Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 28, 2010

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

It is what it is, and I accept that.

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

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

Until then, be well.

And God Bless America.


Posted in Uncategorized | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

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

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

The middle finger thing was icing on her narcissistic pie.

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

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

She was.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 20, 2010

A phrase you may hear being used more and more as the illegal immigration debate lumbers forward is: Rule of Law City.”

Let’s hope so. It’s as catchy as it is accurate.

It is the antitoxin – the neutralizer – to the supreme joke and embarrassment that is the modern “sanctuary city,” most recently coined by Mayor Allan Mansoor of Costa Mesa, California, and validated by the city council there on Tuesday.

From the Orange County Register: 

Costa Mesa, California Mayor, Allan Mansoor

The City Council made it clear Tuesday night that people who are in the country illegally are not welcome in their city.

Council members voted to pass a resolution declaring Costa Mesa a “Rule of Law City” at the behest of Mayor Allan Mansoor, who has long been known as a vocal opponent of illegal immigration.

“I have a lot of concerns with cities calling themselves sanctuary cities,” Mansoor said before the vote. “It’s important we state that we do not support illegal immigration.”

Mansoor’s proposal was met with comments from five public speakers, all of whom criticized it. Some said the declaration would paint the city in a bad light and polarize the community. Others called the resolution a political move by Mansoor in his bid for the state Assembly.

The council voted 4-0 in favor of the declaration. Council member Katrina Foley was absent.

As in Arizona, the key here is that Costa Mesa is taking the step of enforcing laws that already exist at the national level but are all but being ignored.

To that end, being a “Rule of Law City” will also have an important “bonus consequence.”

It will have the effect of triggering a wave of self-deportations, as we are starting to see happen in Arizona. Indeed, the perception of the law among illegals will prove a powerful motivator – not to all, but to many. And even though there is absolutely nothing in this law, or the one in Arizona, about racial profiling, it won’t matter. The view among illegal aliens that “cops are coming after me” will be a valuable tool in getting many illegals to leave.

It’s called deterrence. It’s what keeps even the most law-abiding among us from engaging in bad behavior.

Along with common sense, history is also on the side of the “bonus consequence” argument.

A 2009 report put out by the Center of Immigration Studies says that the illegal alien population in Arizona dropped by nearly 200,000 in two years due, in large part, to increased efforts by the state to deal with the problem of illegals.

Since, from a Democrat perspective, this entire debate is really about appeasing minority voting blocks – even though this is not a minority issue – how about actually requiring people to prove their American citizenship before being allowed to vote?

How about enforcing that law?

Is there anything more basic – and obvious – than making sure that those who vote in American elections are actually Americans?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 11, 2010

Congressman Emanuel Cleaver

The way it works is this: Some cockamamie, rattlebrained notion from the left becomes the latest and greatest peril facing some (or all) of humankind (o-zone depletion, the heterosexual AIDS epidemic in America, global cooling, overpopulation, DDT, food depletion, the drying up of natural resources, breast implants, etc). It is presented in such a way as to sound remarkably sensible and entirely probable. For a given period of time, it saturates all forms of media, and eventually, through sheer repetition, is accepted as absolute fact. The bulk of humanity, without bothering to delve into the matter at any great length -and fearful that yet another threat to their very existence is upon them- buys into the hysteria.

Then, unconvinced members of the thinking class suddenly begin to emerge. They offer reasoned counter arguments, based not on emotion or agenda, but on common sense and scientific skepticism. They attempt to further the discussion and offer arguments from the opposite side. They are quickly dismissed at first as mere contrarians or attention-seeking rabble rousers. They are ridiculed and shunned.

Yet, these rapscallions – these troublemakers – are persistent.

Over time, an increasing number of people are listening to these skeptical ones and begin to question the original hysteria.

Many of these skeptics aren’t even denying that there may be some truth in the original claims, but they’re unwilling to accept that the “debate is over.” They continue presenting alternative arguments.

This shakes the original peril-peddlers to their core. They are stunned to find their notions being challenged.

They push back.

Battles ensue.

Eventually, reasonability begins to win the day with almost everyone, save for the hardcore doomsday set and the mainstream media. They remain steadfast, trying to convince those who have veered from the reservation that all the contradictory evidence that seemingly refutes their original assertion is actually a natural result of it (conveniently).

It is their last gasp of desperation.

Then it happens – the natural and inevitable “next step” of elite liberals who are confronted with the cold, hard reality that their assertions are without substance.

They inform those of us who don’t buy into their frenzied fairytales that we haven’t the intellectual capacity to really understand what they are trying to say – that we just aren’t smart enough to truly understand the reality of the situation.

We’re too dumb to get it.

So contends Missouri Congressman, Emanuel Cleaver. (Care to take a guess what political party he is a member of?)

The entire global warming discussion, he says, needs to be dumbed down so that we – the cerbral plebeians with no real regard for Mother Earth – can actually comprehend it.

Christopher Neefus of writes:

Americans are growing skeptical about the threat of global warming because “they don’t get” the complex information that scientists deliver, according to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).

Unless scientists can simplify their arguments to the level of newspapers that “print at the sixth grade level,” Cleaver said, the public is “going to get a headache and bail out.”

Cleaver made his comments to a panel of scientists on Capitol Hill at a hearing last Thursday of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.

The committee was investigating the “foundation” of climate science after the Climategate scandal saw thousands of damaging e-mails leaked from scientists at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit.

“I think the newspapers are supposed to be printed at the sixth grade level and I think with something as important as (global warming), we’ve got to figure out how to simplify the language for the public, because otherwise they’re going to get a headache and bail out because they — not because they’re not concerned, but because they don’t get it.”

It’s us.

It’s always us.

Ask any liberal and he or she will tell you so.

Everey facet of this society – from supermarket flyers to television commercials, from movies and songs to sermons in houses of worship, from billboards and magazines to school ciricullae – has been inundated with nonstop “climate change” gobbledygook for nearly two decades. With every turn, every step, every blink of an eye, we are bombarded with “global warming” this and “save the planet” that. It simply isn’t plausible to believe that every bit of “global warming” propaganda that has deluged our senses for the last twenty years or more is all so intellectually advanced and complex that we just don’t get it – unless you’re a liberal, of course.

In that case, there hasn’t been enough done.

That’s the way it is with all of liberalism. If something doesn’t work, do more of it.

It defies all logic to believe that twenty-plus years of constant “go green” rhetoric, carbon footprint yammerings, melting iceberg warnings, disappearing polar bear cacklings, rising sea level talk, and every other nugget of “global warming” hysteria that has pummeled us like a thousand runaway freight trains barreling downhill has been so scholarly and cerebral that it has all gone over our heads.

That, dear friends, is elitism at its very core. (Feel free to substitute “elitism” with “liberalism,” if you like).

wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2010

It’s interesting.

Pundit after pundit, analyst after analyst – including many on the right – have pontificated that a second Obama term would all but be assured, regardless of whatever else was happening, if the economy improved. That was the criterion, according to many – the benchmark – for stretching four agonizing years into eight calamitous ones.

However, with the President’s approval numbers continuing to spread roots below the fifty percent line, a new poll suggests that even with an improving economy, people may not want to catch a Bammy return engagement.

Redi Wilson at National writes:

American voters are more confident that the economy will improve in the next year, but trust in major institutions continues to fall — a slump that mirrors Pres. Obama’s tumbling approval rating.

Seven in 10 voters say the economy will improve over the next 12 months, according to the new Allstate/National Journal Heartland Monitor poll, while just 27% believe the economy will worsen. But 56% of voters say they have less confidence that elected officials in DC will make good financial and economic decisions.

I hate to interrupt a perfectly good article, but I’d be very interested in knowing exactly what it is that leads 70% of the population to think that the economy will improve over the next year. What, pray tell, is that based on?

