Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Moral Clarity’ Category

CIGARETTE ADVERTISING

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 18, 2010

Random thought 55217:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should beer and car ads be banned?

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

I’m a big one for individual responsibility.

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

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

Logical, yes?

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

It’s a disgusting habit.
wordpress statistics

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

QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE HELEN THOMAS THING

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 8, 2010

Helen Thomas

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

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

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

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

I mean that.

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

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

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

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

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

THOMAS: They can go home.

REPORTER: Where’s home?

THOMAS: Poland. Germany.

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

THOMAS: And America and everywhere else.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The city of Jerusalem was a small and sparsely populated .

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

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

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

The modern Palestinian movement was born.

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

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

Period.

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

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

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

REVELATION: BAM IS A PARTISAN. BAM NOT UP TO THE TASK.

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 7, 2010

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

Not that it mattered.

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

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

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

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

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

Welcome to the Obamacratic States of America.

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

We didn’t.

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

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

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

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

Andrew Malcolm of the Los Angeles Times writes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s quite an accomplishment, to be sure.

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

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

The teleprompters are finally starting to get some recognition.

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

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

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

wordpress statistics

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

FROM THE MORAL EQUIVELANCY HANDBOOK

Posted by Andrew Roman on May 14, 2010

The United Nations is the Comedy Central of world affairs – cowardly and highly irrelevant. While no one at the UN is backing down from showing Muhammed in a bear costume, the planet’s most laughable and ineffectual organization continues its steady descent into the cesspool of moral depravity. Their very existence helps to reinforce one of the long-standing credos of this blog: Whatever world opinion is on any given subject, go with the opposite.

Indeed, if the United Nations actually were relevant, this would (or could) be bigger news than it actually is.

Instead, it serves as just another nugget from the “What Else Is New?” file.

The UN Human Rights Council has just been enriched by the inclusion of no less than seven nations who have extensive track records of human rights violations.

From CNSNews.com:

Seven countries accused of human rights violations have won seats on the U.N. Human Rights Council in an uncontested election, including Libya, Angola and Malaysia.

The U.N. General Assembly on Thursday approved all 14 candidates for the 14 seats on the 47-member council by wide margins.

By wide margins, mind you.

Human rights groups criticized the poor human rights records of seven countries that won seats – Libya, Angola, Malaysia, Thailand, Uganda, Mauritania and Qatar.

The seven other countries that won seats were Maldives, Ecuador, Guatemala, Spain, Switzerland, Moldova and Poland.

The 14 countries will serve three-year terms on the Geneva-based council, which was created in March 2006 to replace the U.N.’s widely discredited and highly politicized Human Rights Commission.

It’s good to see that the dark days of the “widely discredited” Human Rights Commission are well behind us, and that the new era of the Human Rights Council is in full swing with the addition of such nations as Libya and Angola to the council.

Knowing Uganda will be part of the Council solidifies it for me.

FYI: Of the 40 censure resolutions adopted by the new and improved Human Rights Council since its inception, 33 have been directed at Israel. That’s 33 more resolutions than have targeted Iran.

Incidentally, Iran was recently appointed to the UN Women’s Rights Commission.

No, seriously.

In other news, experts are baffled as to why incidents of crime have escalated at the hen house ever since the fox took over security there.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Moral Clarity, United Nations | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

IF WE COULD JUST GET RID OF THOSE BLASTED NUCLEAR WEAPONS …

Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010

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

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

From the Times of London, via Fox News:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That must be it.

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

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

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

And Obama is the man to make it happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It’s really quite simple.

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

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

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

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

Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:

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

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

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

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

The world shivers and shakes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Period.

It’s all about values, values, values.

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

wordpress statistics

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

SEPARATING DEMS FROM THE ADULTS

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?

The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.

Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.

The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).

Obama said:

We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.

Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.

What?

This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.

It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.

In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.

Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”

How?

Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?

Context!

The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.

Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?

We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

So what? What does that mean exactly?

If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.

And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.

Another thank you to President Obama.

If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.

