going to leave a nasty stain on the carpet. Perhaps a sedative, or one of Keith Olbermann’s famous back rubs, would help. That Matthews’ legs have not been rendered lame from all of the thrills running up them is, in a word, miraculous. If he hasn’t already had an accident on the set, it’s only a matter of time.

Indeed, his viewership may be the only thing dropping quicker than the President’s poll numbers – or the New York Jets’ season – but every once in a while, Matthews can offer a unique touch of insight.

And so it was that on his show Hardball – yes, it is still on the air – Chris Matthews offered an actual criticism of Barack Obama.

Sort of.

With the President’s poll numbers falling off the table, Matthews asked his viewer(s) to consider the possibility that President Obama is just too smart for his own good.

President Obama has his chin out there on just about every hot issue out there: health care, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese Emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? Who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City?

Yes, of course.

It should have been obvious, but I chose not to see it. My ideological blinders have kept me from weighing the possibility that the rest of us are simply not cerebral enough to keep up with him.

He is that He is.

Barack Obama is too much of an intellectual. It is his “eggheadedness” that has caused his numbers to slip. You can hardly blame him for not being able to mingle academically with the non-water walkers of America.

Matthews, again, leads the way.


Incidentally, the answers to Matthews’ questions are, in order:

– Not in your wildest dreams.

– Only if he dips his face into a quiche.

– Because, as a liberal, his goal is to present America as weak and vulnerable.

– Because his ability to pick friends, mentors and associates of character is on par with his ability speak coherently free of teleprompters.

– Because once he does, he owns it, and he can’t use George W. Bush as an excuse any longer – although, he will.

– Only those people who can never, ever, ever, ever, ever be trusted with national security – liberals.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 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.

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Ethics, Gay issues, Liberalism, Media Bias | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 11, 2009

islam will dominateThe destructive, lethal idiocy that has deluged this country in the aftermath of the terrorist attack on Fort Hood last week is beyond repugnant. For almost a week now, from every corner of the fainthearted, bend-over-and-take-it mass media complex there has come an astonishingly embarrassing exhibition of weak-minded, namby-pamby, Lucy Van Pelt pop-psychology rationalizations as to why Nidal Malik Hasan might have opened fire on innocents, murdering thirteen.

It is confounding.

Hasan could have had a neon sign plastered to his forehead that read, “This is a terrorist attack!” and the mainstream media would have a panel of analysts discussing what Hasan meant by the word “is.”

If ever there has been such a ubiquitously loathsome display of weakness from Americans in recent times, I am not aware of it.

Courage – and dare I say, truth – clearly has no place in the mainstream media.

With an ever-growing profusion of evidence making it abundantly clear that the murderous rampage undertaken by Hasan was a genuine act of Islamic jihad, the ever-tender, overly-feminized, feelings-obsessed American media chooses to travel the road of the least offensive. In the name of objectivity, they continues to explore a host of alternate possibilities that might have led Hasan to kill.

It’s that “let’s keep an open mind” approach to reporting the news that will, presumably, keep angry Muslims from coming after journalists.

The “religion” angle is just too easy – merely a construct of Jesus-loving, xenophobic, gun-obsessed anti-Muslim types.

killer Hasan

the terrorist, Hasan

Despite the fact that every arrow, every indicator, every investigation, every report, every stitch of evidence, everything that has been uncovered relating to the killer Hasan suggests – nay, dictates – that terrorism is the correct way to describe the Fort Hood attack, the alphabet and cable channels, along with the liberal print media, continue to maintain their fairness (i.e., gutlessness).

This fatalistic need to obscure the realities of the world in order to safeguard the feelings of others – all in the name of political correctness – will, undoubetdly, be the undoing of this country. The enemy will come from within. Expect many more than the thirteen who were murdered at Fort Hood to die as our most important and sacred institutions (e.g., the military, the free press) are crippled by those who do all they can, at the expense of what is right and just, to ensure Muslims are not offended.

Personally, I don’t give a damn how many Muslims get offended.

I don’t.

In matters of national security, I don’t give rat’s nipple who gets insulted. I’m only interested in making sure this nation is secure from her enemies, foreign or domestic.


If, as leftists and other children want us to believe, Muslims are so incapable of understanding that no one on my side of the aisle thinks that all practitioners of Islam are terrorists, then that’s just too bad. If, in the view of the Left and other terrified puppies, Muslims are ill-equipped to comprehend that those of us willing to speak the truth do not – and never have – lumped all Muslims together, then there’s nothing more that can be said or done to change it. Time and time again, to the point of utter frustration and intellectual exhaustion, conservatives have bent over backward to explain to the world that we are not anti-Muslim. We have done back flips to prove that no one on the right believes the entirety of Islam supports terrorism.

We are anti-evil, no matter where it comes from.

But it’s not been good enough.

The fact is, the greatest threat to freedom in the world today is radical Islam – and all indications are that Hasan was a radical islamist. 

There simply is no movement of radical Baptists commiting thousands upon thousands of acts of terrorism across the globe in the name of Jesus Christ. Or Methodists. Or Catholics.

That the incredibly obvious is now being expelled and disregarded so that the feelings of a few may be potentially spared – at the expense of human lives – is deplorable and unforgivable.

jihad-is-our-wayI, for one, am not willing to see the security of this nation compromised, or the safety and well-being of those who defend her imperiled, for the sake of not affronting a group of people.

I am sick to death of hearing from the Left how intolerant Americans are. I am fed up with having to read and hear from ungracious, spineless pensmiths and pundits how much they fear reprisals and retribution from angry Americans (i.e., the right wing).

It is all complete, unsubstantiated nonsense.

Where was the anti-Islam uprising after September 11, 2001? Where were the anti-Muslim reprisals after the London attacks? Or the Madrid bombing? How many acts of revenge against mosques took place in America after the first World Trade Center attack in 1993? How many bodies littered the streets in retaliation to any number of jihadist terrorist plots uncovered here in the United States?

Do leftists ever think beyond the initial “feel good” fix that defines their approach to the world? Is there solace among leftists in knowing that even though thirteen were murdered at Fort Hood, they can at least rest well knowing that they’ve not offended a single Muslim?


wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Evil, Islam, Liberalism, Media Bias, Moral Clarity, national security, religion, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 23, 2009

Michael Tomasky

Michael Tomasky

The existence of a prevailing liberal media bias in almost every sector of the mainstream news complex can hardly be denied – unless, of course, your perspective is from the Left. From over there, liberal notions are seen as simply mainstream, middle-of-the-road, all-American ideals.

That influential, big media liberals rarely intermingle with “regular folks” who have dissenting points of view (unless covering them at a swastika-peppered Townhall meeting) also cannot be denied.

The truth is while these news-corridor lefties rarely find themselves exposed to the mainstream of conservative thought, conservatives are relentlessly bombarded with liberalism – from the culture-at-large to the way the news itself is “objectively” reported. Indeed, liberal perceptions of conservatism are often based on caricatures or clumsy stereotypes.

Even the word “conservative” is an effective means to an end.

While mainstream media news outlets rarely use the word “liberal” to describe Democrat policies, they manage to squeeze in the word “conservative” – not as a description, but a pejorative – at every opportunity.

In short, conservatives know liberals far more than liberals know conservatives.

It is what it is.

And while liberals are wont to attribute such assertions to conservative paranoia, a perfect illustration of this congenital media bias occurred on Dennis Prager’s radio program on Wednesday.

Prager interviewed Michael Tomasky – editor of Democracy and A Journal of Ideas. He is also a correspondent for The Guardian in Great Britain as well as a regular contributor to The American Prospect and The New York Review of Books.

Safe to say, Mr. Tomasky is well-connected to current events.

The subject of White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, came up. You’ll recall that Dunn is the one who stated, in front of a graduating high school class, that humanity’s all-time genocidal maniac, Mao Zedong, was one of her two favorite philosophers. That a high-profile employee of the White House would declare someone such as Mao as a philosophical mentor is certainly newsworthy – or so one would think.

Here is the brief exchange between Prager and Tomasky. Unintentional as it was, it is, indeed, a profound “gotcha” moment:

Prager: Do you find it problematic that someone as high up as the Communications Director of an American administration says to young children that one of her two favorite political philosophers is Mao Zedong?

Tomasky: (slight pause) Uh .. now see, you’re catching me because I didn’t even know this.

Prager: Okay, that’s – well … Look, I have to say that proves my point – that the Left lives in a bubble.

Tomasky hadn’t even heard of the story. The entire Anita Dunn affair was “news” to him.

Unfortunately, it wasn’t “news” to the mainstream news outfits.

Would anyone care to speculate on the media saturation that would be taking place had someone on George W. Bush’s staff commented on Adolf Hitler’s clarity of thought?

What media bias?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

maoFrom the “If This Was A Republican File”…

And it isn’t even necessary to go “hypothetical” on this one.

George W. Bush, during a 2000 Presidential debate, named Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher. Many may not remember, but the outcry from all corners of the mainstream media eco-system was nothing short of deafening. The punditocracy was rife with outrage while the alphabet channel cackling heads went on and on about the mixing of church and state, the lack of nuance in the bible belt, the truth of Thomas Jefferson’s secularity, blah, blah, blah. Eventually, the indignation shifted from the President having the nerve to name the Son of God as his favorite philosopher to his audacity in “twisting” Jesus’ teachings to fit his war-mongering agenda.

How convenient.

In 2002, when former Senate Majority leader Trent Lott, speaking about Senator Strom Thurman, said, “When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years, either,” one would have thought by following it in the press that Lott rammed a cross into a press conference podium, lit it on fire, and promised white hoods and frozen yogurt to anyone who wanted them.  (You’ll recall that the late Senator Thurmond, who in 1948 ran for President as a “Dixiecrat,” based his campaign on a platform of racial segregation).

Without question, it was an enormously stupid comment for Lott to make, given Thurmond’s philosophical positions on race more than a half-century earlier. And despite the fact that Thurmond, like former Klansman-turned-senator, Robert Byrd,  eventually veered away from his antiquated philosophies on race by supporting the extension of the Voting Rights Act, the making of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday a federal holiday, and becoming the first southern senator to appoint a black aide, the incident cost Trent Lott his job.

Back in the day, journalists, writers, opinion-makers, experts, and windbags of all shapes and sizes were consumed with these stories.

Things are a tad different today. 

Liberals run the show in Washington, and a like-minded, lap-dog,  “here-is-my-lunch-money-if-you’ll-just-be-my-friend” mainstream media, determined to be part of history, want to be kept in the loop. They’ve seen what happens to those who cross the big man – how they’re shunned and left out of the grooviest parties and press events – so they’re very careful not to pee where they eat.

Thus, a selectively unconscious mainstream media – more consumed with the devastation inflicted on the city of Chicago for losing the Olympic bid, the horror of a Republican Senator shouting out the words “You lie” during a Presidential address, and the ever-growing incivility of potentially dangerous white conservative men in America – is predictably ignoring the comments of White House Communications Director Anita Dunn who said that humanity’s all-time mass-murderer, Mao Zedong, is one of her two favorite political philosophers.

Mao bleeping Zedong.

He was a sadistic monster who subjected his own people the cruelest deaths one can imagine. He is personally responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of innocent human beings – as many as seventy million people (more than the number murdered by Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin combined). This sounds like something that ought to be newsworthy, don’t you think?

Perhaps Anita Dunn is reading Wikipedia.

Whereas the online encyclopedia says this about Adolf Hitler: 

Adolf Hitler was an Austrian-born German politician and the leader of the National Socialist German Workers Party, popularly known as the Nazi Party. He was the authoritarian leader of Germany from 1933 to 1945, serving as chancellor from 1933 to 1945 and as head of state (Führer und Reichskanzler) from 1934 to 1945.

A decorated veteran of World War I, Hitler joined the Nazi Party (DAP) in 1919 and became leader of NSDAP in 1921. Following his imprisonment after a failed coup in Bavaria in 1923, he gained support by promoting German nationalism, anti-semitism, and anti-communism with charismatic oratory and propaganda. He was appointed chancellor in 1933, and quickly transformed the Weimar Republic into the Third Reich, a single party dictatorship based on the totalitarian and autocratic ideals of national socialism.

Wikipedia says the following about Mao:

Mao Zedong was a Chinese revolutionary, political theorist and Communist leader. He led the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from its establishment in 1949 until his death in 1976. His theoretical contribution to Marxism-Leninism, military strategies, and his brand of Communist policies are now collectively known as Maoism.

Mao remains a controversial figure to this day, with a contentious and ever-evolving legacy. He is officially held in high regard in China where he is known as a great revolutionary, political strategist, military mastermind, and savior of the nation. Many Chinese also believe that through his policies, he laid the economic, technological and cultural foundations of modern China, transforming the country from a backward agrarian society into a major world power. Additionally, Mao is viewed by many in China as a poet, philosopher, and visionary, owing the latter primarily to the cult of personality fostered during his time in power. As a consequence, his portrait continues to be featured prominently on Tiananmen and on all Renminbi bills.

Conversely, Mao’s socio-political programs, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, are blamed for causing severe famine and damage to the culture, society and economy of China. Mao’s policies and political purges from 1949-1975 are widely believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 to 60 million people.

Mao “remains a controversial figure with a  contentious and ever-evolving legacy?”

His political purges are “believed to have caused the deaths of between 40 and 60 million people?”


I’m glad they found room to squeeze that little genocidal tidbit in after describing how some perceive him as a poet, philosopher and visionary. (I wonder where Mao ranks on Dunn’s Coolest Poets list?)

Dan Bartlett was the White House Communications Director during President George W. Bush’s first term. Imagine what would have ensued had he, while speaking to an audience of bright-eyed and bushy-tailed young graduates, named his two favorite political philosophers as Benito Mussolini and Mahatma Gandhi.

The profusion of commentary that would have been unleashed describing a right-wing dictatorship in waiting would have crippled the blogosphere by sheer volume alone.

You’d have seen more swastikas and short black moustaches then your imagination would have ever allowed for.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 20, 2009

Dunn, giving the murderer Mao some love

Anita Dunn, giving humanity's all-time mass-murderer, Mao, a little bit of love

To misspeak is one thing. It’s fairly common among homosapiens who communicate through spoken language. However, to speak without substance or lucidity, devoid of forbearance of thought – and to be admired for it – is quite another.

It is astonishing to me (and it shouldn’t be) how often Democrats – almost always portrayed as the most astute, most intellectual members of the political gamut – have to “clarify” and “amend” the things they say.

Somehow, so much of what they say need to be placed in “proper context” after the fact.

Perhaps it appears that way because they are afforded far more column space and air time to explain away gaffes, blunders and unqualified stupidity than Republicans are. Or maybe they just say more dim-witted things. (We may be getting warmer). Indeed, a liberal may conclude that the brightest among us are also the most complex of notion, easily misunderstood by the common folk and therefore requiring more time to elucidate their ideas for the masses – in other words, too smart for the room.

Take, for instance, White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, who has not only waged open warfare against the privately owned, free-market media outlet, Fox News Channel (“It’s opinion journalism masquerading as news.”) but admittedly gets intellectual tingles from one of her two favorite philosophers – the man responsible for the most murders in all of human history – Mao Zedong.