I digress.

Voters also say they have less confidence than they did a year ago in major corporations (50% say they are less confident), investment banks (55%) and national banks (51%) to make wise fiscal decisions.

As trust in national institutions falls, so has Obama’s approval rating. Just 48% approve of the job Obama is doing, while 46% disapprove, the poll shows. That’s down from a 61% approval rating Obama sported in an Allstate/National Journal poll conducted in April ’09.

Only 39% of voters said they would vote to re-elect Pres. Obama if the election were held today, while 50% say they would vote for someone else. A quarter of voters would definitely vote to re-elect Obama, while 37% would definitely vote for someone else.

So much for the “An-Improved-Economy-Means-An-Obama-Two-Term-Lock” theory.

Most people understand that if the economy begins to to recuperate – and we all hope it does – it will have little, if anything, to do with President Obama and his bankrupting, free-market-crushing crusades. The economy, if it improves, will do so in spite of Chicago’s most famous metrosexual.

The real question – the real story here – concerns Barack Obama’s approval rating versus his potential re-election numbers.

How is it that 48% of Americans still approve of the job he is doing, but only 39% approve enough to say they would re-elect him?

I guess approval doesn’t always mean you approve.

Even more brain-bending than that is the fact that four in ten Americans said they’d sign up for an Obama Book II.

Four in ten?

Based on what?

Who are these people, and are the hallucinogens they are receiving free through some government-sponsored health plan?

I’d love to be introduced to some of these folks. I have an overflow of Wyoming ocean front property I need to unload.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010

On Sean Hannity’s “Great American Panel” segment of his Fox News Channel program last evening, Bob Beckel – liberal – commented on the individual, Faisal Shahzad, who was arrested yesterday at Kennedy Airport in New York as he tried to leave the country. Shazad is suspected of being the one who tried to set off a bomb-filled SUV in Times Square.

The exchange between Hannity and Beckel went this way:

HANNITY: They have a person of interest, a naturalized American citizen, returned to the country after spending several months in Pakistan. Is it too early to read into that?

BECKEL: I still think the jury is out on this. I think it could be a right-wing militia man involved in this. I mean, you never know.

… because it is apparently just as reasonable to think that a man born in Pakistan, who recently returned from a five-month stay there, could be a disgruntled right-wing New York militia man. It’s at least as reasonable as suggesting that the man could be an Islamist terrorist.

Maybe more.

After all, isn’t America teeming with discontented young militia men of Middle Eastern descent who have reached their breaking points in seeing the Constitution tread upon by the likes of Barack Obama? How could anyone not reasonably believe that a man named Faisal Shahzad is anything but a Reagan-loving, Constitution-obsessed conservative who finally snapped as a result of Barack Obama’s attempted transformation of America?

Makes sense.

Think back to the Fort Hood terrorist attack perpetrated by Nidal Malik Hasan. He could have had the words “I am a terrorist and I am committing an act of terrorism” emblazoned across his chest and Geraldo Rivera still would have spent his entire program interviewing ex-girlfriends about Hasan’s fragile libido playing a role in the mass murder.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg – the same man who recently said he’d love to see illegal aliens come to New York – instinctively sees it the way Bob Beckel does: When in doubt, think right-wingers first.

Before Shazad was apprehended, the Mayor was interviewed by Katie Couric of CBS News:

KATIE COURIC: Law enforcement officials don’t know who left the Nissan Pathfinder behind, but, at this point, the mayor believes the suspect acted alone.

MAYOR MICHAEL BLOOMBERG: If I had to guess — 25 cents — this would be exactly that, somebody-


BLOOMBERG: Home-grown, maybe a mentally deranged person or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything.

… because ever since ObamaCare became law, right-wingers have become dangerously unhinged, setting off bombs, defacing public property, inciting violence from sea to shining sea, triggering a wave of extremist reaction that has liberals terribly worried.

In Bloomberg’s world, the reflexive response is to ask: If it isn’t an ObamaCare dissenter – or someone still mad that a black man (half-white, really) became President – then who on earth could want to blow up Times Square like that? If not a “teabagger,” then what other real possibilities are there?

Well, according the Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, this may not have even been a terrorist attack.

On FNC’s Fox and Friends yesterday, she said:

Until we know the perpetrators, the people, person or persons responsible, you don’t know the derivation, you don’t know their intent.

… because it is apparently reasonable to think that this could have been anything but an attempted terrorist attack – like, for instance, a cutting edge promotion by Planet Hollywood to get people to try their “20 wings for $9.99” special, or a “Kick Off May With A Bang” campaign from Payless Shoe Source, hyping their “two-for-one” sneaker sale.

FOX ANCHOR: Clearly the guy was trying to, if not kill people, then scare people, which is terrorism.

NAPOLITANO: Uh, well, uh, and it, and uh, we do know that if that, you know, if the explosions actually had been properly done and ignited, that would have been quite a fireball in that particular area … It was not properly done. It was not effective.

Nothing gets by Janet Napolitano.

Just don’t anyone dare use the words “radicalized Muslim” in this discussion.

Now, to be fair, Mayor Bloomberg this morning did take a step in the right direction by acknowledging that the attempted bombing was, in fact, designed to hurt and kill as many innocents as possible (i.e., a terrorist act), but he was also careful to say, “And I want to make clear that we will not tolerate any bias or backlash against Pakistani or Muslim New Yorkers.”

… because after the 9/11 attacks, New Yorkers – who apparently haven’t the ability to differentiate between those who commit evil acts and those who don’t – went after all Muslims with a ferocity and vengeance that cannot be accurately quantified.

There are still bodies in the streets from that retaliation.

Leave it to Mayor Mike to set us all straight.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010

This delightful little snapshot, taken during the Los Angeles May Day demonstration on Saturday, is making the rounds this morning across the blogosphere.

If ever there was a photo that required no explanation or commentary, it is this one.


H/T to the KFI AM640 Photo Gallery, via Blogmocracy, via Weasel Zippers.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 4, 2010

Nineteen years ago today, a pretty girl from the farm country of Northwest Ohio said “I do” when she was asked if she would stand by a boisterous Brooklyn boy in sickness and in health, for richer and for poorer, and all the rest of it.

She has certainly lived up to her word.

And nineteen years later, she’s still my girl.

We’ve come a long way since pickle juice and chips, haven’t we?

I can hardly wait to see what the next nineteen years brings.

Happy anniversary, Mrs. Roman.

You sure have a lot of nice CDs.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 3, 2010

Congressman Phil Hare (D-IL)

You may recall that Phil Hare, Democrat Congressman from Illinois, recently made national news by saying he wasn’t concerned with the Constitution when it came to the health care reform debate (i.e., the implementation of Obamacare). “I don’t worry about the Constitution on this, to be honest,” the dashing and well-spoken Mr. Hare said with a camera rolling, “I care more about the people that are dying everyday who don’t have health care.”

To hear it from Hare (and his single-payer-loving chums), the streets are littered with the rotting corpses of Americans who couldn’t find an emergency room compassionate enough to spare a Tylenol or band-aid. Fat cat insurance moguls, along with assorted Klansmen and Republicans, confer over charts and maps almost daily, deciding who will be lucky enough to receive the tiniest morsels of health care and who will be denied.

You’ll recall that a colleague of Mr. Hare’s from Florida – the angry and always nauseating Alan Grayson – said it was a modern day Holocaust.

Just to be clear, Mr. Hare … everyone in America has access to health care – including illegal aliens. The debate is about health insurance – but I digress.

After Hare made it perfectly clear that he was beyond worrying about such trivialities and annoyances as the United States Constitution, you may also recall that the man holding the camera – blogger Adam Sharp –  followed up by asking him, “You care more about that than the US Constitution that you swore to uphold?”