I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PLANNED PARENTHOOD SCUM

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 10, 2009

It’s because “women die having babies.”

That is the answer.

That is the reason provided by a physician at an Appleton, Wisconsin Planned Parenthood Clinic as he and his staff endeavor to convince a young woman that the termination of her pregnancy (i.e., the killing of her unborn baby) shouldn’t cause any real concern – that it’s a sound choice, probably her best option.

… because she could die if she decides to give birth to her unwanted little inconvenience.

And it’s all been captured on undercover video.

For the record, approximately one ten-thousandth of one percent of women who give birth in the United States die in childbirth each year.

Maybe procreating should be banned altogether then.

But it gets better.

When a Planned Parenthood Counselor is asked whether or not a ten-week-old unborn baby has a heartbeat, the young woman is told that what really exist are “heart tones,” explaining, “Heart beat is when the fetus is active in the uterus–can survive–which is about seventeen or eighteen weeks … A fetus is what’s in the uterus right now. That is not a baby”

Even the doctor concurs, “It’s not a baby at this stage or anything like that.”

Of course, this is outright nonsense.

From The Rosa Acuna Project:

On the contrary, embryologists agree that the heartbeat begins around 3 weeks. Wisconsin informed consent law requires that women receive medically accurate information before undergoing an abortion.

The video comes one month after the widely reported resignation of Planned Parenthood clinic director Abby Johnson. Johnson left her leadership position at Planned Parenthood in Bryan, TX after watching a 13-week old fetus being aborted in her clinic on ultrasound.

She said during a recent interview, “Planned Parenthood really tries to instill in their employees and the women that are coming in for abortions that this is not a baby.” In another interview, she noted, “They don’t want to talk about when your baby has a heartbeat,” because “they don’t want to give the woman information that could give her a connection with her baby.”

The embryonic heart actually starts beating twenty-two days after conception.

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, posts this picture of a ten week old fetus:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Talk show host Dr. Laura Schlessinger calls them Planned UNParenthood … and quite appropriately.

wordpress statistics

Posted in abortion, Ethics, Moral Clarity | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

THREE NAVY SEALS AND A TERRORIST’S BLOODY LIP

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

From the “You’ve Got To Be Goddamn Kidding Me” file…

The cuckoo clock that is my transforming nation seems to be tolling its bell louder all the time – and I damn well don’t like it.

What the hell is happening to my country?

Whether it is the Commander-in-Chief’s modus operandi of weakening his own country through apologetic confessionals, or his determination to close a perfectly functioning terrorist detention facility so that America’s enemies will love her more, or his incapacity to come to a decision concerning his “war of necessity” in Afghanistan, or his conferring of Constitutional rights on enemy combatants who waged war on America, or his Army Chief of Staff who said that diversity among the troops is more vital than protecting innocent lives, or a media so raped of its ability to be objective by political correctness that it could not (or would not) call the Ft. Hood mass murder an Islamist terrorist attack, this country is on a dangerous path.

This reality manifests itself in what seems like a perpetual advance of negative stories from the mainstream media about the United States military. Ever since the New York Times turned military misconduct at Abu Grahib into the most deplorable and unspeakable human abuses ever committed, there has hardly been a positive word to be found about those who defend America, save for in the conservative media.

For a time, it even became fashionable among elected anti-Bushies to speak ill of this nation’s defenders. Recall that Senator Dick Durbin compared American treatment of prisoners at Abu Grahib to the Nazis and Pol Pot. Recall that Senator Ted Kennedy declared the Saddam Hussein torture chambers re-opened under new American management. Recall Congressman John Murtha called American Marines cold-blooded murderers.

Isn’t it curious how everyone seems to get the benefit of the doubt except the fighting men and women of the American military?

At one time, Congressional Medal of Honor winners would secure the front pages of newspapers across the country. Stories of valor and courage on the battle field were, in a long ago and far away age, headline makers. These were America’s heroes, cherished and revered. It was understood that a nation incapable – or unwilling – to pay tribute to its fighting men could never be worthy of the liberty it enjoyed.