It’s true that on a daily basis, I read stories that simply mystify me. At times, I take pause and consider the possibility that I have unwittingly slipped through a crack in the space and time continuum and entered some sort of parallel universe. But this is astounding. The Communications Director of the White House is literally stating in front a graduating high school class that the man who murdered, by conservative estimates, 70 million human beings, is one of her two political philospohical heroes.

She said on June 5th:

The third lesson and tip actually come from two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa, not often coupled with each other, but the two people that I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is: You’re going to make choices. You’re going to challenge. You’re going to say, “Why not?” You’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal … These are your choices. They are no one else’s.

In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over, Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Zedong said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” … Think about that for a second. You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things, and you don’t have to follow other people’s choices and paths. It is about your choices and paths. You fight your own war. You lay out your own path. You figure out what’s right for you.

Of course, Dunn, after the fact,  had to clarify what she meant – for the shallow of mind and unnuanced – and put everything in its “proper context,” blaming a deceased Republican for her misunderstood comments.

She explained:

The use of the phrase ‘favorite political philosophers’ was intended as irony. The Mao quote is one I picked up from the late Republican strategist Lee Atwater from something I read in the late 1980s, so I hope I don’t get my progressive friends mad at me.

Yeah, okay.

First off all, it is obvious that Dunn’s knowledge of history on the matter could be misplaced on the head of a pin. 

Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalists had “everything on their side?”  Really?

Except for the nuclear arsenal and full support of the Soviet Union, I suppose there may be truth in that.

Second – and most relevant – assuming that the mass murdering madman Mao Zedong even had a “philosophy” from which to draw, since when does anyone quote from a philosophical point of view – stating that the philosopher in question is a personal favorite – without actually being sympathetic to that ideology?

Do liberals ever pay attention to the things they say?

And so what if Lee Atwater quoted Mao in the 1980s? What on earth does that have to do with anything? As long as a Republican quotes a murderous totalitarian, then Obamacrats are free and clear to claim that totalitarian as a major philosophical influence without consequence?

No one can master the non sequitor like a liberal.

I wonder … Would Dunn have ever dared to speak the names Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler in the same sentence?

This was, after all, “only” Mao.

There aren’t the plethora of video images and photographs, nor the comprehensive and easily accessible evidence, of the 70 million murdered like there are of the atrocities of the Holocaust, so it hasn’t the impact. Thus, the word “evil” isn’t as readily associated with Mao as it is with Hitler … or even Gorge W. Bush.

As a result, Dunn is tagged a deep thinker, a master of wrangling the ironic, a challenger of convention – someone way too smart for the room.

HBO’s Bill Maher, host of the program Real Time, summed up this Leftocrat thinking in a column he penned  just a month before last year’s election suitably titled, Republicans, Stop Calling Obama Elitist – Because the real reason you don’t like him is that he’s smarter than you.

In one of the most telling sentences ever written highlighting liberal elitism, Mahr wrote:

Barack Obama can’t help it if he’s a magna-cum-laude Harvard grad and you’re a Wal-Mart shopper who resurfaces driveways with your brother-in-law. Americans are so narcissistic that our candidates have to be just like us. That’s why George Bush is president.”


But it’s not just the “I-went-to-Harvard-so-I-am-obviously-superior-than-you” school of thought, mind you, that pervades the liberal mind. Democrats, besides being the brightest among us, also mean well, are the upholders of true compassion, and care far more about human beings than Republicans do.

They’ll tell you so – my favorite example of which comes from former Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, who famously said on Meet The Press once that “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”

Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

Robert Reich

Robert Reich

Any indignation or outrage emanating from the right over patently ridiculous or embarrassing comments made by Democrats will boil down to “misinterpretation.”

They’ll tell you so – like when former Labor Secretary Robert Reich spoke hypothetically, saying that someone running for President of the United States, if he or she did not actually care about being elected and actually spoke the truth about what health care reform was really all about, would be able to say, “If you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Admidst a firestorm of reaction (from conservatives only), Reich later explained that he was “taken out of context,” saying, “The whole point of the mock exercise was to show that presidential candidates can’t state what everyone knows to be the truth because they’ll be taken apart by the Right or the Left.”

I’m not sure how that is “out of context,” especially because he prefaced his “mock exercise” with this clarifying statement:

I’ll actually give you a speech made up entirely, almost on the spur of the moment, of what a candidate for president would say if that candidate did not care about becoming president. In other words, this is what the truth is and a candidate will never say, but what a candidate should say if we were in the kind of democracy where citizens were honored in terms of their practice of citizenship and they were educated in terms of what the issues were and they could separate myth from reality in terms of what candidates would tell them.

Recall when Senator John Kerry notoriously asserted that young people in America who don’t study or get an education “get stuck in Iraq” – one of my all-time favorite “misunderstandings.” According to the leftocracy, Republicans “got it all wrong” when attempting to interpret that one – including MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who cracked open his Democrat/English dictionary to offer the most salient clarification of all. He explained that Kerry was actually referring to President Bush’s intelligence, and was attacking Bush’s “team” as being dense for not understanding that. Said Olbermann, “Kerry called them stupid, and they were too stupid to know he called them stupid.”

Recall then-Senator Barack Obama at the now famous Saddleback Forum saying that he couldn’t appropriately comment on when human life began because it was “above his pay grade.” He eventually had to clarify his statement by explaining, “All I meant to communicate was that I don’t presume to be able to answer these kinds of theological questions.”

(It’s interesting to note that he apparently felt he knew enough to be able to decide that the killing of that “unknown” quantity was perfectly reasonable).

When candidate Obama, talking about small-town Americans, said, “It’s not surprising … they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations,” he eventually clarified what he really meant by saying, “So I said … when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people … vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”

How ironic it is that Democrats, always self-promoted as the party of the common people, have such a difficult time talking to the narcissistic, driveway-resurfacing Wal-Mart set.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Media Bias, Moral Clarity, Values, World History | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

liberalsWhile I am certain that I could construct a comprehensive list – a definitive collection – of mandatory questions that every liberal must be asked by anyone who dares to call himself journalist, I will attempt to whittle it down to a mere four for this afternoon’s edition of “Coffee Thoughts.”

(These are the things that help keep me awake as I wait for my second wind to kick in).

Indeed, I’ve posed these questions in the past at various times on this blog (as regular readers know), but I thought it would be instructive and beneficial to put them together in one place.

So, for this exercise, if you would, picture your favorite leftist – let’s say, President Barack H. Obama – behind a sea of microphones being “questioned” by adoring minions, when all of a sudden, some renegade reporter with a bad attitude (i.e., a genuine journalist) steps up and poses any one of these four questions in these exact words (to a room of gasping outraged bed fellows, no doubt).

Try to imagine the President’s teleprompter-free responses to these:

-If you were absolutely certain, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that “global warming” was not the result of anything human kind was doing, and were convinced all temperature fluctuations were completely natural, would you still care about the “dangers” that rising temperatures pose to the planet?

-Contrast these two questions, if you would: What do you think would happen in the Middle East if terror-groups like Hamas and Hezbullah laid down their arms? What do you think would happen if the country of Israel did the same? (Feel free to substitute “Hamas” and “Hezbullah” with *any* terrorist organization hell bent on the murder of innocents, and replace “Israel” with the “United States.” The idea is the same).

-If you are unsure of your opinion as to when life begins, why would you come down on the side of having the right to abort the unborn with such certitude? And if it were proven to your satisfaction, beyond question, that human life did begin at conception, would you still feel that abortion was a viable “choice?”

-If quality of health care is not an issue, and accessibility is the real concern, would you be willing to give up your current health care package and sign up for whatever health care reform plan the government proposes for the uninsured?

Assuming the journalist had not already been tased or hauled off, how delicious would that exchange be?

Obviously, there is a myriad of other questions that can – and should be – asked of liberals. Perhaps the next time my eyelids decide to declare war on me, and I need to keep shaking my synapses into coherence, I’ll come up with more.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

Readers of Roman Around know that I’ve no need to resort to the use of profanity here, and save for a few occasions in which I’ve opted to quote someone else, I have deliberately avoided it. I assure you, I am no prude, and I certainly don’t say this from a position of superiority or righteousness. I do not begrudge any of my colleagues in the blogosphere who do (including some I respect immensely). It’s simply a choice I’ve made for this blog.


Primarily because I find it beneficial to elevate language whenever possible. Yes, I am wont to have a little fun with words now and again, but as a rule, I find wanton profanity polluting and wholly unnecessary – particularly in a world where competing ideologies and value sets can get explosive.

I don’t even allow replies with profanity to be posted here. If there is a point to be made in response to something I’ve written, I trust it can be made without having to resort to vulgarity.

If it cannot, then I invite the reader to go elsewhere.

Indeed, a case can be made that there is a time and place for profane language – like in a movie, or when listening to Senator Chuck Schumer speak.

However, there are times – rare occasions – when the inclusion of profanity and epithets on this blog become a necessary evil to illustrate critical points.

(Uh oh, says the audience … What am I trying to say here?)

Here’s my point:

The common criticism – the underlying theme – in the tsunami of anti-Rush Limbaugh rhetoric that has flooded the mainstream media in recent days has been Limbaugh’s (supposed) insensitivity and divisiveness. His bid to be a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams football team actually offended and outraged many.

Limbaugh has no place in the National Football league, his enemies have said. He is simply is not good for professional football, his detractors have argued. He would not project the right image or uphold the league’s high standards, his opponents have claimed.

At Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site, blogger “Stage Right” exposes hypocrisy at its double-standard ugliest:

And now a word from an NFL owner:

“And the game done chose me to bring pain to niggas and pussy holes, they one in the same.”     – I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Sensationally crude, I know.

(My sincere apologies)

But in light of the brutal beating Limbaugh has taken in the media for things he never said or did, such eloquence and lyrical vivacity bear repeating in order to emphasize the point: “Niggas and pussy holes.”

Isn’t it delightful?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that grandiloquent wordsmith – and minority owner of the Miami Dolphins – Jennifer Lopez.

As “Stage Right” explains:

Jennifer Lopez, whose Sondheim-like lyric genius is on display at the top of this post, holds the same status with the Miami Dolphins as Limbaugh would have with the Rams. And, not only does she have co-writer credit on this offensive drivel, she also recorded and performed it live. She continues to earn money in royalties for her genius use of the “N-Word.” My guess is that those who took issue with Limbaugh’s imaginary racial slur are OK with J-Lo’s actual racial slur because she looks a lot better in tight pants.

Although Limbaugh has slimmed down considerably in recent months, I’ll concede the point and give the nod to Lopez in the “looks-better-from-behind” department. However, distinguishing between that which is excreted from that shapely backside of hers and the filth coming from her mouth is no easy task.

(My apologies once again).

Remember, liberal bigotry unifies.

Compare Lopez’s lyrics with these words that actually did come from Limbaugh’s mouth:

When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals.

Appaling, right?

Divisive, yes?

How dare he say that he wants every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. How dare he see Americans as human beings. Perhaps if he saw them as “niggas” and “pussy holes,” he’d have been accepted by the standard bearers of professional football.

Stage Right at Big Hollywood continues:

Meanwhile, another minority owner of the Dolphins has some controversial issues with public statements as well. Recently, Dolphins minority owner Serena Williams broke quite a few FCC laws by letting loose an “F-word” filled tirade on live television during the US Open. Then she menacingly threatened a side judge and was subsequently disqualified. This kind of behavior and speech seems to be right in line with the NFL’s standards since I missed the press conference from Commissioner Roger Goodell condemning it.

Ahh, yes.

Self control personified.

If only the coffers of Medicare and Medicaid could have been fortified with one dollar for each use of the F-word in Serena’s nationally televised snit; President Obama could have then focused on his pursuit of the Nobel Prize in Physiology instead of health care reform.

Finally, we get to Fergie, some-time member of the Black Eyed Peas and some-time solo artist.  You betcha, she has also been approved as a minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Earlier this week, Goodell said of Limbaugh’s potential ownership, “Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.” Is he splitting hairs between “comments” and “lyrics?” Because these lyrics from a 2003 Black Eyed Peas song sounds pretty divisive to me:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA …

A war is goin’ on but the reason’s undercover
The truth is kept secret, it’s swept under the rug

Nothing like accusing the CIA of terrorism and our government of lying to bring people together.

 Goodell also said, “We’re all held to a high standard here.”

Really? Does this meet his high standard?

Whatcha gonna do with all that junk
All that junk inside your trunk
I’ma get get get get you drunk
Get you love drunk off my hump
My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps

How about drinking so much that you wet your pants, mid-song, on stage, in front of a live audience?

Where, pray tell, is the contingent of outraged football players on this one? And who will summon the courage to comment on the divisivness of accepting a  member of a musical group that accuses the CIA of terrorist activities as a minority owner?

Am I to assume the league would somehow be tarnished to have a man who doesn’t care a damn thing about skin color – and has said repeatedly that he wants everyone in the United States to succeed – as a minority owner, but somehow benefits from embracing a foul-mouthed, undisciplined, F-bomb dropping cry baby?

When can we expect a statement from Al Sharpton on the unacceptability of a non-black using the word “nigga?” (Beacuse it’s clearly okay for blacks to use that word). 

Aren’t 70% of the NFL’s players offended by the diviseness of Jennifer Lopez’s use of a racial epithet? 


And other adjectives too.
wordpress statistics


Update – October 17, 2009, 10:08 AM

In a column published online last evening at the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh wrote:

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?


Posted in American culture, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism, Rush Limbaugh, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009

Mrs. Iselin - one of the greatest female villains in movie history

Eleanor Iselin - one of the greatest female villains in movie history

Can you believe that conservative commentator Sean Hannity of Fox News had the audacity to compare MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow to Angela Lansbury’s character in the original version of The Manchurian Candidate, Eleanor Iselin? Can you believe he then had the nerve to say, “At some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into her head and she’s going to explode like a seagull eating an Alka Seltzer”?

Nice, Sean.

Loathsome, isn’t it?

Disgusting, don’t you think?

(I see a whole lot of nodding heads out there).

Can you believe the level of incivility that exists in today’s America?

What, in the name of heaven, is going on in this country?

Jamming a CO2 pellet in someone’s head?

Is there no better way for a broadcast professional to make his or her point than to start woolgathering a political opponent’s murder?

What is most surprising is that the maninstream media has not exploded with coverage of Hannity’s less-than-genteel commentary on shooting Maddow in the head. He is, after all, an unflinching, uncompromising, set-in-stone conservative. He’s one of those angry, hateful white men who lives in the deep, dark recesses of the right-wing. He is one of those who could be pushed to violence, as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi fears.

There can be only two reasons why Hannity’s bullet-in-the-head hate-speech is not plastered across every front page and home page across the map.

Either every single newspaper in the United States suffered a debilitating printing press breakdown at roughly the same time skilled swastika-carrying hackers (dispatched by Ann Coulter) wiped out all references to the incident across the World Wide Web, or it didn’t happen at all.

(Cue Jeopardy music)

Actually, the incident did happen – but it did not involve conservative Sean Hannity and liberal Rachel Maddow.

(I apologize for the ruse. It was one of those “driving home the point” moments that regularly frustrates the less-nuanced among us)

In reality, it involved MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and talk show host Rush Limbaugh – and it was the liberal Matthews who actually said, “At some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp.”

Now you know why no one’s heard of this.

Matthews is a card-carrying, have-a-seat-at-the-head-table liberal.