Hare replied, “I believe that it says we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

It was then pointed out to Hare that those words are not in the Constitution, but, rather, in the Declaration of Independence, to which the master parrier, Mr. Hare, retorted, “It doesn’t matter to me.”

I’ll have to confirm this, but, if I recall correctly, the “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” clause of the Constitution is right after the “Emanations and Penumbras” section – which comes right after the “Separation of Church and State” clause. (Does that mean that in Mr. Hare’s world, abortion is undeniably illegal? After all, there is right to “life” is in his version of the Constitution.)

I digress again …

Running against Phil “The Constitution Doesn’t Matter” Hare in Illinois’ 17th district is Bobby Schilling.

A billboard has gone up in East Moline, Illinois – at 19th Street & 37th Avenue, to be precise – in response to Mr. Hare’s anti-Constitution language, sponsored by veterans who support Mr. Schilling’s bid for Congress.

It is the Roman Around Picture of the Day:

The Constitution matters to a lot of us.

Well done.


Thanks to Gateway Pundit, via Weasel Zippers.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 1, 2010

In the absence of being able to piece together a coherent argument opposing Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, liberals have been reminding us that America is a nation of immigrants – that being opposed to immigration is akin to being opposed to America itself. New York Senator Chick Schumer recently recounted the famous words inscribed on the plaque at the Statue of Liberty – from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet “The New Colossus” – about the poor and tired huddled masses.

That’s all well and good, but like most things out of Schumer’s pie hole, it has substantively nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Libs, of course, have cornered the market in both intellectual dishonesty and selective disclosure, so for them, it isn’t necessary to make the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones. That would get in the way of a good sound bite. In libspeak, to be opposed to illegal immigration is to be opposed to all immigration – just like being opposed to the redefinition of marriage means hating gays, or being opposed to race-based quotas means hating minorities.

I’m anti-incest, but I don’t hate my sister.

Earlier today, the President of the United States spoke out against those – like me – who have voiced their dissent at the Obama administration and its Big-Government-Is-Better-For-Everything approach to running the country.

From Fox News:

President Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as “inherently bad” and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, “government is us.”

Obama used his commencement speech at the University of Michigan to respond to foes who portray government as oppressive and tyrannical — and to warn that overheated language can signal extremists that “perhaps violence is … justifiable.”

“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”

To begin with, no one on the right has ever said – or believes – government is inherently bad. I would invite any lib to point to one prominent Republican or conservative who has ever asserted, implied or hinted at the fact that government is inherently bad. It’s that familiar tactic, that old liberal chestnut – the “all immigration is bad” play – that keeps the Left thinking they’re intellectually up to snuff with the thinking class.

Rather, those of us on the right believe big government is inherently bad.

The Framers’ vision of limited government will suit me – and everyone else – just fine, thank you.

Second, isn’t it funny how opposing Obama somehow equates to a threat of violence? To stand up against Obamacratic policies cannot possibly be the result of liberty-loving Americans legitimately questioning and petitioning the actions of their government. To resist Barack Obama is to summon the demons that dwell in the deep recesses of the conservative soul – those that could be prone to violence, or incite others to it.

There is nothing “overheated” about defending liberty from the encroachment of big government.

Incidentally, by definition, “extremists” – regardless of what side of the aisle they are on – don’t need anything special to act as such.

They are extreme.

They are the ones who go against convention, regardless of tradition or institution. They are the ones who act outside of the mainstream. They are the radicals.

Kind of sounds like the current administration, doesn’t it?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Obama Bonehead, Tea Party, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 30, 2010

Okay, enough is enough.

I’ve long since exhausted my reserve of tolerance for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Michael Steele. I’ve already gone into tolerance debt regarding the man and his weak-minded, poorly-articulated, do-nothing leadership of a party that should be running for an easy touchdown with a ball long ago fumbled by flailing Obamacrats.

I am no longer willing to dig into my “benefit of the doubt” bag.

I am tired of Michael Steele’s act.

It’s bad enough that in the past he has succumbed to breaking out the race card on behalf of his party. It’s embarrassing that he feels white Republicans are afraid of him. It’s sad that he could not stand up to D. L. Hughley’s assertion that the Republican National Convention was reminiscent of Nazi Germany.

(Is there anything liberals disagree with that does not resemble Nazi Germany?)

Apparently, Michael Steele cannot – or will not – make the very real distinction between immigrants and illegal aliens. It’s the same thinking that keeps the Left from being able to differentiate between health care and health insurance.

On CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer, the exchange, in part, went like this:

BLITZER: As you know, the former Florida governor, Jeb Bush – Marco Rubio is running for the US Senate from Florida, another Republican – they’re among an increasing chorus of Republicans thinking, “Well, maybe the Arizona law is a mistake.” What does Michael Steele, the former lieutenant governor of Maryland say about that?

STEELE: (laughs) Well, Michael Steele, the Chairman of the Republican National Committee, understands that the realities right now for the country, as reflected in Arizona and elsewhere, is that we, as a people, have to come to grips with this issue of immigration. We can no longer use it as a political football. We must keep in mind the families that are impacted by the lack of decision in this area. And the leadership has to confront what has always been the growing chorus of concern for the American people: this deal with border security and control. Let’s put that house in order and rest takes care of itself.

Someone really ought to inform the RNC Chair that this is not – repeat not – about immigration. 

Overwhelmingly, Americans welcome immigration. We are pro-immigration. The nation was built on immigration. We recognize that America is strongest when the best and brightest from all over the world come here to pursue the American dream … legally.

This is about illegal aliens.

The key word here is “illegal.”

It’s simple stuff, really.

BLITZER: But you know there are some Republican strategists – Karl Rove, among others – who are worried. This is going to alienate Hispanic voters. The Republican Party needs these people.

STEELE: I think Karl Rove is exactly right about that. And we need, as a party, to be mindful that our prior actions in this area – and certainly our rhetoric in this area – has not been the most welcoming and the most supportive of those who want to assimilate to the way of life of America …

First of all, why are Hispanics going to be automatically alienated? Are all Hispanics inherently in favor of “illegal immigration?” Are they so shallow of a group, with no sense of right and wrong – so incapable of thinking independently – that they will reflexively vote Democrat because a Republican governor is finally deciding to uphold and enforce already existing laws in Arizona? If Mexico were populated with fair-skinned Swedes, would they react differently?

Second, what “rhetoric” by Republicans is Michael Steel talking about? What “prior actions” is he referring to? At last look, Democrats – including the President himself – are the ones constantly infusing race, gender, class and ethnicity into every situation, not Republicans.

Let me be clear. The passage of the law in Arizona has nothing – absolutely nothing – to do with anything other than the legality of someone’s presence in the country, period.

To be “welcoming” does not mean one turns a blind eye to the law. To be “supportive” does not mean we appease those who should not be here at the expense of those who are.

The question is … why are Hispanics so overwhelmingly “in the bag” for Democrats and gutless Republicans on this particular issue? Isn’t that the real question here? Isn’t that more important than asking why there are so many whites at the Tea Parties?

Think about it.

If the Tea Party movement really was race-based, as libs contend, how can there are so many whites on the Left making no sense? If the country south of America was filled with blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegians, and they were crossing into the country illegally, would white America look away? Are white drug overlords more tolerable than Hispanic ones? Would the murder of an Arizona rancher by a white man been more acceptable had the illegal alien been Caucasian?

Fair questions, no?

wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Republican Politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 28, 2010

From the “Did You Know Water Is Wet” file …

Some things need a bit of a setup, while others fall into that delicious “speaks-for-itself” category. And although this is one of those instances where the latter is more than sufficient, anyone who reads this blog with any degree of regularity knows that it is my wont to go with the former.

It’s more fun that way.