These days, America’s warriors are regularly portrayed as broken and confused, weak and frightened. Tales about rising suicide rates and substance abuse among soldiers make up a good portion of the stories published about America’s military. Exposes on exhausted fighting men, declining morale, and misbehaving soldiers take up far more space than successes on the battle field.

It is sickening.

This disturbing anti-military trend – this ongoing impulse among the politically correct and the cowardly to cast America’s heroes in a negative light – is, sadly, gaining ghoulish momentum.

Last evening, the story of three Navy SEALS being brought up on assault charges in the case of the capture of Ahmed Hashim Abed – one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq – made my stomach turn. For those unaware, Abed was the ringleader behind the murder of four Blackwater USA security agents back in 2004. You’ll recall the grisly details of how the four were ambushed, murdered, and their bodies burned and dragged through the streets of Fallujah. Two of them were even hanged off a Euphrates River bridge for a photo op.

In September of this year, Navy SEALS captured the murderous vermin. Such a momentous and heroic event should have made headlines across the country, but the likelihood that even twenty percent of America knew about it is a generous estimate.

Now, three of those heroes – SO-2 Matthew McCabe, SO-2 Jonathan Keefe and SO-1 Julio Huertas – are facing court martial.

Why?

Because of a bloody lip.

Rowan Scarborough at Fox News writes:

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

The poor little terrorist, responsible for the brutal murders of four men transporting supplies for a catering company (of all things), is apparently now having to deal with the terrifying memory of a bloody lip, not to mention the post-traumatic stress associated with the scar. Indeed, a bloody lip it may not be as appalling (or tortuous) as having Christina Aguilera music blaring, or having smoke blown in one’s face, or having the thermostat cranked low (or any of the other horrifying abuses some of Gitmo detainees were made to suffer through), but it is bad enough to have three of America’s most courageous fighting men ready to be arraigned on December 7th, with a court martial to follow in January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

What the Fort Hood massacre did was shine a much needed light on the twisted mentality that seems to be prevalent among the higher echelons of the American military these days (as well as government) – namely, a now lethal strain of political correctness that places more of an importance on showing the world that America is not anti-Muslim than in protecting the United States of America.

But this new predilection for convincing everyone that America really is a good nation full of good people, sensitive to Islam, is exasperating and wrong-headed. Much of the world, despite leftist cacklings to the contrary, wants to see a strong America. They look to America for leadership. They look to America to do what’s right. And when America is quick to accuse its own defenders of abusing terrorists in a time of war, with innocent lives hanging in the balance, in desperate and dangerous situations that are not even conceivable to most, for something as insignificant as a bloody lip, it not only creates international uneasiness, it emboldens the enemies of freedom everywhere.

Indeed, there may be more to come of this story, but I’m inclined to think not.

Hence, the court martial instead of the non-judical punishment (NJP) of an admiral’s mast.

The three accused Navy SEALS want their story told. They want all of the details of this heroic operation out in the open.

Good for them.

Still, questions come to mind …

How on earth can three American heroes be facing a court martial for giving a piece of walking fecal matter a bloody lip? Would it really take three of the most well-trained fighting men in the American military to do it? Wouldn’t one have been sufficient to the task? Even in his sleep? And who’s to say the “bloody lip” didn’t happen during Abed’s take down? Adrenalin does tend to run high in combat situations.

Unbelievable.

I thought we were in this thing to win.

If so, why the hell does it seem that there is so much effort, so much determination from so many sectors, to keep our side from doing their jobs?

For what it’s worth, I am with you one-hundred percent, Navy Seals.

Always.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Iraq, military, Moral Clarity, Political Correctness, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 10 Comments »

SARKOZY’S COURAGE – BURQAS HAVE TO GO

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 12, 2009

Sarkozy

Nicholas Sarkozy

I’ve got a whole lot of “hip hip hoorays” stashed away in a special place, most of which have remained unused since November 4th of last year. They’re easily replenished when the need arises, but it really hasn’t been necessary for a year or so.