That, and no one watches MSNBC.

Here’s the entire quote in context:

You guys see “Live and Let Die,” the great Bond film with Yaphet Kotto as the bad guy, Mr. Big? In the end they jam a big CO2 pellet in his face and he blew up. I have to tell you, Rush Limbaugh is looking more and more like Mr. Big, and at some point somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp. That day may come. Not yet. But we’ll be there to watch. I think he’s Mr. Big, I think Yaphet Kotto. Are you watching, Rush?

“We’ll be there to watch?”

Nice, Chris.

Loathsome, isn’t it?

Disgusting, don’t you think?

(Isn’t anyone going to nod their head?)

Can you believe the level of incivility that exists in today’s America?

Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters writes:

That closing “are you watching, Rush?” was the giveaway. Matthews, whose anemic ratings trail even Rachel Maddow’s in the MSNBC line-up, is desperately hoping someone—anyone—is watching. And if it takes publicly fantasizing about the violent death of a political opponent, well, all’s apparently fair in love and ratings in Matthews’ mind.

Note: Matthews didn’t even get his mean-spirited metaphor right. “Looking more and more like Mr. Big”? Wrong. If anything, the suddenly svelte Limbaugh is looking less and less like him.

Liberals can’t even get their insults right.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 7, 2009

From the “Nothing Is Real” and “Manipulation 101” files …

office of president electRemember the Office of President-Elect? It was created by Barack Obama for the short-lived pre-Executive branch of government he established prior to his anointment on January 20, 2009. It had a sort-of Easter Bunny meets the Super Friends feel to it. It came out of nowhere – kind of like cohesive English from Joe Biden’s mouth. There was no precedent for it, no Constitutional directive, absolutely nothing that authorized such an invention – save for his ego. Yet, before anyone knew it, the Office of President-Elect had an emblem and official stationary.

Sure, it wasn’t real, but it sounded innovative and fresh – and Obama looked quite presidential reading those cue-cards from behind that cool logo.

Remember when President Obama invoked Winston Churchill while attempting to garner support for his anti-waterboarding position, supposedly quoting the great leader to the effect that “we don’t torture?” It was a pivotal moment for the young Commader-In-Chief.

Of course, Churchill never said anything of the sort, particularly in reference to fighting the Nazis during World War II, but it didn’t keep Bam from saying he did.

After all, if Churchill, a hero to the war-happy right, is against torture …

churchillChurchill did, in fact, comment on how he was opposed to torturing civilian prison inmates, but there is not a word Churchill ever spoke or wrote that came close to suggesting he was against doing whatever was necessary to secure victory during war – including torture (which British interrogators did, thank goodness).

Sure, it wasn’t real, but out-of-context quotes from dead white guys are always effective against close-minded, short-sighted, right wing gun nuts.

Had Obama been anyone else but Obama – and particularly if he were a Republican – the unbiased, always-objective, straight-down-the-middle mainstream media might have actually tapped the President’s brain on these little ditties, as well as a myriad of other messianic manipulations and Obamacratic fairy tales. 

It actually took a comedy sketch on Saturday Night Live to get the “drive-by media” to actually do a little work – but not because they attempted to pick apart and dissect Obama and his assertions, as they did regularly with George W. Bush. Rather, they attempted to defend the President, lest they lose their spot in Obama’s bed.

Face it, when CNN takes the time  to fact-check an SNL bit highlighting Obama’s ineffectiveness, there’s a whole lot of trouble in River City.

So, what then would the cackling masses have been saying if a Republican President of the United States had gathered a group of professionals together from across the country for a White House photo-op and handed out costumes to help reinforce a policy position?

A fair question, I believe.

On Monday, as has been widely written and talked about, in his ongoing crusade to peddle his health care reform initiatives, i.e. government-run health care, President Obama invited physicians from “all fifty states” to the White House for a pep-rally and photo shoot.

What could be more of a boost to a President trying to keep his socialist health care agenda afloat than to have a small army of supportive contributors – er, professionals – by his side, on the lawn of the People’s House, singing the praises of rationed, aspiring-to-be-mediocre medical care?

Nothing … in theory.

However, as it turned out, some of the doctors who came to the event were not properly attired – not in the way prescribed by their Obamcratic hosts.

You see, this White House Rose Garden event had a motif.

It was to be a White Coat Extravaganza (stethoscope and headgear optional).

Luckily, the White House was more than happy to accommodate the physicians who came in ordinary, every day clothes. (Taxpayer bucks hard at work).

Charles Hurt from the New York Post writes:

handing out smocksPresident Obama yesterday rolled out the red carpet — and handed out doctors’ white coats as well, just so nobody missed his hard-sell health-care message.

In a heavy-handed attempt at reviving support for health-care reform, the White House orchestrated a massive photo op to buttress its claim that front-line physicians support Obama.

A sea of 150 white-coated doctors, all enthusiastically supportive of the president and representing all 50 states, looked as if they were at a costume party as they posed in the Rose Garden before hearing Obama’s pitch for the Democratic overhaul bills moving through Congress.

The physicians, all invited guests, were told to bring their white lab coats to make sure that TV cameras captured the image.

But some docs apparently forgot, failing to meet the White House dress code by showing up in business suits or dresses.

So the White House rustled up white coats for them and handed them to the suited physicians who had taken seats in the sun-splashed lawn area.

All this to provide a visual counter to complaints from other doctors that pending legislation is bad news for the medical profession.

“Nobody has more credibility with the American people on this issue than you do,” Obama told his guests.

Yes, Mr. President.

You’ve hit the nail on the head.

No one has more credibility with the gullible, easily manipulated, visually-hypnotized American people on the issue of health care reform than a small group of Obama supporting doctors who were asked to show up in stereotypical, archaic white lab coats for a cheesy photo op.

Indeed, these are precisely the people I want (and expect to be) endorsing a government-run health care plan – physicians who let the White House dress them up.

Incidentally, do doctors actually wear white lab coats anymore? My doctor comes into the examination room with his Yankees shirt on – which frightens me a bit as a Met fan.

Just think for a moment if George W. Bush (or any Republican), in attempting to sell a military operation to the American people, invited a group of service personnel – both active and retired – to the White House to show support. Then imagine staffers at the Bush White House handing out military uniforms to those who may have shown up in civilian clothes so that TV cameras could “capture the image.”

Think it might have made the news … times ten?

The only question would have been whether or not enough black magic markers were available to the general public for the purposes of drawing black Hitler moustaches on the face of the President; or whether or not there were enough swastikas in all the world to use on all the anti-Republican protest posters that would pop up across the map.

(Perhaps House Speaker Nancy Pelosi best knows the answer to that one).

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 5, 2009

CNN Political Analyst, Roland Martin

CNN Political Analyst, Roland Martin

One day after President Barack Obama’s bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games homes to the United States failed – and an apoplectic mainstream news media descended into broadcasting pandemonium, coping as best they could with the shock and horror of the President’s embarrassment – CNN political analyst Roland Martin penned an opinion piece, taking “giddy” Republicans to task for basking in the President’s failure.

He effectively challenged the patriotism of those nasty old, mean-spirited, transformation-hating right-wingers who celebrated Chicago’s elimination from contention.

Never one to mince words, let me state, without equivocation – free of any apology or excuse – that I proudly wear the ” giddy” Republican label that Martin is busting a journalistic pimple over.

I’ll tattoo it on my forehead, if necessary.

Admittedly, prior to the announcement that Rio de Janeiro would be the host city for the 2016 Olympics, I was fairly neutral on the whole matter. I actually couldn’t have cared less. I even said so on this blog.

Outside of the nose hair trimming techniques of early 8th Century Persians, I don’t know that there is much that is less interesting to me than the Olympics.

However, since the announcement last Friday – and witnessing the reaction of the Obama-backed media complex since – I have shifted my thinking.

I will use Martin’s piece to help me explain why.

Martin wrote:

Whenever President Obama has traveled overseas and offered pointed and direct assessments of the United States, some of them critical, Republicans have ripped him for criticizing America, saying a president should always defend the United States.

So I want to hear the explanation by these so-called patriots of their giddy behavior over the United States losing the 2016 Olympic Games.

Yes, the United States. The bid that was rejected Friday by the International Olympic Committee was not a Chicago, Illinois, bid. It was the official bid submitted by the United States Olympic Committee and was representative of the nation. Tokyo’s bid was that of Japan; Madrid’s was that of Spain; and Rio de Janeiro’s was that of Brazil.

Republicans want to spin the decision as a massive loss by President Obama and the Democrats who have always controlled Chicago politics.

“Hahahahaha,” wrote Erick Erickson on the conservative “RedState” blog, “I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone.”

What the critics don’t see is that Obama’s loss on the Olympics is America’s loss. Any red-blooded American who loves to see the American flag raised and the national anthem played when one of our own wins a gold medal should blast the Republicans’ giddiness over the loss.

First of all, for clarity’s sake, no President of the United States has ever criticized or apologized for his own country on foreign soil. It is inconceivable that any President would ever do so. It simply would never serve the best interests of the United States, in any way whatsoever – yet, President Obama has done it on several occasions. In no uncertain terms, it is unaccepatble behavior for the Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. It is not how a President preserves, protects and defends the Constitution.

That he – President Obama – finds it appropriate to do so, with mere months under his belt as the nation’s Chief Executive, while effectively thumbing his nose at the over two centuries of American history that preceded him, is, at the very least, arrogant; it is, at most, a dangerous precedent that isolates and instills less confidence and security in those nations that look to America as the world’s defender against evil (think of Poland and the Czech Republic). It is a weakness that emboldens America’s enemies.

This criticism of President Obama would apply to any President who asserts that kind of spinelessness, regardless of his party affiliation, skin color, or city of origin.

As far as the “red-blooded” Americans Martin is referring to whom he says should be blasting “giddy” Republicans like me, I must ask:

How exactly is not getting the Olympic Games “America’s loss?” In what way?

It seems that Mr. Martin is somehow equating patriotism with support of the games coming to Chicago.

Typical liberal non sequiturism.

olympic medalsI’m an American – a proud American – and whenever that flag goes up (when possible), regardless of where I am, whether there are Olympic Games going on or not, I stand and salute it. Likewise, wherever and whenever I hear Star-Spangled Banner, I take a moment (when possible) to stop and honor my country. Whether it is played in Rio, Chicago, Europe, or on the moon, the significance is not – nor should it be – diminished based on locale.

It’s true, I am not a fan of the Olympics. But so what? Patriotism has nothing to do with the Olympic Games.

For what it’s worth, before each sporting event I attend, I remove my hat, face the flag, and salute my country. I fly flags proudly at my home, and handle them properly, removing them at night and during inclement weather. I proudly wear a flag lapel pin because I honor this nation and those who fight to defend her. I don’t need an international athletic competition held on American soil to serve as a barometer of how patriotic I am, or whether or not I support the United States of America.

Besides, there are plenty of people who fervently support our Olympic athletes who would rather see the games played elsewhere. Let someone else deal with the nightmarish traffic, pollution, community upheaval, and ever-present terrorist threats that accompany the event.

And just to keep my friends in the environmentalist movement happy, what about the massive carbon footprint that human beings from well over a hundred countries would leave behind?

Having recycling bins strewn about the Olympic Village just isn’t green enough.

Martin continues:

Americans love home field advantage, and we always desire to show the rest of the world what we are made of.

I don’t care if Republicans want to rip President Obama over going to Copenhagen, Denmark, to pitch for the games. This isn’t about politics. It’s not about ideology. This is about America. OUR pride. Our chance to shine. Our loss of the games.

So, to all the critics happy about us losing the 2016 games, turn in your flag lapel pins and stop boasting of being so patriotic. When an American city loses, like New York did in the the last go-round, we all lose. And all you critics are on the same level as the America haters all across the world.

You should be shouted down for not backing your own country. The next time any of you bang out a press release about “Buy American” or “Support our troops,” remember this moment when your cynical, callous and small-minded brains happily rejoiced when America lost the 2016 Olympic Games.

Mr. Martin, Americans show the world what we are made of by our values. We show the world what we are made of by standing up to evil and defeating it. We are the Shining City Upon The Hill because we are a nation that believes in God-given liberty and the power of the individual. We stand as a beacon to the world’s huddled masses not because we have the longest jumpers, fastest runners and strongest weightlifters. We are the greatest nation on Earth because America gives anyone and everyone the opportunity to be the very best they can be, without government restraint.

That’s how America’s greatness is measured.

People come here not because we have killer sprinters and world class pole vaulters.

It’s interesting how Mr. Martin can make the claim that this was not about politics.

Why on Earth would President Obama personally jet to Copenhagen to pitch his adopted home city if there was not political pressure to do so from his cronies back home? I mean, why Chicago? Why not other American cities that could probably have been more accomodating than the splendidly corruptible Windy City?

Because everything is about the ever-enigmatic, charismatic, President of the World, Barack Obama.

He is the Liberal King. He can do anything.

I also love how Mr. Martin says that the bid to bring the Olympics to Chicago was “about America.”

Does he have any inclination of how ridiculous he sounds?

The Olympics are not about America. They’re about multiculturalism. They’re about leveling the playing fields between nations. They’re about moral and cultural equivelancy. They’re about the whole world coming together in some sort of pseudo-hand holding, kumbaya-type of kinship manifested through athletic competition.

“America,” Mr. Martin?

How about the troops in harm’s way? Why the hell has the President dragged his feet on Afghanistan while American fighting forces literally hang in the balance waiting for him to decide what he is going to do? How good is it for America that, at one minute, Afghanistan is a war of necessity and at the next, it is an issue he is unsure about? Aren’t the men and women of the Armed Forces “about America?” Do they not deserve the President’s attention before he makes himself available to the damn International Olympic Committee?

American pride is not about where the Olympic Games are being held.

Sure, one can make a case that America is about winning in those games. I’ve nothing against that. When America wins – even in the Olympics – it is a good thing.

But the locale of those games is all “about America?”

Who’s brain is “small-minded,” sir?

America shines when she liberates oppressed peoples. America shines when she defends her allies and keeps her promises. America shines when she come to the aid of people in trouble, in all walks of life, all over the world. America shines not because her athletes throw a jevelin the longest, or swim the fastest. America shines because she is a shining city upon a hill, as accommodating as any nation that has ever existed.

And by the way, as a New Yorker, I did not lose when my city was rejected as the host of the 2012 Olympic Games, nor did my family, friends and fellow New Yorkers.

I actually celebrated.

And keep in mind, that was while George W. Bush was President, not too long after the attacks of September 11, 2001.

The fact of the matter is, the Olympics are not good for local economies. The 2016 Games, if the pattern had held true to form, would not have been a boost to Chicago, as many instinctively (and reflexively) believe. Since the 1984 Olympics in Los Angeles, every host city has actually lost money.

Stefan Szymanski of the Washington Post writes:

The truth is that the local economy doesn’t get much of a boost while those shiny new athletic venues are being built. Many of the jobs created are filled by specialists who come in from outside — to construct a BMX bicycle track, it helps to have built one before — and they take their pay home with them. To the extent that local labor is tapped, suppliers are taken away from other projects in the area, raising costs in the process. It would be nice to think you could create an Olympic city by hiring an army of the unemployed, but mega-projects like this do not work like that.