For those consumers of mainstream media news who find the question “What color was George Washington’s white horse” somewhat of a brain-bender, and have a hard time pinning down the name of the person buried in Grant’s tomb, there is MSNBC. It is where the vapid go to mingle; where the merely-obvious makes way for the exceedingly-obvious; where digging deep means more than just shoving a finger in your nostril when no one is around. It is the home of hardcore analysis, if by hardcore you mean inane.

During Monday’s lunch hour on MSNBC, with Contessa Brewer at the anchor desk leading the discussion on Arizona’s new illegal immigrant enforcement law, the on-screen headline read: “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.”

Honestly, it did.

The network of Huntley, Brinkley and Chancellor literally flashed what many are saying could be a potential Pulitzer Prize winner: “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant.”

MSNBC is clearly the thinking person’s news source.

Nothing gets past the MSNBC News Room.

Kyle Drennen at NewsBusters writes:

Brewer discussed the issue with Democratic Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez and wondered: “Is this an effective way to deal with the problem?” In response, Sanchez declared: “to stop people and say, ‘I think you look like an illegal immigrant’ and then drag them off to jail is not the way to deal with this issue.”

Brewer followed up by quoting current Homeland Security Secretary and former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano: “she would veto these kinds of bills because she said – she thought it was important for police to be doing actual police work, that they are not immigration enforcement officers.” As Brewer made that argument, the headline “Law Makes it a Crime to be Illegal Immigrant” flashed on screen.

Note how MSNBC cleverly managed to round up a congresswoman with an Hispanic last name for her opinion on the matter. That’s because only the opinions of liberal Hispanics and race-baiting wastes of space like Al Sharpton matter on the issue of border control.

Besides, as everyone is now aware, the new law specifically states that all Hispanic or vaguely-Hispanic looking people within the borders of the State of Arizona must be targeted and harassed by state law enforcement officials. It also states that people of Hispanic ancestry are good-for-nothing stinkers and must be made examples of for the amusement of Arizona Caucasians. (Blacks and Orientals are not allowed to be amused).

The crack staff here at Roman Around is diligently combing through the MSNBC archive tapes to confirm that their news team has broken the following stories:

“Gravity Makes Stuff Fall.”

“Sunday Makes Up The Second Half Of The Weekend.”

“Horny Heterosexual Men Like Boobs.”

All seven of MSNBC’s viewers are defending the network, saying the MSNBC logo is more colorful and aesthetically pleasing than CNN’s or Fox’s.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 25, 2010


I get what this is supposed to mean, but it still sounds like it was written by Senator John Kerry.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 7, 2010

If the American economy were personified, it would be a kidnap victim, huddled in the corner, frightened and scarred from the constant abuse it had to withstand from its captors, begging for mercy, screaming, “Stop! Stop!”

The kidnappers, of course, would have to be the Obamacrats in charge, relentless, careless, sadistic.

What better way to characterize an administration engaged in a kind of brutality that can only lead one to believe that the crippling of the American economy must be the goal?

Why is it that the solution to all liberal economic woes is to tax its citizenry more?

Paul Volcker, adviser to the President, said yesterday that instituting more taxes on the American people – in the European style – is a very real possibility.

What better way to deal with out of control, runaway government spending?

Yes indeed … more taxes.

Increase government’s claim on private property. That’ll work.

From Reuters:

The United States should consider raising taxes to help bring deficits under control and may need to consider a European-style value-added tax, White House adviser Paul Volcker said on Tuesday.

Volcker, answering a question from the audience at a New York Historical Society event, said the value-added tax “was not as toxic an idea” as it has been in the past and also said a carbon or other energy-related tax may become necessary.

Though he acknowledged that both were still unpopular ideas, he said getting entitlement costs and the U.S. budget deficit under control may require such moves. “If at the end of the day we need to raise taxes, we should raise taxes,” he said.

How refreshing it would be to hear an elected official, regardless of what side of the aisle he or she is on, say: “If at the end of the day we need to cut spending, we should cut spending.”

There’s no “if” about it.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2010

It’s only a bit of research by some Harvard “experts.”

But this just isn’t going to fly.

Although no one in the enviro-fascist camp really seems to be trying to tackle the problem of reducing the most abundant greenhouse gas of all – water vapor – the Obama administration stands steadfastly behind its goal to reduce other doomsday greenhouse gases that threaten the planet’s existence, like carbon dioxide.

You’ll recall that carbon dioxide is the stuff we – and all air breathing creatures – exhale.

(I thought it was worth restating).

And even though the hoax of manmade global warming continues to unravel on a daily basis, it isn’t keeping the true believers – like the ever-industrious President of the United States – from demanding that greenhouse emissions be cut before it’s too late.

But Obama’s standards are steep.  His goals are ambitious.

And if America is to save itself – and the world – from greenhouse death, it’s going to require that the price of gasoline go up, according to some researchers.

Way up.

How does $7.00 a gallon sound?

Sindya N. Bhando of the New York Times’ Dot Earth feature writes:

To meet the Obama administration’s targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, some researchers say, Americans may have to experience a sobering reality: gas at $7 a gallon.

To reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the transportation sector 14 percent from 2005 levels by 2020, the cost of driving must simply increase, according to a forthcoming report by researchers at Harvard’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

The 14 percent target was set in the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget for fiscal 2010.

In their study, the researchers devised several combinations of steps that United States policymakers might take in trying to address the heat-trapping emissions by the nation’s transportation sector, which consume 70 percent of the oil used in the United States.

Most of their models assumed an economy-wide carbon dioxide tax starting at $30 a ton in 2010 and escalating to $60 a ton in 2030. In some cases researchers also factored in tax credits for electric and hybrid vehicles, taxes on fuel or both.

In the modeling, it turned out that issuing tax credits could backfire, while taxes on fuel proved beneficial.

I’m curious … which governmental agency will be so lucky to benefit from the income generated by these tax increases?

Perhaps the new found revenue could be used to subsidize the poor, who will be hit hardest by such a price increase.

And let’s not forget those people unfortunate enough not to have access to a urine-soaked subway system, a sparsely travelled light rail system or a public bus.

A government-imposed $7.00 a gallon price for gasoline might hurt a little. 

It’s interesting to note that while stories about the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions continue to somehow find their way onto the pages of the New York Times, the continued implosion of the global warming charade – including the story of ClimateGate itself – is all but ignored by the Grey-haired Lady.

$7.00 a gallon gas?

Is the government-led dismantling of the transportation industry as we know it the goal here?

What’s next?

An attempt to take over the health care industry?
wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010

The dancing in the streets has subsided, the sun has risen on a brand new day, the reality has sunken in, and the Democrat supermajority is history. The morning after the racist, homophobe from the Bay State snagged the empty Senate seat left behind by a half-century of Teddy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – and, indeed, all of America – is poised to move into uncharted, post-Kennedy territory.

It’s a strange new world.

Regardless of what the spinsters on the Left say; despite the tripe that’ll fly from the mouths of Obamacrat and pundit alike; no matter what the apologists and disciples hawk, this most definitely was a referendum on the Obama administration. Indeed, this was a national election. This was an indictment of Obamacrat leftism. This was a huge smackback in the face of the President and his vastly unpopular, radical initiative of health care reform.

Without a heavy diet of hallucinogens, there is simply no other way to spin it.

Scott Brown, a Republican, is Massachusetts’s next Senator – only weeks removed from being down by double-digits in the polls against the contemptible Leftocrat, Martha Coakley – but he is, more importantly, this nation’s symbol of how peaceful revolutions are conducted. (What a difference one year makes). What was, by any stretch of the imagination, an impossibility, is now a shocking reality. The idea that a Republican would replace Ted Kennedy in a state where left is center, center is right, and right is Hitler, is unthinkable.

The fact is, the atrocity that is Barack Obama’s health care reform took a big hit last night.