Admittedly, there have been a few oases in an otherwise barren landscape of leftist flapdoodle. On occassion, over the course of ten months, I have been able to let out a few fist-pumps here and there – such as when House Republicans unanimously voted against the Obama stimulus package, or when tea party attendees vigorously voiced their opposition to runaway government spending, or when town-hall meetings gave anti-ObamaCare protestors a place to have their concerns heard, or when Republicans won the governorships of two states (including New Jersey) on Election Day.

For the most part, however, my fist-pumping inventory remains in tact, itching to be summoned.

Indeed, for lovers of liberty, it is a backwards time. Not only is the President hell-bent on making sure government will grow as large as conceivably possible in the shortest amount of time, but he just can’t seem to find a kind word to say about his own country – other than it somehow found a way to negotiate through two centuries of injustice and elect a black man to the top spot.

But what makes this time in history all the more remarkable is the fact that people like me (haters, dividers, self-absorbed kitten-kickers) are finding that when we do pull out a “hip hip hooray” it is more often than not being directed at the President of France than the President of the United States – and that just downright defies the laws of existence.

President Nicolas Sarkozy, you’ll recall, sent the panties of the left into an atomic twist with his pro-America chatter after his election in 2007. It was he who said he wanted to “reconquer the heart of America.” It is he who said he loved America and her values. It is he who said, referencing the Americans who fought in World War II, “The children of my generation understood that these young Americans, 20 years old, were true heroes to whom they owed the fact that they were free people and not slaves. France will never forget the sacrifice of your children.”

And now, Mr. Sarkozy, well prepared for the slings and arrows that will inevitably come his way, says that burqas have no place in French society.

Talk about “wow.”

From the Associated Press, via Fox News:

Sarkozy says all beliefs will be respected in France but says “becoming French means adhering to a form of civilization, to values, to morals.”

Sarkozy said Thursday during a speech on national identity that “France is a country where there is no place for the burqa.” France has a large Muslim community but only a small minority of French Muslim women wear burqas, common in Afghanistan, or other face-covering veils.

Sarkozy said in June that burqas would not be welcome in France. Since then a parliamentary panel has been looking into the possibility of banning them in public.

Sarkozy is talking assimilation, and I like it. Sarkozy is talking values, and I applaud him. He’s talking about preserving the dignity of women, and nothing is more relevant.

He deserves a huge “hip hip hooray.”

That every feminist group in all of God’s creation is not erecting statues to Mr. Sarkozy – or President Bush, for that matter – or organizing rallies in his honor, or having coffee mugs made with his likeness, is almost a travesty. Sarkozy has the courage to say what needs to be said. What could be more pro-woman that to speak out against such an oppressive symbol?

But is a national restriction on wearing burqas in public the right thing to do?

Can it be justified?

I am certainly no expert on French culture, but isn’t an outright ban a bit too much?

Isn’t that a line better left uncrossed?

burqasOn one hand, it cannot be disputed by reasonable minds that to cover one’s face is to conceal one’s humanity. To do so is a representation of subservience with no other purpose than to eradicate a woman’s identity. It is designedly alienating and subjugating. It’s objective is to strip away dignity. It is demeaning.

In short, the burqa is not a benign religious symbol. Rather, it is a prison.

In fact, let me further my position by saying that women who wear burqas in this country should be made to remove them when required by law, like, for instance, being photographed for a driver’s license. The human face is, after all, the best and most efficient way to be identified.

On the other hand, I have a difficult time justifying the governmentally-imposed injunction of a piece of clothing simply because I (and others) find the practice utterly contemptible. While I personally view the wearing of burqas as not only a slap in the face to the women hidden by them, but a kick in the groin to the society providing the freedom to do so, is that enough to condone a governmental prohibiton?

Where, then, does it end?

Of course, I pose this question as an American, using this nation’s promise of liberty and religious freedom as my catalyst. It means nothing in the context of what should or should not happen in France – a nation that has long ago gone the way of Europe as a whole, all but abandoning its religious past. Conditions are obviously different in that nation than they are here. The assimilation of foreigners takes on a much different dynamic in France than it does in the United States.