My charm will conquer all

My charm will conquer all

President Obama’s grandest mistake in this whole affair was never giving anyone the impression that he wanted the Olympic Games to come to Chicago because it was good for the United States of America. Nothing in what he said or did surrounding his attempt to bring the games to Chicago was ever about his country.

It was always about him.

And whether justified or not, the impression that he was paying back some old debts to former Chicagoland chums was foremost in the minds of many.

It was his arrogance – the continuation of his United Nations “America-Has-Been-Great-For-Nine-Months-Since-I-Came-Along” approach – that killed Chicago’s chances. It was his belief in his own power to persuade, simply by virtue of his unprecedented presence before the OIC in Copenhagen that killed the bid. It was his self-centered, rambling, unfocused gobbledygook about how the Games would feel to him and his family that deep-sixed it. It was his wife, Michelle, emoting about how the games would make her feel, and how it would remind her of her father that helped knock Chicago out in the first round.

For those reasons, President Obama needed to be brought down a few pegs.

This country is not about him.

With each failure of his radical agendas and misprioritized deeds, America wins.

That is why I am “giddy,” Mr. Martin.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics, Sports, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 23, 2009

bush_hitler_1When leftists take to the streets to protest, it is not only newsworthy, it is also (we are told) noble, meritorious and rooted in genuine concern for some great issue affecting humanity.

When conscientious young skulls of leftist mush demonstrated against Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, convinced he would lead the world into World War III and foreordained nuclear devastation, they did so with the world’s media gazing upon them in awe. Protestors were showered with accolades, praised not only for their highborn cause, but their willingness to get involved and stand up for their beliefs.

Protests – even riots – against George W. Bush (complete with calls for his impeachment, routine comparisons to Adolf Hitler, and publications hopeful for his eventual assassination) were met with reckonable commentary focusing on the deep concerns of the American citizenry, the anxiousness of a troubled electorate, and the blessings of a society that affords its people the opportunity to redress their grievances.

By contrast, when liberals are in power, protests against them are never based on the genuine concerns of the public. Those who speak out against leftists at the helm are never noble or admirable. The beauty of a society where the citizens can redress their grievances suddenly becomes irrelevant. Whatever anxiousness there may be among those protesting liberal power is rooted in selfishness and even bigotry. Thus the motivations of those who oppose liberal policies are engrained not in presenting a viable alternative, but in achieving a diabolical and sinister goal – whatever that might be.

It seems perfectly reasonable, doesn’t it?

Remember, whereas conservative bigotry divides, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi can accuse those who oppose ObamaCare of being swastika carriers, and no one is particularly outraged. She can tearfully warn against conservative protestors potentially resorting to the kind of violence that took the lives of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978, and no one blinks an eye. Corrupt Congressman Charles Rangel of New York can say that racism is behind the widespread opposition to Obama’s leftist policies, and it all seems to make sense. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can call Town-Hall protesters “evil mongers,” and his words are taken seriously. Reid can also call President Bush a liar, and no one as much as lifts an eyebrow; but when Congressman Joe Wilson accuses President Obama of lying, America pauses in gapped-mouthed amazement at the lack of civility. Dissenters to the Obamacratic vision for America can be called kooks, fringies, right-wing nutcases, gun-happy bigots, Kool-Aid drinkers, racists, or whatever pejorative fits the bill for the moment, and never are the validities of their dissent analyzed the same way “Bush=Hitler” protestors were.

Liberal anger is patriotic.

Conservative anger is dangerous.

On yesterday’s edition of Hardball on sparsely viewed MSNBC, the ever-vexatious and never-delightful Chris Matthews said the following:

“ … the activists on radio are not afraid because they’re not afraid of anything. But at some point if we have violence in this country against our president of any form or attempt, people are gonna pay for it, the people who have encouraged the craziness. And I get the feeling, at some point, the responsible grown ups like people who have [been] elected 20 or 30 years, who know what it means to be responsible officeholders, must be saying to themselves, ‘I don’t want to be one of the people responsible if one of these Looney Tunes gets a gun and does something.’ “

chris matthews on hardball“People are gonna pay for it?”

“Looney Tunes?”

Civility, thy name is Matthews.

What exactly is he talking about? Angry, sign-waving, expletive-shouting, rock-throwing, anti-war, Amerika-with-a-k, Bush-lied-people-died fanatics were nothing to concern ourselves with, but conservative dissent somehow translates into the frightening prospect of violence?

Funny how that works.

Matthews also said that all of the “anti-government” talk wasn’t improving anyone’s life and that the “clown show” was over. (Of course, Obama has at least three more years to serve, so the “clown show” regrettably goes on).

Note how Matthews unabashedly reveals the core belief of his political creed: that only government can improve anyone’s life.

It goes without saying (or it should) that anyone with any sense of what this country has always been about understands that one’s liberty is directly proportional to the amount of power the government has over its citizens. As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.”


This kind of thinking, of course, creates ulcers in the collective colon of liberal America. To them, it’s only about government.

The so-called “lack of civility” on the right – fuelled by talk radio haters and angry cable news channel gabbers, they say – has become all the rage in trying to explain why there is so much opposition to the Obamacratic transformation of America. It isn’t possible in Liberal-Land to legitimately oppose an expansion of government, or speak out against it, because in the world of Chris Matthews (and his fun-loving leftist brethren), only government can make the boo-boo all better. Thus, the motive for the dissent must rest elsewhere – perhaps in racist inclinations, deep-rooted anger in the multiculturalization of the country, greed, selfishness, sexism, whatever. There is no genuine compassion on the right – only self-centeredness. There is no tolerance on the right – only bitterness. There is no civility on the right – only anger.

Yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood – a Republican – broke out his own slice of civility by lashing out against conservative talk show radio hosts and cable new network talking heads, saying “they have eroded civility and impeded the nation’s ability to solve big problems.”

Joe Hallett of the Columbus Dispatch writes:

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Dispatch that the level of “harsh discourse in Washington has probably reached an all-time high,” and he partly blamed it on “all of this trash talk about the process and about politicians 24/7” on cable television and talk radio.

LaHood referred to criticism Obama received for appearing Sunday on five television news shows to promote his health-care overhaul. The secretary also indicated that even the president’s bully pulpit is no match for the cacophony over the airwaves from the political right.

“He can’t even compete with all this stuff that people are saying about him, so the idea that he did five interviews on Sunday, that’s just minuscule compared to the kind of trash talk that goes on all week prior to that,” LaHood said.

“All of this background, all of this trash talk in the background, it does not contribute to civil discourse, and it does not contribute to the government or the country’s ability to solve big issues.”

Absolute nonsense.

What Mr. Hallett really means is that conservative talk-show hosts and cable news channel kibbitzers are helping to make it impossible for the federal government to do whatever the hell it wants without a meddling constituency sticking their noses in things. What Mr. Hallett is bothered by is the fact that Americans are not just rolling over and taking whatever they’re told to take by the big boys in charge. What disturbs the Transportation Secretary is the reality that taxpayers will not accept that their elected officials can be trusted.

It is precisely conservative talk-radio, right-leaning cable news channel pundits, and the explosion of coast-to-coast Tea Parties – in conjunction with a very well-informed electorate – that have enabled the current debate on health care reform to flourish and continue.

It is not trash talk, despite what Hallett the Rino says.

As I have alluded to before – and still worth repeating – it makes one wonder exactly what acceptable discourse and dissent actually sounds like in the eyes of panicked leftists.

Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media, Media Bias, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 15, 2009

Obama The MessiahWhat is wrong with these people?

It makes no sense.

It’s almost as if those who oppose Him don’t wish to be saved. Can’t these contrarians and malcontents understand that when they cry afoul and moan about the erosions of personal liberty, they are helping to extinguish moral and economic imperatives being proposed for their own good? Can’t these rabble-rousing, tea-party drones cool it with their tiresome talk-radio inspired “personal responsibility” chatter and all that “liberty” rhetoric?

Clear-thinking reasonable citizens of the world would never oppose such a battery of forward thinking policies as we are now seeing nine months into the Messianic Age. It thus stands to reason that to be against Him is to be mired in timeworn obsoleteness. To oppose Him is to oppose all that would unify. It cannot possibly be the substance of an Obamacratic policy that causes people to take an opposing position; not when the policy in question is cut from messianic cloth. It can only be the myopic citizenry wallowing in their antiquated prejudices and bigotry, hell-bent on stifling an uppity black man with vision. And since asking the question, “What is wrong with these people?” will never bring an answer that satisfies the disciples, there can only be one reason why there still exist those who won’t board the Obama transformation train.

His skin color.

That’s what we’re told by the most serious thinkers on the left.

Those who postulate and predicate modern liberalism are doing all they can to create new conventional wisdom – namely, that what sits at the core of the uproarious opposition to Barack Obama’s push to drop the health care delivery system on the lap of the federal government is the darkness of his skin.

It has to be, they say.

What else could it be?

Fair and open-minded people would never argue that there will be a major problem in adding thirty million people (formerly forty-seven million) to the nation’s insurance rolls while the number of physicians and nurses remains stagnant. No way. That’s race-based gobbledygook.

Rational thinkers would never question how such an expansive plan could possibly save money, as He suggests it would, even though demand would explode to astronomical proportions. No chance. To do so would be engaging in masked racism.

Level-headed policy wonks would never question Him when He says that illegal aliens would not be covered with taxpayer dollars, even though there is no provision that allows for the citizenship status of potential patients to be verified. No sir. To suggest He is being dishonest about this, as Congressman Joe Wilson did last week, is akin to burning a cross, or using the “n” word.

In short, those who stand up against the policies of Barack Obama do so because he is black.

And they hate having a black President.


So we’re told.

If it were Joe Biden (God forbid) making the same speech last Wednesday, Joe Wilson would have said nothing.

The ever-effervescent Maureen Dowd in her most recent column writes:

Maureen DowdSurrounded by middle-aged white guys — a sepia snapshot of the days when such pols ran Washington like their own men’s club — Joe Wilson yelled “You lie!” at a president who didn’t.

But, fair or not, what I heard was an unspoken word in the air: You lie, boy!

Wilson clearly did not like being lectured and even rebuked by the brainy black president presiding over the majestic chamber.

Dowd goes on to point out that Wilson, at one time, belonged to the Sons of the Confederacy – an offense so hanus, its equal has yet to be realized. I’m not sure exactly how much weight Ms. Dowd really puts in the past associations of elected officials, but the names Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright immediately come to mind. The organization ACORN also rings a bell.

Nowhere did the magnificent Ms. Dowd bother to mention that Mr. Wilson is also a colonel in the National Guard.

She’s silly that way.

Sports-scribbler-turned-incoherent-leftocrat Mike Lupica of the New York Daily News wrote:

Mike LupicaThis is an America where Rep. Joe Wilson, whoever he is, thinks he can call the President of the United States a liar, Wilson talking to the President the way he would the help, or some waiter who was supposed to bring him another drink.

Wilson really did sound like somebody who had been on hold for an hour, waiting to scream about socialism to Rush.

But why wouldn’t Wilson scream out the way he did? This is a time when a radio host like Mark Levin routinely refers to President Obama as “that jerk,” all in the name of liberty, of course, and the fight against tyranny. Or maybe this all just comes out of a fury that there weren’t enough screamers to keep the black guy from getting elected.

Such is the intellectual left.

Note that race magically becomes a negligible component when the likes of Ms. Dowd and Mr. Lupica, i.e., white liberals, speak out in opposition against powerful black conservatives, like Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas (black). Does Thomas’ “blackness” – or lack thereof as some have suggested – suddenly become irrelevant when lefties espouse criticisms of his positions? Why does no one accuse Dowd of harboring deep-seated racist inclinations when she criticizes a black who happens to be conservative? Or Lupica? Or any white on that side of the garden? Surely, they have no great love for the positions and philosophies of people like Larry Elder, J C Watts and Walter Williams. So then, when white libs criticize black conservatives, where are the “You’re not black enough, boy!” accusations?

The answer?

Because race is an issue only to conservatives, even though liberals are the ones who keep bringing it up. Even the ever-affable and lovable Bill Cosby referred to Clarence Thomas as a “brother lite” not too long ago.

I suppose that when “one of them” criticizes “one of their own,” there is truth in it.

So, when columnist extraordinaire Paul Krugman takes the opposing view of conservative thinker Thomas Sowell, is it because of Sowell’s race? Shouldn’t Krugman be branded a racist by default?

How about columnist Frank Rich? Safe to say, he’s no supporter of RNC Chairman Michael Steele. If he lambastes the Republican Party in his columns (which is like saying, “if he breathes”), should those of us on the right now fit him for a white sheet and hood?

As long as guilt-ridden white people can point out how awful other white people are, with a whole lot of black people looking on, modern liberalism will never run out of nourishment.

Posted in health care, Liberalism, Media Bias, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 13, 2009

It was HIM!

It was HIM!

As Obamacrats – in consort with the main stream media – continue to do everything they can to shift attention from ObamaCare to those speaking out against it, the attempts to paint these people as fringies, demagogues and, yes, racists are well underway.

It is Marginalization 101.

New York Times columnist Paul Krugman says that racism is at the heart of the town hall protests.

MSNBC’S Chris Matthews believes that “some of the people are upset because we have a black president.”

Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution thinks that “45 to 65% of the people who appear at these groups are people who will never be comfortable with the idea of a black president.”

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said town hall protestors were “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.”

And so on.

It couldn’t possibly be because ObamaCare stinks.

Libs would have us believe that only people who take to the streets calling for the end to war are patriotic dissenters. Only those who rally against the dangers of global warming are genuinely concerned citizens called to a cause. Only those who carry “BUSH: WANTED, DEAD OR ALIVE” signs with an “X” over the word “ALIVE” are legitimately redressing their grievances. Only protestors who carry posters of George W. Bush’s face with the words “F— YOU, MOTHERF—ER!” underneath are compelled to do so for appropriate reasons. Only activists who display “CHRISTIAN FASCISM” signs with a swastika in place of the letter S can be taken seriously.

Otherwise, it is all “manufactured.”

It isn’t “grass roots,” it’s “astroturf.”

Ever since Pelosi exposed what was clearly a ubiquitous “swastika” culture running through the ranks of the “astroturfers” who disrupt townhall meetings, much has been made of a poster depicting President Obama with a Hitler moustache. This stupendously stupid poster is evidence, according to the pro-Obama set, that the folks showing up at these town hall meetings are nothing more than hate-filled, angry, pitchfork wielding right-wingers – quite possibly organized and dispatched by Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter.

In covering the growing outrage over Obamacare, the alphabet channels have made love to the poster.

To read it or hear it from the mainstreamers, these vehemently anti-Obama displays are happening with enormous regularity across the country. In fact, one could understandably infer that swastikas abound at these town hall meetings, and that posters featuring Obama with his Hitlerian cookie duster are plastered as far as the eye can see.

Yadda, yadda.

Of course, it is as political as it is disingenuous, all meant to cast conservatives in a negative light – even though a considerable portion of those opposed to the Bama-langa-ding-dong health care proposals are Democrats.

The problem is … the Obama-with-a-moustache poster was not created by a conservative. It originated with the Lyndon LaRouche movement.

Remember him? The eight-time Presidential candidate who ran as a Democrat in seven elections (and once as a member of the US Labor Party)?