But don’t worry. That won’t stop Dems from quickly regrouping and trying to figure out other subversive, dishonest and underhanded ways to get health care done, despite the wishes of the American people; despite the glaring message sent to Washington last night with the election of Scott Brown; despite the deposing of Democrat governors in New Jersey and Virginia; despite disastrous poll numbers.

They still know best … and they’ll tell you so.

Dems still have two words up their sleeves: Nuclear Option.

A few hours before Brown was declared the winner, Trish Turner at Fox News wrote:

A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the “nuclear option” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate election.

Calling the state’s special election “an uphill battle to put it mildly,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said “there are options to still pursue health care” should Democrat Martha Coakley lose to Brown.

Well, Coakley did lose to Brown, and don’t think for a single moment that some donkeys aren’t banging their skulls together trying to figure out a way to go nuclear.

…Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as “reconciliation,” a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.

“We could go to something called ‘reconciliation’, which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn’t require 60 votes, only a majority,” Durbin said. “So that is one possibility there.”

But other Democrats are saying it would be political suicide to move forward and not recognize that last night’s victory by Brown was, indeed, a referendum on not only ObamaCare but on how the government operates.

Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal writes:

Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb is calling for a time-out on the health care overhaul until Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown is seated following his upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.

Calling the race “a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process” Webb said Democrats need to hold off on further action until Brown is formally sworn in to the chamber.

“It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated,” he said.

The chances that the House will simply go along with the Senate version of the bill is on par with wishing for world peace or a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance.

It just isn’t going to happen.

Congressman Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts said it best: “If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill.”

Last night’s stunning win for Brown will send enough Dems scrambling to the railings of the good ship ObamaCare to stop the bill in its tracks, despite the bloviations of Madame Speaker. Nancy Pelosi, of course, has pledged to move forward, no matter what – through typhoon, flood and botox – to make sure a health care bill passes as soon as humanly possible.

But even Congressman Barney Frank has caught a whiff from the political coffee pot:

“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. “

Sometimes, even Democrats can read the writing on the wall.

Some of them anyway.

It speaks volumes that Democrats consider themselves defeated, even with 59 Seante seats. The Obamacrat agenda is so radical, so out-of-touch with America, they know only a supermajority could ever push it through.

And that says it all.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Elections, health care, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 15, 2010

There are times when I do, in fact, wonder if medical marijuana has been approved for members of Congress on the sly. If so, Democrats must be suffering from every illness under the sun because all of them are over-medicating. In Lib-world, everyone is the walrus. 

Heading up the “Glazed Eyes and Empty Head” list is House Speaker Nancy Pelosi who truly sounds as if she’s just been dumped out on the street by the Twinkie Truck – or that she may be in need of better pot. Today, she said that whatever talk there is of Republican “momentum” heading into the midterm elections later this year is nothing but “hype and hyperbole.” 

Jordan Fabian of The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room writes: 

In a fundraising e-mail to Democratic supporters, Pelosi said that the Democratic agenda is moving the country forward and the Democrats toward victory this fall. 

“Republicans are in full blown ‘spin mode’ attacking the President and claiming he has lost support,” she wrote. “But that is just hype and hyperbole. You and I know better — together we are moving America forward.” 

Hype and hyperbole? 

Like, for instance, the promise that “earmarks” will be a thing of the past? Or the promise that debates on health care will be televised on C-Span? Or the assertion that the unemployment rate will not go above 8%? Or the lie that two million jobs were saved or created by Bammy’s Spendulous atrocity? 

Republican momentum is hyperbole? 

Every single poll is wrong?

Maybe Nancy isn’t inhaling and ought to.

Madame Speaker, do the names Bob McDonnel and Chris Christie have any meaning to you? And how’s that “Ted Kennedy” senate seat looking these days? 


wordpress statistics 

Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Nancy Pelosi, politics, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

Read just about any conservative blog. There is no denying – nor should there be – that the blogosphere is rife with passionate anti-Obama sentiment. From hard analysis to parody, from opinion pieces to political cartoons, conservatives are not shy about expressing their extraordinary disfavor with this administration and its destructive policies. Obamacrats are keenly aware of this, going as far as instructing Americans to “tattle” on others who voiced opposition to ObamaCare earlier this year. (Remember that little nugget?)

Conservative bloggers mince no words in their epic distaste and dissatisfaction with the leftist policies being put forth by this President. They see disaster for this freest nation on Earth and take offense when these life-long leftists with no real comprehension of what liberty it is (and how precious it is) try to dismantle the Constitution.

Admittedly, some conservative bloggers are more “colorful” than others, while others successfully get their points across in more subtle and creative ways. But regardless of how it’s done, all of these voices matter.

Millions have expressed their opinions through online petitions, while others have organized and participated in tea-party rallies. Others, still, have confronted their elected representatives at town-hall meetings, demanding that they be properly represented. And while lines have been crossed on occasion – as in all human endeavors, regardless of political affiliation or ideology – these “right wing ideologues” are letting it be known that it is their country, too. They will not be silenced and they will not be ignored. The Constitution means something to them. Liberty is treasured. In unanimously peaceful and law-abiding fashion, conservatives en masse have resisted Obama’s attempt to lurch the nation leftward.

As I have written about on many occasions, leftists don’t just disagree with conservatives, they accuse them of being bad people. To today’s liberal, conservatives are sinister beings, motivated by ulterior motives and unwholesome goals. Conservatives don’t just hold opposing positions, they are corrupt and selfish, controlled by special interests, interested only in making the rich richer at the expense of “regular Americans.” Liberals, meanwhile, are as pure as wind-driven global-warming snow. Howard Dean, you may recall, famously encapsulated the liberal view of Republicans by saying that GOP values support children going hungry at night.

That’s literally how they view conservatives.

With the announcement of Rush Limbaugh’s admission into the hospital yesterday, the lefty blogosphere has been rejuvenated with the kind of hateful rhetoric that can only come from that side. It is the kind of mean-spirited, abominable sentiment that liberals whole-heartedly and unabashedly embrace. It is the kind of disgraceful elocution that validates inviting so-called comediennes, like the repugnant Wanda Sykes, to the White House Correspondents Dinner to joke about the death of Rush Limbaugh (while President Obama laughed). It is a broken value system that legitimizes wishing for the death of someone because of their opposing political views.

At the I Own The World blog, SnarkandBoobs writes:

Some on the Left, however, are on full display as the hateful, creepy people that they truly are. They are wishing for the worst and are almost giddy with excitement, as the comments at TMZ indicate. Some examples:

— I hope he dies. – Posted at 10:03PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Chris

— Best news I’ve heard in years…Hope he joins MJ, the sooner the better! – Posted at 10:02PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Ron Burgundy

— Good riddance! -Posted at 10:01PM on Dec 30th 2009 by james

— Oh, please let him die! Preferably quickly and very painfully. Please, please, PLEASE!!! – Posted at 10:06PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Shittohead

The vile comments, rejoicing in someone’s serious condition, are also rampant on Twitter. I have yet to venture over to HuffPo or Kos because I don’t think that I have water hot enough to wash the icky off of me afterward.

By the way, it’s not a good argument for wanting to take over our health care, Left – wishing DEATH on those with whom you disagree.

Stay Classy, Left. You disgust me.

Interesting to note here is that lefties don’t even know how to be properly vile. One clever wordsmith said, “Good riddance,” although Rush did not die. Another wished for a quick and painful death when everyone knows that suffering is maximized by a slow and painful death.

Libs don’t even know how to be abhorrent correctly.

Speaking of Twitter, these are taken directly from the great Weasel Zippers blog. (Full credit where credit is due. H/T to Zip for compiling it):

I’m sorry leftists, conservatives do not wish for, nor would they call for, the death of Barack Obama in a similar circumstance. If some accident or illness should befall the President – or God forbid, an assassination attempt is made on him – conservatives would not light up the blogosphere with such evil and disgusting sentiments as wishing for him to die. It is inconceivable.