America remains the most accommodating nation on Earth – including her acceptance of Muslims.

Still, I applaud Nicholas Sarkozy. His mission is to protect his country from her enemies, including those radical Muslims elements that mean to inflict it irreparable harm. That mission also includes preserving the French system of values and morality. That he has the courage to denounce the dehumanizing aspects of a foreign value set is more than worthy of a “hip hip hooray.”

Good for him.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Ethics, Islam, Moral Clarity, religion, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

I DON’T GIVE A DAMN WHO GETS OFFENDED – ENOUGH IS ENOUGH

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.

Period.

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 »

GENERAL CASEY, YOU CAN’T POSSIBLY MEAN THAT

Posted by Andrew Roman on November 10, 2009

From the “Words Mean Things” file.

General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the United States Army, made the following statement on Sunday in regard to the Fort Hood terrorist attack:

Speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers and what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. It’s not just about Muslims, we have a very diverse army, we have very diverse society and that gives us all strength. But again we need to be very careful about that.

george caseyIf necessary, take a moment to read it again – particularly the  phrase, “What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.”

There can be no mincing words here. It is a despicable thing for an officer in the United States Army to say.

Call what happened at Fort Hood terrorism (as I do). Call it an act of war. Call it what you will. But with all due respect to General Casey and his honorable service to this nation, he is dead wrong on all accounts – and an embarrassment.

To begin with, calling the mass murders at Fort Hood, Texas a “tragedy,” as I wrote late last week, is a profound disservice to the thirteen dead and twenty-nine wounded. Indeed, it is an insult to the memory of the fallen. As a “tragedy,” the act becomes more random, more arbitrary, more illogical. As a “tragedy,” blame effectively shifts from being squarely on the shoulders of the murderer to being attributable, at least in part, to outside forces beyond his control; it gives evil enough room to wriggle off the hook.

The fact is …It was not an act of chance. It was not an accident. It was perfectly logical in its lethal perversity. It was a deliberate, pre-meditated act of evil, fuelled by a dangerous ideology.

But more imprtant than Casey’s mislabelling of this terrorist act as a “tragedy,” is his disturbing take on diversity in the military.

Again the quote:

What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here.

Common sense demands that the general must have misspoken, because no officer in the United States military can truly believe such a thing.

General Casey is saying that a little less diversity in the military is worse than having innocent soldiers killed.

He’ll take dead soldiers over shrinking diversification.

To him, slain military personnel are more acceptible than decreasing varieties of ethnicities and skin tones in the service.

How could anyone in their right mind honestly believe that?

What the hell kind of thinking is that?

DISGRACEFUL.

First of all, diversity means that everyone – regardless of skin color, ethnicity, sex or religion – is held to the same standard; and it is clear from the abundance of reports that have come out since the shooting spree on Thursday that the killer, Hasan, was not treated as any non-Muslim would have been had he or she been involved in highly questionable activities.

The man tried to contact Al-Qaeda, for heaven’s sake – and we knew about it.

Political correctness planted the seeds of murder that took place at Fort Hood last week.

Second, diversity is not where the strength of the military – or America herself – lies. The United States does not thrive because of its diversity.

It is absolute nonsense.

Indeed, America is comprised of a diverse population, but it is the singularity of America’s value system – what she stands for – that epitomizes her real strength.

Check your money, General Casey.

E Pluribus Unum.

wordpress statistics

Posted in military, Moral Clarity, terrorism | Tagged: , , , | 3 Comments »

GORE VIDAL – ANTI-SEMITISM, HOOKERS AND OBAMA

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 30, 2009

You probably didn’t realize that Gore Vidal – an icon, I’m told – is a sharp provocateur, did you? You weren’t aware, I’m sure, that this 83-year old “too smart for the room” cultural relic is as delightfully irreverent as he is engagingly irascible. He is so complex, so enchanting, so cantankerous, so dazzling – a veritable bouillabaisse of pervasive cogitation – that to not elicit his opinion on any given subject is to embrace intellectual apathy. He apparently possesses a “trademark wit” and does “dead-on” imitations of John F. Kennedy and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Oh, goody.