From today’s Washington Times Inside The Beltway column:

NBC, MSNBC and CNN have showcased a controversial image of President Obama depicted as Hitler during recent news coverage of contentious town-hall meetings and health care reform.

“They run dialogue and video over this poster and clearly imply that either Rush Limbaugh or ‘conservatives’ in general are behind the image, which they use as a symbol of extremism. But look closely, and you discover the real credit. It goes to the Lyndon LaRouche political action committee. You can see it. It’s right there,” Seton Motley tells Inside the Beltway.

The Media Research Center communications director and blogger calls the coverage “pathetic journalism” that fails to inform the public about the origins of the image or important health care legislation.

“Are these major news organizations willfully ignorant? They make a slap at the right when this Obama-as-Hitler poster is clearly coming from the left. It’s absurd, and it’s dangerous. The public is not getting the real story,” Mr. Motley says.

The LaRouche folks deny nothing.

“The image of Obama with a toothbrush mustache was initiated by LaRouche PAC organizers. The captions vary: ‘Is This Your President?’ was one; a recent one was ‘I’ve changed.’ ” spokeswoman Nancy Spannaus tells Beltway.

“Lyndon LaRouche and his organization have declared war against Obama’s so-called health care reform because it is a direct copy of the policy Hitler declared in October 1939, when Hitler issued the order for euthanasia against those determined, by a board of medical experts, to have ‘lives unworthy to be lived,’ ” Ms. Spannaus says.

“LaRouche has also put forward the clear alternative: cancel the bailout and HMOs, implement bankruptcy reorganization of the financial system, and return to the Hill-Burton system that made our health care the best in the world.”

Dan Gainer at the great NewsBusters website writes:

For eight years in America, protest was in and all the cool kids did it. We had flamboyantly dressed Code Pinkers demonstrating at conventions and in sessions of Congress, calling Marine recruiters “traitors” and protesting wounded soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Then there were the crazies from Acorn stalking Wall Street executives at their homes. And anti-war lefty Cindy Sheehan got so much news coverage from the major networks and top newspapers that they practically had to create a bureau to handle her antics.

Through it all, the left whined that President George Bush was a fascist – with “BusHitler” a common term among the foam-at-mouth Birkenstock set. (Google Bush and Hitler and you’ll get more than 1 million hits including a bunch of Photoshopped images of Bush in a Nazi uniform with a Hitler mustache.) We were supposed to bear with it. Dissent was patriotic we were told. Those hate-spewing anti-war activists really loved our soldiers – especially when they were mocking the war right outside a veteran’s hospital. And the endless stream of Nazi comparisons were just free speech, after all.

As talk show host Dennis Prager says often, “First state the facts, then give your opinion.”

I like that line.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 7, 2009

Convicted Democrat

Convicted Democrat

From the “Who Says There’s Media Bias” file …

When Republicans blunder publicly, there can never be a doubt as to his or her political affiliation. Whether that blunder comes in the form marital infidelity (which is more appropriately a private matter) or an all-out, red-light case of political corruption, you can rest assured that if he or she becomes one of the stories on a television newscast, all consumers of that newscast will know that he or she is a GOPer before they are even sure what was supposed to have happened. Regardless of how severe the charge or dastardly the deed, the world will know that a Republican is behind it.

However, this is not necessarily the case for Democrats … if you can believe it.

Take former Democrat congressman William Jefferson, for instance.

Following the ex-Louisiana congressman’s conviction on Wednesday for taking bribes (on 11 of 16 counts), the big three networks were surprisingly inconsistent in affiliating Mr. Jefferson with the Democrat Party in their news coverage … as hard as that may be to fathom.

Kyle Drennen at the great News Busters website explains:

On Thursday, all three network morning news programs reported the conviction of former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson on bribery charges, but only NBC’s Today identified him as a Democrat. CBS’s Early Show and ABC’s Good Morning America simply referred to him as a “former congressman.”

In contrast, Wednesday’s NBC Nightly News did not provide a Democratic label for Jefferson, while ABC’s World News did identify his party affiliation. The CBS Evening News made no mention of the conviction. While both Good Morning America and Today featured news briefs early in the 7AM ET hour on Thursday, The Early Show did not mention the story until early in the 8AM hour.

While CBS finally managed that single news brief Thursday morning, reporter Russ Mitchell framed the story in the context of Jefferson’s attorney appealing the decision: “A lawyer for former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson says he will appeal Jefferson’s conviction on 11 counts of bribery, racketeering, and money laundering.” Neither Today nor Good Morning America mentioned the appeal.

Interesting to note here is that during the time period when Democrat William Jefferson was knee-deep in bribery and frozen money, one couldn’t swing a dead woodchuck without hitting a congressional Democrat going on and on about the Republican Party’s “culture of corruption.”

Remember when that little quotable was all the rage?

Speaking of “culture of corruption,” you’ll recall late last month when a slew of New Jersey politicians (among others) were arrested in a far-reaching federal corruption and money laundering scandal. How many knew that just about all of the main political players (including Mayor Pete Cammarano of Hoboken, Mayor Dennis Elwell of Secaucus, Deputy Mayor Leona Beldini of Jersey City and Jersey City Council President Mariano Vega) were Democrats?

I didn’t.

Not at first.

welcome to new jerseyIn this CBS report, in an almost two minute-long video, there is no mention of political party, nor does a small “D” show up anywhere on the screen. If the accused had been Republicans, CBS would have had little elephant icons stampeding across the bottom third.

On the day the story broke, Joe Ryan of Newark Star Ledger listed the names of some of the arrested officials in the second paragrpah of his article. Only Republican Assemblyman Daniel Van Pelt was identified politically – that is, until the 11th and 12th paragraphs when Cammarano and Elwell were finally labeled as Democrats.

In an article filed by Scott Curkin, Bill King and Lakisha Bostick of WABC-TV in New York, no mention of anyone’s political affiliation came until the eighth paragraph when Cammarano was identified as a Democrat – but no one else.

However, most interesting in their piece is the paragraph where they list the names of all the Jersey City officials who were arrested.

Only the Republicans are identified politically.

(L. Harvey) Smith, a former Jersey City mayoral candidate who served four years as the city’s council president, and several other current and former Jersey City public officials also are accused of accepting money to help the fake developer gain permits and approvals.    

The Jersey City officials include:

-(Deputy Mayor Leona) Beldini

-Jersey City Council President Mario Vega

-Jersey City Council candidate La Vern Webb-Washington

-John Guarini, Jersey City Republican, also chairman of the Jersey City 9/11 Committee

-Guy Catrillo, Jersey City Republican

-Joseph Castagna, Jersey City Health Officer

-Louis Manzo, a former Assemblyman and Jersey City mayor candidate

-Michael Manzo, Jersey City fire arson investigator

Note how John Guarini is first and foremost a Republican. He is “also” a 9/11 commitee member.

Guy Catrillo doesn’t even have a title. He’s just a Jersey City Republican.

In all fairness, New Jersey has a long, illustrious history of political corruption. They’re pros over there – Democrat and Republican alike.

But have no doubt, if New Jersey were a red state, conservatism itself would have somehow been blamed as the chief catalyst for the state’s rampant corruption … or George W. Bush.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 6, 2009

She is the third in line to the Presidency of the United States.

Here was the exchange:

Reporter: Do you think there’s legitimate grassroots opposition going on here?

Pelosi: I think they’re astroturf. You be the judge. They’re carrying swastikas and symbols like that to town meetings on health care.

They’re” carrying swastikas, Madame Secretary?

Is it a movement now?

And what other “symbols like that” are you referring to?

Pictures of the Founding Fathers?

Facsimiles of the Constitution?

American flags?

If the national debt could be reduced by one dollar for every pairing of a swastika and Goerge W. Bush that appeared on college campuses, rallies, protests and other leftist love-ins during the pre-Messianic era, the country could very well be operating in the black.

From the “It’s So Obvious, I Shouldn’t Have To Say It” file … It goes without saying that it is altogether inappropriate for anyone to compare an American President to Adolf Hitler, regardless of what side of the aisle the charge comes from. That one or two isolated cases of people carrying signs with swastikas have been documented at recent town hall meetings hardly qualifies as a trend – and is yet another attempt at distracting the attentions of the American people away from a very unpopular course of action.

After all, if the word “nazi” can somehow become identified with opposing Obama’s health care plan in the nation’s cognitive schema, then Democrats have done their job.

To be fair … one of the swastika signs in question didn’t even accuse the President of being a Nazi; it only asked if Obama was really willing to go down the path of having the government takeover health care. It had a swastika with a line through it, and the word “Obama” with a question mark after it – not exactly substituting the “s” in “George W. Bush” with a swastika, but questionable, I suppose. (Government-run health care and fascism are not synonymous).

Another sign actually had a Hitler-like moustache drawn on the face of Barack Obama.

Stupid, to be sure … but only one case out of tens of thousands of people who have spoken up against the Obama health care debacle at these town hall meetings.

Disgraceful, Madama Speaker. Disgraceful.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 13, 2009

obama messiah

The need on the part of the mainstream media to turn everything President Obama does into an unprecedented, unrivaled event for the ages continues. Blathering, saliva-gushing purveyors of specious objectivity position their crowing skulls center-screen on the alphabet channels and laud everything the Messiah-In-Chief does with such orgasmic delight, one almost gets to feeling dirty watching them. From his entrancingly delivered speeches of prodigious frivolousness to his mastering the art of answering a pre-scripted question, President Obama may be the greatest human being who has ever drawn a breath.

And seriously, can anyone own a teleprompter like he can?

Let’s face it, for the liberal media (redundancy noted), covering the presidency is fun again!

Whether based on the insatiable desire to be part of something historical, or the need to wash the sour taste of George W. Bush from their palettes, their universes begin and end with the Big Bam.

The President is particularly extolled when he goes overseas, which he has done three-hundred fifteen times already since his coronation nearly six months ago. Each new apology for the actions of the United States brings collective sighs from newsrooms across the map. Each handshake with a despotic leader makes the alphabet sycophants melt like bobby-soxers at the foot of a crooner. Safe to say, if Obama kicked a puppy across the White House lawn, stories would abound on how the pooch had it coming to him.

And so it was late last week that CNN anchor Don Lemon found himself gravely disappointed when he learned that the enthusiastic crowds that greeted President Obama in Africa were not unprecedented. In fact, President George W. Bush – war criminal, hick, mispronouncer of the word “nuclear,” hater of all that is decent – received similarly fervent welcomes when he visited there.

Lemon (to correspondent): I was watching you yesterday on the Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer when President Obama was arriving, and they were doing the dancing, and all the people who were running up to him … I know when presidents come over there, they are usually warmly received, but for a Western leader, have you ever seen anything like this? Is this unprecedented?

Correspondent Nkepile Mabuse: It’s not unprecedented. When President Bush was here, you will remember, in February, there were people who were drumming, there were dances, and President Bush joined some of them. So, it’s not unprecedented. This is truly an African welcome that is given to anybody, whether they are from Africa, or anywhere else in the world.

Lemon (clearly dejected): So, they’d welcome everyone. It doesn’t matter. This is part of how the people do it, right?

Mabuse: Indeed, Don

Not only did poor Mr. Lemon not get the answer he wanted, but the report came to a screeching halt at that point.

A shame, really.

It might have been interesting, i,e, a “no-brainer,” for Mr. Lemon (or perhaps some enterprising young producer at CNN) to actually go back through the CNN video libraries and pull some b-roll of someone like President Bush visiting Ghana – or, for that matter, any visiting “Western” head of state. (That is, if they were genuinely interested in what they were reporting). You can bet your bottom buck that a story such as this would never have made it past the CNN editirial board had the President been a Republican. And if by some chance it had, a cleverly-edited video montage of everyone who had ever step foot in Ghana would have hit the air to prove that the enthusiasm showed for a visiting American (Republican) President would have been given to anyone.

It seems to me a golden opportunity was missed here.

It might have proven to be a wonderful showcase for multiculturalism, presenting how the people of Ghana greet visiting dignitaries in general, pulling video footage of all the Presidents and world leaders they can find who have visited that county. What a fascinating expose it might have made, featuring the people of Ghana and some of their unique customs.

This could have – and maybe should have – been a wonderful human interest story.

But of course, Obama’s arrival in Africa (and the ensuing ardor) wasn’t what Mr. Lemon – or anyone else at CNN – really cared about. The filler report was simply designed to highlight yet another group of world citizens fawning over the Messiah.

When it became clear Obama’s African welcome was nothing unusual or unseen before, the story no longer served its purpose. It was time to move on.

I can’t help but wonder if the outrageous Nkepile Mabuse, who dared to group Bam with the likes of President Bush (and anybody), will ever be seen on CNN again.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 3, 2009

Chip Reid and Helen Thomas

Chip Reid and Helen Thomas

No, I don’t think the love affair is over.

But perhaps the seemingly never-ending honeymoon is finally winding down.

While life itself is not (and cannot be) a pre-packaged, perfectly choreographed, script-dependant entity all done up in a pretty little bow, the current President – forever concerned with his own image, legacy and popularity – continues to take his cues from the Automaton Songbook. He conducts his business like a man who not only cannot think out of the box, but one who needs to have someone feeding him lines from it.

The Cue Card Chief Executive – the brilliant orator and thinker (as we’ve been told) whose only non-scripted efforts in recent times have been the killing of a fly on television (for which he was berated by PETA), laughing at tasteless jokes about Rush Limbaugh dying, and his procession of “uhs” and “ums” in those rare and unscripted moments when the cue card man was away – simply hasn’t the capacity to participate in a any formal public event without having every word scripted, every move blocked, every question pre-selected, every space around him filled with teleprompters, every “evil eye” glare strategically timed and every townhall meeting participant pre-screened.

From embarrassingly reading the wrong script off a dissenting teleprompter at a White House function – and not having the presence of mind to realize he was doing so – to needing his army of electronic idiot sheets all around him at even the briefest public venue (where only a quick word or two is necessary), the man who has been touted to be as quick as Kennedy, as great a communicator as Reagan, and as visionary as King is, in reality, as smooth as a sanding pad and as clueless as his own Vice President. (Unduly harsh?) His ability to think on his feet, collect his thoughts and summon the right words, as has been shown time and time again, is decidedly limited – perhaps nonexistent. “On the spot” thinking is not the President’s strong suit.

However, for all of his shortcomings, I will be fair.

There are things he knows – and quite well.

Big government is his forte. Driving a stake through the heart of liberty in the name of equality and justice is an Obama specialty. Drawing from his Marxist sensibilities, propaganda and manipulation is what he knows. It’s what he’s been taught. A protégé of the Saul Alinsky school of thought, Obama knows that his radical notions of government-controlled health-care, his unprecedented spending and government intervention in American lives must be carefully sold and crafted to sound reasonable. Every syllable must be uttered in perfect cadence. Every word must count.

The only way that is possible is to be able to control, restrain and limit the free press.

And so it was, on Wednesday, that the most magnificent press secretary ever to take the podium at the White House, Robert Gibbs, was surprisingly confronted by two of his own from the press corps. This was not a polite, pre-scripted, paddy-cake exchange between a blind main-stream-media Obamacrat and the Messiah’s spokesman. This was no staged conflict.

This was classic.

Michael Blatt from News Busters writes:

Is the press corps starting to tire of the Obama Administration?