Conservatives don’t wish for the deaths of their ideological opponents – only their political deaths.

“Drink a bottle of cancer?”

“I hope Rush Limbaugh fucking dies?”

Such class.

It’s the inevitable result of anonymity.

And those who would try to compare this to the right’s reaction to Senator Edward Kennedy’s illness and death are being intellectually dishonest. Disgust for Kennedy was not based on his politics. It was based on his being a detestible human being. He was directly responsible for the death of a young woman, leaving her to drown while he walked away to safety. He failed to report the incident for several hours. He was a priveledged, spoiled-brat, drunken philandering elitist who got away with it because of his last name. His staying power in the Senate was hinged on the fact that two of his brothers were murdered. Period.

With that in mind, conservative reaction to his passing still doesn’t hold a candle to the way the cyberspace libs have reacted here with Limbaugh (or even with Tony Snow, for that matter).

Disgust for Limbaugh is based solely on his political views.

The irony here is that the majority of these “Death to Limbaugh” types are probably against the death-penalty.

Incidentally, kudos to those libs who have forwarded well-wishes to Limbaugh. Indeed, there are some.


wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 30, 2009

I suppose a round of thanks is in order to all of those nasty greenhouse gas emitters across the globe who threw up their middle fingers at Mother Earth over the course of the past several decades. A huge slice of gratitude probably needs to be extended to every fossil-fuel consuming, incandescent light-bulb using, fireplace burning, disposable diaper buying climate-change criminal on the face of the planet. Tax paying enviro-nazis need to stash away their contempt for the climate-killers and globe-destroyers of the world – even if only for a little while – and acknowledge that if not for the rampant, hockey-stick rise in temperatures caused by unchecked, reckless human activity, things could have been a hell of a lot worse.

This year’s pre-Christmas blizzard packed one hell of a punch, dumping beaucoup snow from Oklahoma to New York. In terms of snow removal, the storm has proven to be a very costly one – costlier than most state budgets have allotted for.

Global warming may have saved the day.

Stephanie Simon and Russell Gold from the Wall Street Journal write:

The blizzards that hit the Midwest and the Eastern Seaboard this month rang up huge snow-removal bills for cash-strapped state and local governments — and left officials scrambling to figure out how they will pay to clear roads later in the winter.

Maryland’s State Highway Administration has spent more than $27 million this year on snow removal, the bulk of that clearing away a massive pre-Christmas storm. But the agency’s annual snow-removal budget is just $26 million.

Colorado officials recently notified residents in rural areas that they will let snow sit overnight on 2,800 miles of sparsely traveled state highways to cut down on overtime costs.

Oklahoma, socked by a Christmas Eve blizzard, is also feeling the pinch. Cleveland County, which covers the southern suburbs of Oklahoma City, had to call in 50 employees for three days of holiday overtime to clear a foot of snow. The bill, a bad blow to an already-strained budget, will make it impossible for the county to buy a $100,000 winch truck needed to pull stranded vehicles off the road, said county commissioner Rod Cleveland.

Just think how much worse the blizzard would have been had out-of-control, disaffected, carbon-footprint making global-warming deniers not kept temperatures as high as they did with their iconoclastic, self-absorbed, inconsiderate planet-destroying ways.

And imagine what the cost of snow removal would have been had global temperatures been at their real levels. 

Keep those engines idling, people.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 17, 2009

It wasn’t exactly an appearance by the Beatles on Ed Sullivan, but CBS’s Harry Smith probably needed to put a towel down, or have an extra change of clothes handy. Not unlike a Frankie-crazed bobbysoxer at the Paramount, or a poodle-skirted Elvis devotee, he was mesmerized, caught in the spell of the hypnotic cadence of Al Gore’s exquisitely haunting  lyrics (or is that hauntingly exquisite?).

True, Smith didn’t scream like a teenaged girl; rather, he seemed almost too anesthetized by Gore’s animal charisma to much more than sigh. It isn’t often that a bona fide journalist (for the want of a better word) has the opportunity to allow himself to succumb to the lilting liquidity of free-verse poetry by a former Vice-President on the air. It was reminiscent of two teenagers sitting at a Denny’s late on a Saturday night – the guy is sitting there, brooding, moody, painfully artistic, reading his poems (or song lyrics) to the girl, who is sitting transfixed, heart fluttering, occassionally finding the composure to mutter an awe-inspired “wow,” thinking how amzingly cute and deep he is.

Such was the case on CBS’s Early Show yesterday when Al Gore sat down with the enchanted Harry Smith and read one of his poems.

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters writes:

…The 23-year CBS veteran journalist, almost like a teenybopper swooning as she approaches a rock star for an autograph, actually asked the former Vice President to read it to him.

When the Global Warmingist-in-Chief was done, Smith said breathlessly, “Wow. I’m so glad you read that…I’m happy to hear it in your voice.”

Readers are advised that Gore is WAY too busy to discuss climate change with John Stossel, and is WAY too busy to answer questions about ClimateGate.

However, he’s NEVER too busy to read poetry to journalists.

When there are no more arguments to make because the theory of a man-made global warming doomsday has been shot full of holes; when your credibility has disintegrated faster than President Obama’s approval ratings; when you are a laughing stock (even among the scientific community); when the sound most associated with you is that of scornful laughter; when almost no one (outside of the hysterical) wants to hear what you have to say anymore, what can you do?

Go on a TV show and read a poem about how you feel about global warming.

What else?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 15, 2009

The little things in life make it all worthwhile. I find enormous pleasure in things that many would classify as unglamorous, unsophisticated, even banal: sitting on the couch with my wife, doing a jigsaw puzzle, stealing a few precious moments with my ever-active daughters, reading, taking in a Honeymooners marathon, Yodels and Yoo Hoo, so on. I concede that I also get tremendous satisfaction out of seeing the absurdities of life exposed for what they are – particularly when those absurdities have the potential to lead to genuinely destructive actions – like the fraud of a world in danger due to man-made global warming.

As the Climate Change Summit continues in Copenhagen – and the crisis of a globe burning up with fever continue to be championed by the terminally hysterical in attendance – there is something sweetly satisfying and deliciously ironic about seeing a group of journalists standing outside for hours, waiting to get into what is effectively a global warming conference, braving the cold in near-freezing temperatures. It’s fantastically funny to me, not unlike having a line of fat people waiting for free government cheese, or listening to two people screaming over eachother complaining how the other one never listens.

Noel Sheppard at News Busters writes:

A group of journalists stood for many hours in near-freezing temperatures Monday waiting to get into the United Nations climate change conference in Copenhagen. Marvelously among them was Associated Press science writer Seth Borenstein who regularly reports on the dire consequences of — wait for it! — global warming. Ironically, his articles are so filled with inflammatory hyperbole concerning Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s favorite bogeyman that scientists have denounced him.

But before we get there, the Climate Pool reported at Facebook Monday (h/t Tom Nelson):

With U.N. security letting in only those cleared last week, hundreds of accredited delegates, journalists and NGO representatives were left to stand for hours in near-freezing temperatures before being let through. “It was crazy,” AP’s Seth Borenstein said. “You couldn’t leave the line. You couldn’t go to the bathroom, you couldn’t eat. Then snowflakes started falling. One woman even said, ‘if lightning strikes me, would they take me out of line?'”

Sheppard goes on to say, “As a humorous aside, what Seth [Borenstein] and his fellow journalists could really have used Monday was a little global warming.”

The irony continues tomorrow, incidentally, as Mother Nature herself will be heard from.

Heavy snowfall is predicted for Copenhagen at the Global Warming Conference.