Mr. Vidal – interviewed by John Meroney of Atlantic Magazine – believes that the United States doesn’t deserve a man like Barack Obama at the helm.

Gore VidalMeroney: Barack Obama’s books seemed to persuade many people to support him. Have you read them?

Vidal: No. Does one ever read a politician’s books?

Meroney: Well, Obama actually wrote them himself.

Vidal: I’m sure he did. He’s highly educated – and rather better than a country like this deserves. Put that in red letters.

Yes, according to Gore Vidal – one time chairman of the People’s Party in the early 1970s, and an advocate of impeaching former President George W. Bush for war crimes – Barack Obama is “rather better than a country like this deserves.”

“A country like this?”

(Vidal once famously said, “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party…and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat … Essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.”)

And didn’t Bill Ayers, the terrorist, help co-write the Obama book Dreams From My Father?

Vidal goes on to refer to the 13-year old girl that Roman Polanski drugged and sodomized in 1978 as a “hooker.”

Meroney: In September, director Roman Polanski was arrested in Switzerland for leaving the U.S. in 1978 before being sentenced to prison for raping a 13-year-old girl at Jack Nicholson’s house in Hollywood. During the time of the original incident, you were working in the industry, and you and Polanski had a common friend in theater critic and producer Kenneth Tynan. So what’s your take on Polanski, this many years later?

Vidal: I really don’t give a fuck. Look, am I going to sit and weep every time a young hooker feels as though she’s been taken advantage of?

Meroney: I’ve certainly never heard that take on the story before.

Vidal: First, I was in the middle of all that. Back then, we all were. Everybody knew everybody else. There was a totally different story at the time that doesn’t resemble anything that we’re now being told.

Such class.

Such wit.

Trademark, I’m told.

But wait … it gets better. Not only was the raped child a “hooker” – which, presumably, sheds some much-needed light on the misunderstandings that characterize the entire Polanski affair – but the fact that Polanski is Jewish played a major role in what happened to him.

Yes, anti-semitism – not the raping of a minor – is what brought Polanski down.

Vidal: The media can’t get anything straight. Plus, there’s usually an anti-Semitic and anti-fag thing going on with the press – lots of crazy things. The idea that this girl was in her communion dress, a little angel all in white, being raped by this awful Jew, Polacko – that’s what people were calling him – well, the story is totally different now from what it was then.

Yes, the story was totally different thirty-one years ago. It has been manipulated by Jew-haters and conservatives alike over the course of time. Why couldn’t the rest of us see that?

Some of the original headlines – “Young Teen Seduces Director – Forced Him Into Sodomy” and “Polanski Hoodwinked By Teeny-Bopping Tart” – have since been lost to the annals of time. Thank goodness the great provocateur Gore Vidal could set it straight for everyone.

Meroney: You think anti-Semitism is motivating the prosecution of Polanski?

Vidal: Anti-Semitism got poor Polanski. He was also a foreigner. He did not subscribe to American values in the least. To [his persecutors], that seemed vicious and unnatural.

Meroney: What are “American values”?

Vidal: Lying and cheating. There’s nothing better.

If ever there was something that does not require any further analysis, it is Vidal’s definition of “American values.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, Pop Culture, Values | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

RESEMBLING THE TALIBAN

Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

chris matthewsI haven’t cracked open a thesaurus in a mighty long time, but in the coming weeks and months, I may have to. Using the word “desperate” over and over to describe liberals and their recurrently pathetic tactics will almost certainly wear thin – not unlike President Obama’s first nine months in office.

Still, it is unavoidable to give credit where credit is due. After all, if not for the American Left, where then would desperation nest?