At a press conference today (Wednesday), Helen Thomas and CBS’s Chip Reid got into it with Robert Gibbs over how the administration has been prepackaging media events.

First Reid asked why the questions for Wednesday’s town hall on healthcare were being preselected. After Gibbs tried to dodge that question a few times, Thomas became involved, saying, “We have never had that in the White House. I’m amazed that you people … call for openness and transparency.”

Thomas said that the administration was trying to control the media, and she pointed out how they coordinated questions with the Huffington Post at a press conference.

Indeed, I diligently checked the news wires, combed through endless weather reports and even managed to listen to the “top of the hour” news reports on the radio, and I could not find any reports of dramatic temperature drops in hell.

Blatt continues:

Thomas is not the first journalist to question the White House’s coordination with the Huffington Post. The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank also took the White House to task for the coordination.

Wednesday’s press conference was also not the only media event that was in some way coordinated. Previous town halls have featured Obama campaign supporters and Democratic politicians lobbing softballs at Obama.

As Thomas noted, “[Obama’s] formal engagements are prepackaged.”

After Gibbs continued to dodge questions, Thomas said, “Of course you would, because you don’t have any answers.”

Before the exchange ended, Reid asked Gibbs to pass along this question to Obama: “Is he going to support a tax increase on the middle class?”

Afterwards, Thomas told CNS News that Obama’s grip on the media is even greater than that of Richard Nixon.

“Nixon didn’t try to do that. They couldn’t control [the media]. They didn’t try that. What the hell do they think we are, puppets? They’re supposed to stay out of our business. They are our public servants. We pay them. … I’m not saying there has never been managed news before, but this is carried to fare-thee-well–for the town halls, for the press conferences. It’s blatant. They don’t give a damn if you know it or not. They ought to be hanging their heads in shame.”

How about that?

My fingertips may actually detach themselves from the rest of my hand in revolt for typing this – and I may have to rub my eyes more than a couple dozen times to make sure that I have actually posted these words on my blog – but “Good for you, Helen Thomas!”

(Checking to make sure the world is still here).

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority website writes:

Why would two notoriously liberal establishment journalists suddenly turn on an administration they’ve heretofore been cheerleading for? My guess is it’s an ego/pride thing. The rigging of the Huffington Post “reporter” by the Obama team must have infuriated professionals like Thomas and Reid. And if there’s one thing you don’t want to do, it’s upset a news media type with a holier-than-thou complex.

Indeed, it goes without saying that the vast majority of the mainstream media has been in bed with President Obama since the moment he stepped forward from his blockbusting two years in the US Senate to become The One. He has done no wrong in their eyes – and it is reflected in the pages of their magazines and newspapers and in their broadcats. While never missing the opportunity to brand George W. Bush everything from a hayseed to a war criminal, the Messiah’s transforming blitzkrieg on American individualism, free market principals and liberty has brought very little in the way of hard criticisms from the lock-step fourth estate. They have done all they can to shamelessly promote and defend his intrusive big government policies while (unsuccessfully) attempting to maintain the veneer of impartiality.

However, media types don’t like being told what to do, how to do it and where it can be done – not even drooling, orgasmic Obamacrats.

Bam had best watch his step.

Media toes do not like being trod upon, even if the feet doing the smashing can walk on water.

Posted in First Amendment, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 13, 2009

Eric at the great Vocal Minority website makes an excellent point – one that needs to be made by people on our side who bang their chests about intellectual honesty and integrity.

Indeed, I spend a great deal of time here pointing out and illustrating the incalculable examples of liberal bias that exist in the mainstream media. Like fire ants on Sanibel Island, you cannot swing a dead squirrel without running into left-leaning media bias. I also write about the inherent nastiness and intellectual dishonesty that so often emanates from the Left these days. I assure you, it isn’t a difficult enterprise. Leftists are the arbiters of major league smear-tactics, personal attacks and selective truth telling.

They’re so good at it.

Obviously, I cannot even begin to enumerate such things here as comprehensively as I would like, lest I spend every waking minute rat-a-tat-tatting on my blog while eating up every bit of available bandwidth this side of the Appalachians.

Thus, when someone on the Left actually says something that contains even a smidgen of intellectual honesty, I feel – in the name of my own integrity – that it should be noted, even if doing so throws knots into my descending colon.

As Eric writes:

Pigs are flying outside my window as I write this, but one thing I strive for on this blog, aside from the passionate expression of my views, is intellectual honesty.

So when Keith Olbermann criticizes Wanda Sykes for her Rush Limbaugh comments, I am compelled to acknowledge it.

Granted, Olbermann said Sykes was “99% within the bounds of good taste and within the bounds of the funny.” If that were an actual calculation, Sykes would have had to speak for an additional hour and a half. It was more like 75-80%. But anyway … better than nothing.

Visit Vocal Minority to catch the video link.

With every electron of my being, having to acknowledge anything that Keith Olbermann says with even the tiniest positive spin is as unnatural and detestable to me as eating cocoa puffs in a bowl of soy sauce. I almost feel like I’ve betrayed my country or secretly began watching CNN or something.

Still, Eric is right … and for his intellectual honesty, I applaud him.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 27, 2009


Now that there is no more George W. Bush to lambaste, there is obviously nothing happening in Iraq worth reporting anymore – at least not on any large scale or in any detail. Whereas at one time, there were two fronts in the War on Terror being recklessly and carelessly fought to decisive American defeats – as the mainstream media were all too happy to try and convince the American people at every conceivable turn – the departure of the Cowboy President has facilitated the departure of war coverage.

Oh sure, if you look for it, you’ll find some tidbits here and there on the war – especially if a fresh new angle on how President Bush can be retroactively savaged for it is hit upon by an enterprising young journalist – but for the most part, it’s faded from the front burners of the American psyche.

Corporate America is the new Taliban now.

Prior to the Messianic take over of the White House, a mere glimpse at the mainstream news outlets would have convinced even the most disinterested patrons that America was embroiled in the deadliest, most-contentious battles in its history, facing catastrophic defeat with unprecedented casualties.

Since the Messianic Age began, one might have a hard time realizing that this nation was at war at all. Not only are the words “War on Terror” a no-no anymore (by Obamacratic decree), but what have turned out to be the deadliest bombing attacks in a year in Iraq are getting very little play.

I bet you didn’t realize peace had broken out.

From Friday’s New York Times:  

A deadly outburst of violence appears to be overwhelming Iraq’s police and military forces as American troops hand over greater control of cities across the country to them. On Friday, twin suicide bombings killed at least 60 people outside Baghdad’s most revered Shiite shrine, pushing the death toll in one 24-hour period to nearly 150.

Like many recent attacks, the bombings appeared intended to inflame sectarian tensions, to weaken Iraq’s security forces and to discredit its government. 

From Thursday’s Times:

The overall level of violence in Iraq is at its lowest since the American invasion in 2003, and Iraqis have been venturing out to parks, restaurants and nightclubs. But a string of recent attacks, highly organized and carried out under tight security, has raised worries that Baathist and jihadi militants are regrouping into a smaller but still lethal insurgency seeking to reassert itself as the American troop presence on the ground is reduced before a full withdrawal in 2011.

Recall that President Obama announced to the world as part of his “Eroding America’s Strength and Greatness Campaign” the precise date of comprehensive American withdrawal from the Iraqi theater.

No one can accomodate anenemy like our President can.

The moment Bam placed his tootsies upon the water, the war against Islamo-facism became irrelevant and the doomsday needle spun toward the economy  – and thus the war against capitalism and the free market began in earnest.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 22, 2009

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

Carrie Prejean, pageant contestant, traditionalist

It would simply never occur to me to pose controversial, highly volatile, politically charged questions to beauty pageant contestants – the kind of inquiries that can cause the otherwise unlearned, knee-jerk, shallow-capped leftists among us to launch into personal foul-mouthed attacks as a consequence of not giving the answer they want. Of course, I am not cut from the same intolerant cloth that today’s leftocrats are, so the obviousness of my assertion cannot be overstated.

In fact, it is now abundantly clear that conservative young ladies who wish to be contenders in beauty contests, like the Miss USA pageant held this past weekend, had best stick to showing off their legs, smiles and figures and not open their mouths to share opinions on anything that may fall out of lockstep with showbiz Leftocracy – even if specifically asked. Beauties right-of-center are apparently better off seen and not heard if they have any hope of actually winning, while people like the contemptible Perez Hilton – a judge in last weekend’s pageant best known as a celebrity gossip blogger – are often obscene and regularly absurd.

More on this in a moment.

For those who came in after the opening credits, the Miss USA pageant saw Miss California, Carrie Prejean – one whom many felt was the odds-on favorite to win the crown – spark controversy by answering a question from pageant judge Perez Hilton about same-sex marriage with a response that didn’t sit well with the ever-tolerant Leftocracy.

The question:

Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?

Naturally, this is precisely what beauty pageant contestants should be addressing when competing for the crown – contentious, divisive, polarizing topics, right? Short of a bra and panty pillow fight, or a game of naked quarters, what else could have the power to breathe much-needed life into such an event?

Honestly, what the hell kind of question is that to ask of a Miss USA pageant contestant? What would possess the ever-abrasive, never interesting and exceedingly infantile gossip-hound, Mr. Hilton – a man who would lose to a strand of typhoid in a popularity contest – to choose such a flaming potato of a question?

To her great credit, Miss Prejean’s answer was solid, concise, clarifying, and yes – compassionate:

I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what? In my country, and in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised, and that’s how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.

A good portion of the audience applauded her answer while Mr. Hilton gave her an “I’d crash a mayonnaise jar over your head right now if I could” kind of look.

Of course, this prompted the foul-mouthed pustule, Perez Hilton, to issue a response, after the pageant, via video blog.

His response is a study in leftist compassion:




Perez Hilton

Perez Hilton

Hello. Okay. So, Miss USA literally just finished and I have to make a video blog. Everyone’s going to be talking about it. I was the You Tube moment of the show, the pageant, when I asked Miss California her question, and when she gave the worst answer in pageant history. She got booed. I think that was the first time in Miss USA – ever – that a contestant has been booed.

Now, let me explain to you. She lost not because she doesn’t believe in gay marriage. Miss California lost because she’s a dumb bitch, okay? This is how a person with half a brain answers the question I posed her … Well, if I was Miss California, with half a brain, I would have said, “Mmm, Perez. That’s a great question. That’s a very hot topic in our country right now, and I think that is a question each state should decide for themselves, because that’s how our forefathers designed our government, you know? The states rule themselves and then there are certain laws that are federal.” Something along those lines, but she didn’t. She gave an awful, awful answer which alienated so many people …

If that girl would have won Miss USA, I would have gone up on stage, I shit you not, I would have gone up on stage, snatch that tiara off her head and run out the door.




I choose my words very carefully, and I wish to assert – in no uncertain terms – that Mr. Hilton is a moral degenrate of the highest order – not because of his sexual orientation, but because of his disgusting personal attacks unleashed on Carrie Prejean for not answering the question the way he would have liked it answered. That he would have the audacity to attack the intelligence of Miss Prejean (his command of the language is breathtaking) is akin to a skunk asking his buddy the turtle to slap on some deodorant.

First, I’ve played her response several times, and I hear no boos coming from the audience. There may have been, but it was not reproduced on the video tape. In fact, the cheers that followed her answer were noticeably louder than those that followed Hilton’s comment about the “legalization” of same-sex marriage in four states.

Second, The idea that the great thinker and historical scholar, Perez Hilton, has even the faintest concept of what he’s talking about when he speaks of state’s rights would immediately have me wondering if he would extend the same sentiment toward something like abortion – i.e. overturning Roe vs Wade and sending the issue back to the states. (Of course, the people of the state of California voted no to same-sex marriage, but why sully things with pesky facts?) Seeing as Mr. Hilton is keen to reference the Founders and the sovereignty of the states, perhaps his views on the Founders’ intent – prior to the ratification of the 14th Amendment and its “equal protection under the law” provision – would make for some interesting theoretical banter, especially on the issues of slavery and official state religions. Maybe he could pen a column or two, or tap into his Constitutional prowess via his blog – sandwiched in between blurbs about Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan, of course. It could prove instructive.

Of course, if someone can distinguish between Miss California’s position on same-sex marriage and that of the President of the United States, I’d be more than willing to listen. I’ve been combing through You Tube looking for Perez’s “dumb bitch” commentary on our 44th President, but have come up empty. I’m probably looking in the wrong places. If someone can point me in that direction, I’d be most appreciative.

The truth is, to Perez and his angry ilk, Miss Prejean is (at the very least) intolerant and void of compassion, yet Hilton’s You Tube rant is not only the height of intolerance and the lack of compassion, it is mean and insulting.

By contrast, Miss Prejean was anything but mean and insulting. She simply answered a question posed to her in the most respectful and compassionate manor possible. She hurled no expletives or attacks. She went out of her way to offend no one. That one can defend the millenia-old definition of marriage and then be attacked for it shows the sad state of existence this country finds itself in.

Again, to be a conservative is synonymous with being bad.

Compassion is now defined as agreement.

This brings me to Shanna Moakler, Miss USA pageant co-director, who appeared as a guest on CBS’s Early Show on Tuesday:

You know, I have to applaud her, that she was willing to miss out on the opportunity of being Miss USA, you know, to stay true to her convictions.


And frightening.

In other words, to posses a traditional view of society is an automatic disqualifier if one aspires to win the Miss USA pageant. Moakler unambiguously acknowledges that one must either think like a leftist or be a liar in order to wear the tiara. Miss California’s view that the definition of marriage should remain in tact, while somewhat applaud-worthy, is what caused her to “miss out,” according to Moakler. To believe that marriage is defined as the union between one man and one woman is to give up any hope of ever winning Miss USA.

She continues:

But on the same token, you know I think she’s muddied the waters a little bit by making – uh – her question was insensitive and it’s now become more about compassion in the way she answered her question.

It always fascinates me when people use phrases that are inappropriate and mean nothing. How it is that Miss Prejean “muddied the waters” when her answer to a ridiculous and unsuitable question was as clear as a Barney Frank lisp during a House sub-committee meeting is uncertain.

What exactly does Moakler mean by “muddying the water?”

What Moakler did clarify, however, is that it isn’t possible to disagree with one’s given position and still have compassion. This is precisely the same school of thought that says those who wish to see the definition of marriage unchanged must hate homosexuals.

Incoherence, thy name is liberalism.

I must ask … What would have been a genuinely compassionate response from someone who believes in traditional marriage?

Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, social issues | Tagged: , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 3, 2009

Liberals offend easily.

It is what motivates them to policy decisions – to do all they can to eradicate that which offends (unless the offended are right of center).

For instance, inequality (of outcome) is offensive to the Left, hence big government. Leftists would rather see everyone poorer and more equal. Leftists don’t aspire to elevate the unsuccessful. They wish to punish those who have succeeded by bringing them back to the pack.

While I am generally inclined to leave being “offended” to children, Leftists and other non-adults, there are things that conservatives admittedly find offensive – and they generally have to do with the tearing down by Leftocrats of the traditions and institutions that make the United States of America the greatest nation the world has ever known.