It’s the little things.

wordpress statistics

Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 5, 2009

I don’t think I will suffer any irrevocable damage by praising a Democrat – at least I hope not – and I’m almost certain that I won’t be kicked out of the “American Racists, Bigots, and Intolerance Alliance,” for doing so. But I must extend a heaping helping of kudos to Virginia Governor Timothy M. Kaine.

Yesterday, Kaine spoke out in defense of retired Army colonel, and Medal of Honor recipient, Van T. Barfoot – a man, incidentally, with his own Wikipedia entry – who was ordered by his homeowner’s association to take down a flagpole from his property for “aesthetic” considerations. In the absence of any HOA regulations against it, Barfoot put up the flagpole only to be told after the fact that it had to come down … or else.

Virginia’s top dog weighed in on the story yesterday.

From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine said today it is “ridiculous” for the Sussex Square community association not to let a Medal of Honor winner fly the American flag from a flagpole in his yard.

“I support this guy. He’s proud of this country,“ Kaine said on the “Ask the Governor” radio program on radio station WRVA.

The neighborhood association says its covenant prohibits flags flying from freestanding poles. They can be flown from the side of the house. Col. Van T. Barfoot won a Medal of Honor in World War II. He is 90 years old.

Kaine said he has not been in touch with Barfoot or the association, but said he was glad to deliver the message over the radio.

Good for him.

In the original article from the Richmond Times Dispatch on Wednesday, this important point is made:

“There is no provision in the community’s rules expressly forbidding flagpoles, Barfoot’s daughter said. But she said the board ruled against her father’s fixture and ordered it removed in July, deciding that free-standing flag poles are not aesthetically appropriate.”

That means it was an after-the-fact decision.

Colonel Barfoot, according to some reports, took it down for a time, but then decided that it should go back up. By September, it was up to stay.

The association bylaws do not restrict a free-standing flagpole, nor was a ban on them subsequently added to the association covenant after Barfoot was told it did not look good enough to keep.

Colleen Chen from the website writes:

The Sussex Square homeowners’ association doesn’t specifically ban flagpoles but said they must be “aesthetically appropriate.” They do allow short flag poles, but Barfoot said it’s not dignified enough for the American Flag.

“I think it is ridiculous. In the first place, I think my flag or staff looks better than any tree out there,” Barfoot said.

To earn his Medal of Honor, Barfoot took down machine gun nests by himself in Italy on May 23, 1944. He then was able to take 17 Germans as prisoner and went on to outmaneuver three Tiger Tanks with the help of a bazooka. Barfoot also saved two comrades that same day.

That the homeowner’s association wouldn’t choose to make an exception for a war hero who was not violating anything – other than an after-the-fact determination – is a disgrace. That the HOA wouldn’t have solicited the opinions of association residents before going to the extreme measure of retaining a law firm, is an embarrassment.

Yesterday’s 5:00PM deadline for removing the flagpole was pushed back a week to December 11th. If it is not taken down, Colonel Barfoot could face a lawsuit.

Note, in the photo below, the aestheticly inappropriateness of Colonel Barfoot’s flag pole.

That sound you heard was the property values of every home in the neighborhood plummeting.


In other news, screw the Sussex Square Homeowner’s Association.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 5 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009

So, the FBI knew.

But the Army didn’t?

Perhaps my thinking is a bit unrefined, and I’m willing to concede that I am no authority on the finer points of national security, but I don’t find it particularly unreasonable to ask why the hell the Federal Bureau of Investigation didn’t bother notifying the United States Army that Ft. Hood mass-murderer Major Nidal Malik Hasan was in contact with radical imam Anwar al-Aulaqi through a series of e-mails prior to the murderous terrorist attack there. In fact, I find it absolutely remarkable that correspondence between a US Army Major and a radical Muslim cleric – as many as nineteen e-mails – wasn’t deemed at all noteworthy enough by the FBI to bring to the Army’s attention.

Call me crazy, but it seems like it might have been something worth mentioning.

What the hell is going on?

Carrie Johnson, Spencer S. Hsu and Ellen Nakashima of the Washington Post write:

In the months before the deadly shootings at Fort Hood, Army Maj. Nidal M. Hasan intensified his communications with a radical Yemeni American cleric and began to discuss surreptitious financial transfers and other steps that could translate his thoughts into action, according to two sources briefed on a collection of secret e-mails between the two.

The e-mails were obtained by an FBI-led task force in San Diego between late last year and June but were not forwarded to the military, according to government and congressional sources. Some were sent to the FBI’s Washington field office, triggering an assessment into whether they raised national security concerns, but those intercepted later were not, the sources said.

“He [Hasan] clearly became more radicalized toward the end, and was having discussions related to the transfer of money and finances . . .,” said the source, who spoke at length in part because he was concerned the public accounting of the events has been incomplete. “It became very clear toward the end of those e-mails he was interested in taking action.”

The kicker in all of this – with the mainstream media still reluctant to use the “t” word to describe the Ft. Hood attack – is that even Democrat Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is now having to face reality.

Levin told reporters after a briefing from Pentagon staff members that “there are some who are reluctant to call it terrorism, but there is significant evidence that it is.”

No kidding?


Have migraines been ruled out yet?

I’m curious … under what circumstances would communication between an American serviceman and a known radical imam (and supporter of Al-Aqeada) not be anything the military should be made aware of?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Political Correctness, terrorism, Uncategorized, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 12, 2009

Rassmussen chart 11_11I thought I’d kick off my Thursday morning with a little poll jabber.

As you may or may not know, the Presidential Approval Index is tabulated by combining the percentages of people who strongly approve of the President with those who strongly disapprove. Rasmussen currently has President Barack Obama’s Approval Index at -10 (30% strong approval, 40% strong disapproval). In recent times, his rating has dipped as low as -13 (last Wednesday), and has gotten as “high” as -7 (Saturday).

Overall, his less-than-impressive Approval Index has been fairly consistent for months now.

For those keeping score at home, the President hasn’t had a positive rating since June 29th. (The highest of his presidency occurred two days after his inauguration when he hit +30).

Can you say “decisive trend?”

And if the ouster of two Democrat governors last week wasn’t enough of an indicator, Rasmussen shows that Republican candidates continue to expand their lead over Dems in the Generic Congressional Ballot. The lead is now six points.

Not bad.

Even those who claim no affiliation with either of the two major parties are favoring the GOP by 23 points.

Ouch, donkeys.

Still, as I wrote about yesterday, in a world where former President Bill Clinton and his perceptions actually have some relevance, we conservatives – or “tea baggers” as he called us – are “inflamed” because Democrats are “winning.”

Whatever you say, Mr. Hillary.

While other polling firms appear to show different results on the generic ballot, Real Clear Politics explains the differences in survey samples and question ordering, stating “if you are asking which pollsters have it right, I’d probably put my money on Gallup-Rasmussen.”

And as far as Pelosi-ObamaCare is concerned:

Over the weekend, Democratic leaders said the House’s passage of health care reform legislation was an historic moment. But public opinion remains unchanged: 45% favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats, and 52% oppose it.

That 45% will shrink, guaranteed.

Some other things of note in the Rasmussen poll:

-6 in 10 Americans think the massacre at Fort Hood last week needs to be investigated by the military as a terrorist act.

-Only 46% approve of the President’s overall performance.

-Two-thirds of Americans are against any law that would ban the sale of big screen TVs for the purpose of saving energy.

-1 out of 1 contributors to this blog think the Presidential approval numbers are way too high.


wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 8, 2009

obama stickers


In case you find this one difficult to read, the writing on the back window says: “You don’t see Obama stickers on cars going to Work!”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 2, 2009

obama souvenirsThere are many things to be said about President Barack Obama’s handling of the economy. From the left’s sycophantic exaltations to the right’s unimpeachable condemnations, there is no shortage of opinion on the matter. And even though I am one of those people who resolutely believes that the United States is wedged dangerously between Barack and a hard place, nothing quite brings home the message that an economy is hurting than having the economy of the economy-killer himself on the ropes.