No, it isn’t enough to have the Speaker of the House accuse fellow Americans of being swastika bearers at Townhall meetings. It isn’t enough to have the Senate Majority leader call those opposed to ObamaCare “hate mongers.” It isn’t enough to have the White House assail private citizens (Rush Limbaugh) and privately owned companies (Fox News) because they have the chutzpah not to bend over for President Liberty-Kill and his big government Obamacrats. It isn’t enough to have a mainstream media so in the tank for the administration that almost no coverage is afforded Anita Dunn and Alan Grayson while names like Joe Wilson become more familiar than Abraham Lincoln.

It just isn’t enough.

Thank goodness for MSNBC’s Chris Matthews – the lacerated septum of broadcast journalism.

Late last week, on MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Matthews was having a “discussion” with Frank Gaffney and Ron Reagan Jr. about Afghanistan.

As the segment came to an end, the exchange went this way:

Gaffney: (speaking to Reagan) Your father would be ashamed of you.

Reagan: Oh, Frank, you better watch your mouth about that, Frank.

Matthews: That’s not fair. The group in this country that most resembles the Taliban, ironically, is the religious right.

To begin with, Gaffney, who is President of The Center for Security Policy, made himself look a bit silly by having to resort to pulling out the “Ronald Reagan” card while debating Reagan, Jr., who is an unabashed, unapologetic, liberal. Whatever the elder Reagan would have thought of his son’s views on Afghanistan was irrelevant to the discussion. Unquestionably, Gaffney had more than enough substantive ammunition to combat Reagan. He knew better.

However, it was the always ignoble and detestable Matthews (let me count the ways), in true “drive-by” media style, who actually compared the American “religious right” to the barbarous terrorists – the Taliban  – before escaping into the security of the ensuing commercial break.

(Of course, if Congressman Alan Grayson could somehow correlate the state of America’s health care delivery system to the Holocaust, then equating American conservatives of faith to the murderous Taliban wouldn’t seem particularly preposterous).

First of all, Mr. Matthews ought to take a moment and brush up on his ideologies. By definition, conservatives want less government involvement in our lives.

By definition.

religious rightIf for no other reason than that, the American “religious right” simply does not resemble the Taliban, who exist to impose theocratic influence on every aspect of life through totalitarian rule. Simply having a strong faith in God, which presumably is what Matthews is attempting to use to tie the two together, is an embarrassingly weak premise to build such a ridiculously naive – and easily refuted – argument.

If faith alone, in Matthews’ simplistic, one-dimensional, bumper-sticker world, were the main criterion for drawing parallels between the American “religious right” and the Taliban, then leftists, who worship with equal zeal at the alter of unproven global warming, would, by definition, more resemble the Taliban because of their propensity to expand the power of government.

Naturally, neither the American Left or the American Right really resemble the Taliban in any way whatsoever, but playing along with Mr. Matthews brings certain relaities to light. Leftists are just as religious when it comes to global warming as conservatives are about traditional religion. However, it is the global warming movement, in their ever-growing fanaticism, that demands governments intrusion on the industrialized free market by inflicting crippling emissions standards – guidelines that would literally bring down the American economy.

By contrast, no one on the “religious right”  – no one – wants that level of government involvement in American lives. And no one on the religious right advocates, supports, suggests or even hints at imposing a theocracy of any kind in the United States.

If presented in those terms, which side more “resembles” the Taliban, Mr. Matthews?

It isn’t difficult to understand.

Besides, if Mr. Matthews can point me in the direction of those “religious right” organizations that strap bombs to the chests of their young for the purpose of blowing up as many innocents as possible, I’m willing to listen. If there are videos out there of hooded members of the “religious right” slicing the heads off of non-believers, I missed it. If the “religious right” advocate the beating of women for walking by themselves or driving motor vehicles, I’d love to see the literature. Perhaps Mr. Mathews can play on his television program the audio of members of the “religious right” calling for a Holy War against non-Christian nations.

He certainly has the forum to defend his assertions.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, religion, terrorism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

THE SILENCE IS DEAFENING

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?”

Believed?

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 »

ALWAYS “OUT OF CONTEXT”

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.”

Nice.

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 »