That’s usually And so, just over two months into his reign, President Obama – who has played the “I inherited a deficit” card more often than a Kennedy’s lips touches rum – has guaranteed that the taxes to be paid by my children, and their yet to exist children, will go up – and not just casually. The new Big Man has decided that what was “left to him” by the previous administration was so horrific, so unmanageable, so debilitating that it has become necessary to deal future generations ridiculous tax burdens out of “necessity.”

And while the brain-dead across the pond continue to expend energy, saliva and vocal chords in gushing over the visiting American royal family, realities that would have already been broached tenfold by the press had anyone not named Obama been at the helm, are being largely ignored by the disciple pool who are just happy to be along for the ride.

Hey, as long as the First Lady can show off her arms and her latest whatever it is she is wearing, all is right (or rather, Left) with the world, yes?

It’d be nice if someone charged with the task of being a journalist found the testicular fortitude to ask the President how the astronomical debt he is proposing will trigger the prosperity Bam has assured the American people.

That would seem to be a somewhat relevant question to pose.

But then again, Obama’s assurances mean nothing, do they?

Recall that the word “earmark” was brutalized and redefined as a “cover your tush” maneuver by Bam. Remember how this was the worst economy since the Great Depression, before it became worse than the Great Depression, before it somehow became sound again.

Michael Boskin writes:

What of the claim not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 a year? Even ignoring his large energy taxes, Mr. Obama must reconcile his arithmetic. Every dollar of debt he runs up means that future taxes must be $1 higher in present-value terms. Mr. Obama is going to leave a discounted present-value legacy of $6.5 trillion of additional future taxes, unless he dramatically cuts spending. (With interest the future tax hikes would be much larger later on.) Call it a stealth tax increase or ticking tax time-bomb.

What does $6.5 trillion of additional debt imply for the typical family? If spread evenly over all those paying income taxes (which under Mr. Obama’s plan would shrink to a little over 50% of the population), every income-tax paying family would get a tax bill for $163,000. (In 10 years, interest would bring the total to well over a quarter million dollars, if paid all at once. If paid annually over the succeeding 10 years, the tax hike every year would average almost $34,000.) That’s in addition to his explicit tax hikes. While the future tax time-bomb is pushed beyond Mr. Obama’s budget horizon, and future presidents and Congresses will decide how it will be paid, it is likely to be paid by future income tax hikes as these are general fund deficits.

These deficits are so large for a prosperous nation in peacetime — three times safe levels — that they would cause the debt burden to soar toward banana republic levels. That’s a recipe for a permanent drag on growth and serious pressure on the Federal Reserve to inflate, not the new era of rising prosperity that Mr. Obama and his advisers foresee.

Let’s keep in mind that this budget does not yet deal with what will be an exponential Social Security cost boom down the road.

Rail all you like against the inherited deficits of the Bush administration – recall that President Obama and the Dems supported the Bush bailouts – but Obama’s nonsensical, mythical proposed $2 trillion “cut” of the national debt is about as substantive as Obama’s “work experience and qualifications” box on his resume.

As Boskin explains:

That was mostly a phantom cut from an imagined 10-year continuation of peak Iraq war spending.

In other words, it’s like saying I am proposing a home budget that includes buying a new $50,000 car every year. Then, when I don’t buy the car, I make the claim that I have saved $50,000. Over the course of ten years, I can say I have save half-a-million bucks.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 19, 2009

It’s only been fifty-eight days.

Without the benefit of having a “D” following the President’s name, how much of what the Messiah has done thus far would have drawn relentless fire and criticism from the backpocket mainstream media and its Leftocrat bedfellows?

How much of The Chosen One’s actions as the Chief Executive would have already been picked apart, chewed to bits and spit out by the Obamacratic minions?

Recall the beating George W. Bush took as President – attacked mercilessly on everything from his ability to speak intelligibly to his intelligence – and compare it to the performance of Big Bam.

Just imagine if Barack Obama were a Republican and had the same track record.

From elevating a tax cheat to a cabinet position,
to publicly announcing war strategies to our enemies,
to suggesting that America needs to reach out to moderate terrorists,
to unprecedented levels of pork-barrel non-stimulus stimulus spending,
to lying about earmarks,
to squawking about financial responsibility while proposing a $3.6 trillion-dollar budget,
to criticizing the previous administration’s $2.9 trillion in deficits only to project doubling the national debt in ten years,
to grossly expanding government influence and control into the private sector,
to promising no lobbyists in his administration while having several,
to overturning proven Bush-era policies that have kept this nation safe in a time of war,
to announcing the closing of our detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,
to suggesting that wounded soldiers pay for their own care,
to declaring that a recession was not the time for corporations to make profits,
to predicting catastrophe if the stimulus bill wasn’t immediately passed and then waiting four days to sign it,
to leading the party that categorically stated there were no problems with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac just prior to the catastrophic problems that befell Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
to leading the party that has taken a page from the Joe McCarthy playbook by demanded the names of private citizens who have lawfully received contractually obligated retention bonuses,
to being decidedly anti-science in the ongoing debate over stem cell research,
to embarrassing himself and this country in his first meeting with the Prime Minister of Great Britain,
to childishly attacking a private-sector radio talk-show host publicly,
to deciding to appear on a late night talk show on the taxpayer’s dime while railing against about wasteful spending,
to lambasting Senator John McCain for saying the economy was fundamentally sound before predicting economic catastrophe before saying the economy was fundamentally sound again,
to spending astronomical amounts of taxpayer money on inaugural celebrations while the economy dipped into its “worst state since the Great Depression,”
to needing a teleprompter in almost every conceivable public setting,
to talking March Madness basketball with ESPN analysts while America is gripped in an “unprecedented financial downturn,”
just imagine an “R” after Barack Obama’s name.

By a show of hands, who honestly believes he’d be getting the same uncritical, cursory, all-you-need-is-love coverage from the mainstreamers? Or the talk-show circuit?

Even his closing of Gitmo would have seduced partisan aspersions.

Nope. No media bias there.

Posted in Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 10, 2009


President Barack Obama has apparently been free of any controversy whatsoever during the span of his lifetime, most notably during his years as a politician, and may very well be the first human being ever to serve in the White House that is without fault and above reproach – that is, if you read all about him at the Wikipedia online encyclopedia website. In fact, after brushing up on him there, it wouldn’t be unreasonable to conclude that Obama may very well be the greatest man ever to draw a breath in all of American political history.

For those unfamiliar with Wikipedia, it is written and edited entirely by those who use the site – but the final say of what stays in is left to those who run and monitor it. Hence, anyone looking to firm up on their Obama factoids will be deprived of anything that even suggests The Messiah may have ever been embroiled in anything contentious.

It turns out that Wikipedia users who have tried to include any mention of Obama’s associations with the terrorist Bill Ayers or the America-hating Reverend Jeremiah Wright have had their entries wiped from the page within minutes – and in some cases have been banned from the site altogether for three days.

Despite the fact that during the 2008 Presidential campaign season one couldn’t even breathe without hearing something about Obama’s relationship to Reverend Wright, the censors at Wikipedia have decided that it isn’t important enough to even score the briefest of mentions anywhere in the Obama entry.

According to Aaron Klein at World Net Daily:

… the current paragraph on Obama’s religion contains no mention of Wright, even though Obama’s association with the controversial pastor was one of the most talked about issues during the presidential campaign.

That paragraph states: “Obama explained how, through working with black churches as a community organizer while in his twenties, he came to understand ‘the power of the African-American religious tradition to spur social change.’ He was baptized at the Trinity United Church of Christ in 1988 and was an active member there for two decades.”

Ayers is also not mentioned, even where relevant.

(World Net Daily) monitored as a Wikipedia user attempted to add Ayers’ name to an appropriate paragraph. One of those additions, backed up with news articles, read as follows:

“He served alongside former Weathermen leader William Ayers from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Woods Fund of Chicago, which in 1985 had been the first foundation to fund the Developing Communities Project, and also from 1994 to 2002 on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Obama served on the board of directors of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from 1995 to 2002, as founding president and chairman of the board of directors from 1995 to 1991. Ayers was the founder and director of the Challenge.”

Within two minutes that Wikipedia entry was deleted and the user banned from posting on the website for three days, purportedly for adding “Point of View junk edits,” even though the addition was well-established fact.

Note how “matter-of-fact” the mention of the terrorist Ayers is in that censored paragraph. In fact, if you didn’t know who the Weathermen were, you might conclude that Ayers was possibly an esteemed climatologist, or  the lead singer of 1960s garage band turned philanthropist. There is nothing inflammatory, derogatory or even provocative there, yet it somehow violated the website’s rule against “fringe” material.

Sure it did.

The disingenuousness of their position reeks like a 5PM armpit in a summertime New York City subway tunnel.

Wikipedia actually publishes many articles with “controversial” content. In fact, they post disclaimers at the top of pages that contain subject matter deemed argumentative or potentially biased:

“Editors are currently in dispute concerning points of view expressed in this article. Please help to discuss and resolve the dispute before removing this message.”

“This article or section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective.”

And yet, any perceived fly in Obama’s Messianic Cherrio bowl is whitewashed by his ass-kissing sycophants.

Klein also points out that in Wikipedia’s article about former President George W. Bush, critical comments abound, including mentions of alcohol abuse in his youth, his handling of Hurricane Katrina, the favoritism he received during his time in the National Guard, and his role in presiding over the start of the current recession.

Nope. Not an electron of bias there.

Posted in Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2009

i'm sorry ... so sorry

i'm sorry ... so sorry

Earlier this morning, CNN had a link to this blog – specifically to an article I “penned” called “Race Baiter On The Attack.” It was part of CNN’s “From The Blogs” section, underneath the headlining story of Rupert Murdoch’s apology for publishing a cartoon deemed “offensive” by old-school racists and victimized societal dinosaurs.

My “inbox” and I may never be on speaking terms again.

After all the ruckus of what should’ve been less than a non-story, it occured to me that it may, indeed, be time to resurrect and redefine the term “yellow journalism” for the twenty-first century. Fear, intimidation, apology and appeasement are becoming the cornerstones of today’s free press. The mainstream media exists almost entirely to reinforce the protective cocoon that surrounds Barack Obama. The Messiah is, for now, untouchable, and any reference to anything that could even appear critical is roundly disposed with.

Let’s be truthful … if anyone other than Barack Obama – and I mean anyone – got up in front of the media and said that federal spending was out of control and needed to be tamed after signing a nearly one trillion dollar porkfest into law, they’d be skewered (and rightly so) by every journalist, pundit, blogger, talk-show host, cab driver and columnist in creation.

The “objective” American press is a disgrace.

I was disappointed – but not surprised – to see that Robert Murdoch, owner of the New York Post (NewsCorp), felt it necessary to issue yet another apology for the now infamous dead-chimp cartoon published last week that some took as a racial attack on the President. Never have so many been so outraged over so little. It is both disturbing and embarrassing.

The paper already apologized for this, you may recall, immediately after the cartoon was originally published.

But like the less-than-relevant sniveling radio speck Don Imus did a couple of years ago, Murdoch caved.

Does Mr. Murdoch truly believe that this latest apology will finally be the end of this saga? Does anyone honestly believe that these disgraceful race merchants will go away now? Sharpton and Crew have been empowered. There’s blood in the water. They won’t stop.

When do liberals ever stop?

The haters have already called for the firing of the editor-in-chief of the Post as well as the cartoonist. What next? Will they be satisfied to see those who did the actual printing of the paper canned as well? Or the folks who supplied the ink?

As expected, many happy readers of CNN are in line with Reverend Al:

-Sharpton was right on about this one. The Post has a history of using monkeys to portray black people. Because of this I hesitate to only call it thoughtless.     –Matt

-Another neocon speaks. I thought you people died off like the dodo bird. Yes Sharpton is extreme and can be a race baiter however even a klansman would have seen the NYP’s cartoon to be racist. Rupert gave a half assed apology by saying he was sorry if anyone was upset by the cartoon; which is the equivalent of apologising for your emotions rather than his racist content … Thanks for writing your blog, you have reminded me why I left the Republican party. It was once a party of intelligent people, real conservatives (not neocons) who had complex solutions to complex problems. Now it is populated and supported by monosyllabic idiots who see everything in either black or white and hate anything different.     –Andy H

-If you’re so offended by Al sharpton then i would have to assume the sight and sound of the prejudice, racist and all out black race hating commentaries of Sean Hannity, Rush limbaugh and the rest of the ”white race is superior posse” makes u want to puke. It amazes me how people such as yourself get so upset abt sharpton but dont say or condeem any of the bigotry and racist comments tht come out of their mouths. The cartoon was racist and offensive and sharpton had every right to complain.     –Tammy

Another Neocon, says the other Andy. Too funny.

And isn’t it interesting, as demonstrated by Tammy, that all roads (naturally) lead to Rush Limbaugh?

Speaking of Rush, a blogger by the name of Ben Sprouse said he actually agreed with my assessments of Al Sharpton as a racist. However, being an a confused moral relativist, Ben attempted to paint Rush Limbaugh with an equally unflattering racist brush, going so far as offering a series of “direct quotes” from Limbaugh that supposedly illustrated his hatred of non-whites. These quotes included:

-I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

-You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

-The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

-They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

-Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

Valiant effort, Ben, but no dice.

First off, most of these so-called direct quotes are not even correct. Second, they are taken completely out of context – to such a degree that Ben ought to be embarrassed for attempting to use these as a point of argument. These “quotes” were used either to illustrate the absurdity of others who regularly attributed comments like these to Limbaugh (without proof) or they were used in demonstrating the ugliness of racism itself.

These things are verifiable with minimal effort.

There is no one in all of conservative talk radio to whom race matters least than Rush Limbaugh.

To those on the right, overwhelmingly race is a non-issue. Not so on the Left.

Are there conservatives who are racist? Of course.

But no one group finds more ways to interject matters of race into more different issues in more different ways than the modern American liberal.


Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 14, 2009

obama_liarI cannot even imagine the magnitude of the cacophonous outcry all of us would be hearing right now from every seedy nook and cranny of the main-stream media had Republicans been in control of both the White House and Congress while an unread, unscrutinized, unvetted, who-did-it-and-ran spending bill passed both houses before anyone could as much as inhale.

Democrats orchestrated a legislative drive-by shooting for the ages, with the fleetness of a goose suffering from dysentery, sending to the President’s desk a hunk of burning pig-meat over a thousand pages long that no one outside of speed readers and time travelers could possibly find the time to go through before it was put up for a vote. As quickly as it appeared from the joint committee, it was shoved through the House, and by Friday evening, it was in and out of the Senate.

Just like that.


Thanks for coming.

And now, Nancy Pelosi and company are gone, scattered about – off to Rome, or wherever.

Had such a thing occurred under the watch of, say, George W. Bush, the scale of outrage and disdain that would be emanating from every Democrat able to gurgle into a live microphone would be literally unimaginable.

And because the mainstream media share a bunk and toothbrush with Obamacrats, we the people would never hear the end of it.

Just think of how many blood vessels Senator Chuck Schumer would explode carrying on about fascist Republicans. Nancy Pelosi would spring a leak yelling about right-wing tyranny and a culture of corruption unlike this nation has ever seen. Barney Frank would be speed-bitching about totalitarianism to the point that he would actually be pronouncing his “r”s and “w”s correctly. Talk would begin in earnest about impeachment. Television talking-skulls would be whining about checks and balances and dictatorships and the death of democracy. Hitlerian references and Stalinist comparisons would be running rampant. There’d be Christiane Amanpour documentaries on CNN.

But this hijacking was not a GOP affair. It was, rather, a study in expedience conducted by the party of change – or “fundamental transformation,” as it were.

With endless promises of unprecedented transparency and openness with the American people as their hallmark, the Democrats have set the gold standard for scare tactics, using the so-called impending collapse of the entire American financial system as leverage, running the most expensive spending bill the world has ever seen, stuffed and puffed with billions upon billions of non-stimulating pet projects, through the United States Congress at breakneck speed without affording politician or civilian alike the opportunity to read the damn thing.

And why?

Because it was necessary to save the country from certain ruin.

They said so, despite example after example proving that government interference of this nature is detrimental to the American economy. Something had to be done, they said, despite the fact that this recession does not even compare to the one that Ronald Reagan faced in the early 1980s. “Catastrophe” they cried if this pig-meat was not passed. “Irreversible” they screamed if Congress did not act … immediately.

And with a precision of a crack commando unit, the Democrats rammed over a thousand pages of undeciphered, irresponsible gobs of back-breaking pork through both houses of Congress without a scintilla of the lucidity and honesty they promised this country.

This little exercise of trickery and deceit will never have the word “tyranny” attached to it … although it should. Rest assured that if Republicans had conducted themselves in such an underhanded and dishonest way, “tyranny” would be among the more docile terms being hurled at them.

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


When anyone on the payroll of the Associated Press actually bothers to veer away from Interstate Obama and earn their pay by doing some genuine reporting, i.e., legitimately questioning some of the claims put forth by the Messiah himself, it is definitely worth acknowledging. (It happens so rarely). AP reporter Calvin Woodward has actually done a fairly nice job fact checking some of The One’s assertions made in Elkhart, Indiana on Monday, while the President was attempting to build up support for his pig-meat spectacular, ultimately passed by the Senate yesterday. . The problem is, while doing a respectable job checking some of the President’s spending ishkabibble, Woodward falls into the “earmarks” trap Obama himself created – something I have been writing about a lot in recent days.

First off … the fact checking.

Said Obama:

“I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. … I made a mistake … I don’t want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules. Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration.”

As we know, two Obama appointees, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, dropped out when it came to light that both had failed to pay taxes. (Obama’s vetting machine needs vetting). There is also Timothy Geithner, the new Secretary of the Treasury, who decided not to drop out when it was revealed that he had some IRS difficulties of his own – that is, until he paid his $34,000 IRS bill.

As far as lobbyists go, Woodward writes:

Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute. William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner’s choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

Then there’s Obama’s stimulus-bill promise of creating (or saving) millions of new jobs.

Note the word “save.

Said The One:

“The plan that we’ve put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.”

Woodward counters:

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it’s clear when jobs are abolished, there’s no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

Clever Democrat-speak, to be sure. The President has spent the better part of the last two weeks talking about the impending “catastrophe” of allowing his spending bill to die. That didn’t happen, of course, but had the bill not passed, job losses across the country would have been massive, he told us. Naturally, Obama never actually defined just how massive “massive” really is. Thus, no matter how many jobs are lost over the next two years, Democrats will assure the public that the total is not nearly what it would have been had the recovery bill not passed.

Viola! Saved jobs.

Then there’s the “earmark” thing.

Said Obama:

“I know that there are a lot of folks out there who’ve been saying, ‘Oh, this is pork, and this is money that’s going to be wasted,’ and et cetera, et cetera. Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. … There aren’t individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill.”

Here is where Woodward forgets how to be a reporter:

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork – tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects. For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard. Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added: “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

President Obama is playing a dishonest game, and Mr. Woodward did not do his homework.

First off, as I have said repeatedly – and will continue to do when facts are deceitfully manipulated – “earmarks” are not a process – as Obama suggested on January 6th, when he said, “We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having earmarks in the recovery package, period.”

The President seems to think – or wants us to think – that because “pet projects” were not inserted into the bill individually by members of Congress after the fact, as is often the case, they are not earmarks. In my article “President Liar and Company – Confirmed,” I used this analogy:

Let’s say, for instance, I declared to the world that there will be no profanity used in this article. After that, I went on to say that I describe profanity as the process by which an offensive word is inserted it into this piece. The guidelines I lay out speficially state that a profanity is only such if I type the word myself, using my keyboard. Then, with that newly created criterion in mind, instead of physically typing a four-letter-word into this article, I simply browsed the internet until I found the desired curse word on someone else’s website and cut-and-pasted it into my article. I could then claim that based on how I defined it, there is no profanity in this piece because I didn’t type it myself. Using the Obama method, I defined profanity based on the process by which it found its way into my piece – not the word itself.

pinocchiobamaOf course, the President contradicted his own assertion on Friday of last week when he said, “Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.

The fact of the matter is there are earmarks in the bill, no matter how many times the President looks America square in the eye and says otherwise. There can be no doubt about it. Americans are not stupid – at least many of us aren’t.

The definition of “earmark” according to the Federal Office of Management and Budget is money provided by Congress for projects where the destination of that money, whether in bill form or in legislative reports, is specified or managed by Congress (as opposed to the Executive Branch).

Where Woodward stumbles is in neglecting to point out that there are two types of “earmarks” – hard earmarks and soft earmarks. Hard earmarks are those that are actually written into the bill (like those in Obama’s crapulous package), while soft earmarks – the most common and the kind Woodward is referring to – are written into reports that “suggest” where spending bill money should go.

If I can do the research to find such things out, certainly a professional like Mr. Woodward can.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 29, 2009

This is not an indictment on President Obama’s inability to open a window he thought was a door. After all, he’s only been at his new place of residence for nine days now. It takes a while to memorize where all the handles are. I empathize with the new Commander-In-Chief.

The whole thing is actually quite amusing in a “Messiahs-Are-People-Too” kind of way.

I would rather focus on how the media is portraying this – if they are at all – and compare it to George W. Bush’s now infamous incident of pulling on a locked door when attempting to exit a press conference in China in November, 2005.

he can "handle" it

he can "handle" it

Headlines such as this one from the BBC appeared all over the place: “Door Thwarts Quick Exit For Bush.”

The Washington Post said: “For Bush in Beijing, It’s Hard to Get Out.”

In Sydney, Australia, the Morning Herald headline read: “One door closes, another opens for Bush.”

Hey, no complaints here. Wordplay, puns and jokes are all fair game.

Bloggers, too, had a field day, as you might expect – although sentiments weren’t quite as measured. One particularly articulate keyboard tapper at at the time posted:

“I saw the funniest report on President Bush on the news in my part of the world. He was attending some boring press conference in China and decided he wanted to end things. George went to the doors and tried to open them, NOT REALIZING THEY WERE LOCKED. HA HA! The idiot had to be shown where the correct exit was! I was laughing my ass off! This dufus is the leader of the free world? God help us all!”

The endless chides about Bush needing a new “exit strategy” ranged from amusing to downright cruel.

Again, no big deal.

Now, let’s see how President Obama’s re-entry gaffe is portrayed.

At the UK website, their coverage may be an indication of the kid gloves approach being applied to The One.

No puns, no bad jokes. Nothing.

In fact, a caption under one of the pictures there actually reads: “Barack Obama’s White House has a more relaxed feel.”

The headline, too, is so clinical, so literal, so antiseptic. No wordplay whatsoever:

“Barack Obama mistakes window for door at White House – Barack Obama has been photographed mistaking a window for a door as he tried to enter the White House.”

Gee, how exciting. How riveting.

Pulitzer Prize anyone?


Update: 29 January 2009 8:33 PM

A Blogger at Free called RushIsMyTeddyBear reminded me of this admittedly fake but nontheless amusing Obama pic from the campaign. If this had been George W. Bush, it would have been issued as a t-shirt/nightgown set by Move













A million thanks to Arkady for reminding me that the picture had been “photoshopped.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 24, 2009

Has confusion set in yet?

Are the pacifists who had the words “Bush War Crimes” hot-ironed onto their foreheads – those who had visions of impeachment plumbs dancing in their tired minds – wondering what the hell is going on? Perhaps that swearing-in ceremony on Capitol Hill was nothing but a sweet dream – complete with botched Oath, pre-recorded “play along” string arrangement, racist benediction and listless say-nothing speech.

Maybe George W. Bush is really still in charge.

It just doesn’t make sense otherwise.

Those aren’t birds or locusts … those are question marks flying from the spinning craniums of peace-symbol wearing twenty-somethings (and their sixty-something grey-haired pony-tailed mentors) trying to figure out how such a Bush-like move comes from such a savior.

How could The One – the Messiah, if you will – approve of such a thing as launching missiles to kill people? That’s the kind of thing Republicans do. That’s the kind of thing that war mongers and right-wing trigger-happy xenophobes get off on.


Are you in there?

The New York Times, of all places, has the story:

Two missile attacks launched from remotely piloted American aircraft killed at least 15 people in western Pakistan on Friday. The strikes suggested that the use of drones to kill militants within Pakistan’s borders would continue under President Obama.

Remotely piloted Predator drones operated by the Central Intelligence Agency have carried out more than 30 missile attacks since last summer against members of Al Qaeda and other terrorism suspects deep in their redoubts on the Pakistani side of the border with Afghanistan.

But some of the attacks have also killed civilians, enraging Pakistanis and making it harder for the country’s shaky government to win support for its own military operations against Taliban guerrillas in the country’s lawless border region.

American officials in Washington said there were no immediate signs that the strikes on Friday had killed any senior Qaeda leaders. They said the attacks had dispelled for the moment any notion that Mr. Obama would rein in the Predator attacks.

Mr. Obama and his top national security aides are likely in the coming days to review other counterterrorism measures put in place by the Bush administration, American officials said.

Dead terrorists, Mr. President.

That’s what we’re shooting for – or aiming for.

The more the merrier.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 7, 2008

To the ears of babes and other underdeveloped thinkers – let’s call them liberals – what could possibly be wrong with anything that employs the word “fair” or promotes “equality?” It is language so scrumptious, so sensible, so reasonable, who else but callous, cold-blooded, Reagan-loving, daisy-smashing, kitten kickers, lacking even a jot of civility, could find any fault with them? It’s somewhat reminiscent of a girl I knew years ago who went by the saintly name of “Angel” – she could have ripped the chrome off a jeep with her eye teeth. She also had a tendency to growl when she breathed. The name was, obviously, a smidgen deceptive.

This is the case with the potential abdominal ulcer to the First Amendment known inoffensively enough as the “Fairness Doctrine” (sounds delightfully benign, doesn’t it?) – in actuality, a wholly unfair and hostile assault on the Constitution of the United States. I sincerely believe that every advocate of this machete to the gut of freedom is not only missing the point entirely, but is probably still, to this day, attributing the demise of Mario Cuomo’s talk radio program to a right-wing, back-room, illuminati-financed conspiracy.

Michael Medved

Michael Medved

Listening Thursday to the Michael Medved radio program, it was astounding – nay, breathtaking – to hear the measure of incompetence, ignorance and downright inanity that many on the Left exhibit when attempting – I say attempting – to defend this brick-to-the-head of First Amendment rights. The idea that the “Fairness Doctrine” appeals to many American Leftocrats – and the fact that it must be “fair” because it is, after all, in its name (not unlike “yellow fever” must be wonderful because sunflowers and Sugar Corn Pops are yellow) – is the perfect illustration of the divide between conservatives and liberals. One side believes in the free market, the other side throws their unending faith behind the – *cough* – government.

Imagine, if you would, owning a little candy store somewhere (or a “bodega” in today’s Brooklyn-speak) and being told by an all-powerful, intimidating supplier that you had no choice whatsoever but to stock a particularly unpopular item – let’s say garlic-basil flavored ice cream – and that you had to purchase a very specific amount of that item and keep it in on the shelves at all times, even though you knew the product would never sell. Due to a vigorous garlic lobby that somehow felt slighted (and oppressed) in an ice-cream market controlled by an implacable chocolate monopoly, you were told it was the only fair thing to do – despite the fact that garlic was doing extraordinarily well in so many other areas. Eventually, you could either try to convince the supplier that, perhaps, ketchup-flavored sugar cookies might be a better choice – or you could simply close up shop due to the inability to generate profits.

Most would go by way of the latter.

This is the essence of the “Fairness Doctrine” – to force (via the federal government) politically liberal points of view onto market-driven, conservative-dominated, terrestrial talk-radio in equal time.

Like so many stuck-in-the-mud libbies who stamp their feet, wring their hands and stammer around in dumb perplexity trying to figure out why the hell they cannot crack the talk-radio genre, there are those who defiantly choose to dismiss in totality the idea that market forces are actually at work in determining what goes on the air – that the talk-radio listening public are simply uninterested in hearing shrill, emotionally unhinged, arid leftists yammer on and on with no sense of craft or creativity, tearing down the institutions and traditions of this great country. These angry-at-everybody compassionates do not accept that liberal talk radio does not sell.

It doesn’t.

That bears repeating … liberal talk radio does not sell. Save for a few exceptions, there is no real market for it.


Instead, incredulous leftist legislators, fixated talk-show-callers and skull-dead pundits – i.e. the gatekeepers of liberalism’s most important value, equality over liberty – are collectively convinced that heavy hands from the shadows are at work in successfully stifling reasonable alternative opinion coming from the liberal end of the spectrum – that a veritable cabal of racist-sympathizing, corporate-friendly, broadcasting fat-cats are cunningly conspiring to shut out any and all opposing views at all costs. Therefore, government intrusion becomes a logical and absolute necessity – because without television, motion pictures, newspapers, music, magazines, the internet, public schools, universities and Alan Colmes, no one would have a clue about liberalism.

fairness_doctrineSorry. That’s not how it works.

Advertisers are not disposed to invest their hard-earned dollars in radio programming that overwhelmingly goes unheard and is about as compelling as a big-toe blood blister. I can assure you, if there was a call for liberal talk radio, and there was money to be made, currency-loving entrepreneurial types would be steamrolling their wheelchair-bound grandmothers to cop a piece of that pie. Besides, it is not – repeat not – the function of the federal government to drive a given industry into unprofitability by forcing the proprietors of privately owned entities to market unmarketable products. The fact of the matter is, even in havens of political blue – like New York City and San Francisco – liberal talk radio does not thrive.

Another important point almost always lost on big-government, anti-free market liberals is that capitalism, in all of its wonder and glory, forces people to actually take the wants and needs of others into consideration.

Say it with me …”Capitalism means caring.”

Still, liberals cherish equality more than they do liberty, not understanding that the two are in no way synonymous. (I am refrring to equality of outcome, not equality of opportunity. That’s for you, Keith Olbermann).

One caller to Michael Medved’s show on Thursday, who was particularly smitten with radio liberal-yacker (and MSNBC host) Rachel Maddow, commented:

With Rachel’s programming versus the right-wing programming, it’s one versus – what – fifty? How many right wing shows are there versus how many liberal shows are there? And I live in Texas, which is very red, in Dallas, which has nothing besides, up and down the AM dial, right-wing talking points.

Here’s a friendly suggestion to those on the Left who long for more allocation along the radio dial … how about figuring out a way to create a product that the money-spending public-at-large actually wants to hear? A radical concept, I grant – as fanatical and contumacious as wishing to preserve the millennia-old definition of marriage.

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