I can hear a chorus of head scratchers asking themselves, “What the hell did he say?”

I’ll simplify.

Among other details, the AFP is reporting that the Barack Obama souvenir market is waning. The mania for the Anointed One, at least in terms of collectibles and tokens, is subsiding – coincidentally, in conjunction with his falling popularity numbers.

“Overall, Americans are not highly satisfied with the way things are going in the US,” said (Frank)Newport (Editor-In-Chief of the Gallup Poll). And as a consequence, the popularity of Obama gear at the souvenir shops that abound in Washington appears to be taking a hit. “Sellings have really slowed down since Obama took office,” said vendor Vin Ngo. This is not for want of supply: from a lifesize cardboard cutout to gold jewelry to a bottle of special vintage champagne bearing the president’s name, the list of Obama tchotchkes and high-end souvenirs is long.

Talk about interesting.

With Obama’s own performance in handling the economy negatively affecting the economy of Obama merchandise itself, one wonders if the Stimulus Bill could have possibly saved those jobs.

Questions remain, of course.

What will become of Obama Belly-Button Lint Removers? Or Big Bam Bunion Shavers? Or those Messianic Toe Straighteners? Or Big-O Orthopedic Water Walkers?

The man is an equal opportunity destroyer. There is no segment of the free market he cannot incapacitate.

One year since the election, the President’s face can still be seen almost everywhere. Indeed, in the lobby of my daughter’s high school in Brooklyn (Madison High School), hangs a gigantic likeness, presumably created in an art class, of President Obama. This isn’t your typical, traditional portrait of a President hanging on the wall. Rather, it’s a huge rendering of Obama face (admittedly, very well done) from on high, looking down on the happenings of the school’s main lobby – something I don’t ever recall seeing for any other President. Frankly, it’s a bit eerie – in that “goose-stepping-past-the-podium” sort of way. However, according the article, despite the plastering of his face almost everywhere in the year since his election – at least from the prespective of a profit-seeker – the honeymoon with Obama is over.

A quick look around downtown Washington confirms that the Obama trinkets are still for sale, but more than one strategically placed street hawker have found little point in displaying the T-shirts, posters, and “Yes We Can” buttons bearing the new president’s image.

“They stay in the truck,” grumbled a vendor who identified himself as “Dick,” as he pointed to a rusty vehicle behind him. “They don’t sell anymore.”

Of course, that doesn’t keep the President from being the enormous sensation he is across the globe – bigger than the pet rock, for sure.

High or low as it may be at home, Barack Obama’s popularity abroad is irrefutable, argues Professor Clyde Wilcox of Georgetown University in Washington. He is “the first African-American president, a young man who has won many honors and done great things. He is a cultural phenomenon in the US and around the world,” Wilcox said.

Yes, he’s done lots of “great” things.

And he won the Nobel Peace Prize, I think it was. Let’s not forget that.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Economy, humor, Obama-Mania, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

obama_b_ballThere isn’t enough government cheese in all the land to go with the latest flow of liberal whine coming from aggrieved women and lefty bloggers over the actions of the Neanderthal-in-Chief. Indeed, they still worship him as much as ever, but they’re disappointed (his maximum coolness and mouth-watering sex appeal not withstanding). As amazing as the dashing young Barack Obama is, there is concern that the dulcet-toned metrosexual from Chicago is slinging just a bit too much testosterone around the White House for their liking.

The assumption, of course, was that once the previous occupant of the White House – the God-obsessed John Wayne wanna-be – took his saddle and went back home to Crawford, the slick, bright-eyed, young Chicagoland urbanite would slide right in and show America what a true, well-balanced rainbow of success looked like. With the coming of the Messianic Age, along with varying shades of melanin, all chromosomes would be fairly represented at the House of Transformation.

However, there are genuine objections coming from non-testicled liberals and their allies. This Chief Executive, to their great dismay, seems tragically preoccupied with athletics, and sweat, and hanging out with the boys, and all of those things associated with … guys – and it’s got many irked.

Mark Leibovich at the New York Times, in his Washington Memo, explains:

Does the White House feel like a frat house?

The suspicion flared in recent weeks — and not for the first time — after President Obama was criticized by women’s advocates and liberal bloggers for hosting a high-level basketball game with no female players.

The President, after all, is an unabashed First Guy’s Guy. Since being elected, he has demonstrated an encyclopedic knowledge of college hoops on ESPN, indulged a craving for weekend golf, expressed a preference for adopting a “big rambunctious dog” over a “girlie dog” and hoisted beer in a peacemaking effort.

Too much.

Isn’t that “Louie, Louie” I hear playing in the background? Am I the only one with visions of twisting togas filling my head?  What would the President’s frat name be?

“Dumbo?” “Marxie?” “Bam-A-Lang-a-Ding-Dong?”

Just asking.

And what about this high-level basketball game?

Barack Obama had the audacity not to suit up with chicks for a game of round ball, so naturally, women’s advocates are beside themselves with visions of Cro-Magnon patriarchy.


The President better get those urinals installed in the White House ladies rooms post haste.

He presides over a White House rife with fist-bumping young men who call each other “dude” and testosterone-brimming personalities like Rahm Emanuel, the often-profane chief of staff; Lawrence Summers, the brash economic adviser; and Robert Gibbs, the press secretary, who habitually speaks in sports metaphors.

The technical foul over the all-male game has become a nagging concern for a White House that has battled an impression dating to the presidential campaign that Mr. Obama’s closest advisers form a boys’ club and that he is too frequently in the company of only men — not just when playing sports, but also when making big decisions.

“Women are Obama’s base, and they don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle,” said Dee Dee Myers, a former press secretary in the Clinton administration whose sister, Betsy, served as the Obama campaign’s chief operating officer.

Ms. Myers said women have high expectations of the president. “Obama has a personal style that appeals to women,” she said. “He is seen as a consensus builder; he is not a towel snapper and does not tell crude jokes.”

Mr. Obama, in an interview with NBC on Wednesday, called the beef over basketball “bunk,” saying that the players were largely picked from a regular Congressional game and that the list of invitees was reviewed by women on his staff.

“I don’t think it sends any kind of message or signal whatsoever,” said the president, who often points out that he is surrounded by strong females at home (where he is the only non-canine male). He added, in the interview, that he had hired women into “some of the most important decision-making positions in this White House.”

You honestly cannot make things like this up.

“They don’t seem to have enough people who look like the base inside of their own inner circle”?

What, pray tell, would the correct number of inner-cirle women be?

So then, are the events that need co-ed participation to be determined by the President himself? By staff members? By a counsel of angry and neglected women? Is there any limitation as to what the event could or should be?

What if the President schedules a staff bra-and-panties pillow fight? One would hardly be able to come up with something more “co-ed” than that. Of course, to be truly equitable, Obama, Gibbs, Emanuel and Summers would have to wear bras.

That, or the female invitees go topless.

Either way.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on September 20, 2009

Maureen Dowd AgainColumnist Maureen Dowd, among her other enviable attributes and talents, has sensory perceptions beyond those of most mortals. She can actually hear things that have not been said. She knows what others are saying without them having to say it because she hears the words in her mind.

Impressive doesn’t even begin to cover it.

Such was the case when Congressman Joe Wilson spat out the “You lie!” heard ‘round the world. It was after Wilson became Hitler-light to the left and a hero to the right that Dowd afforded all of us the opportunity to witness her miraculous gift. While the rest of us may have heard his outburst as two now infamous words, Ms. Dowd heard three: “You lie, boy!”

She said so.

No one is quite sure how she did it exactly (or how she will undoubtedly continue to do so), but one thing is for sure –  this is a skill set that must be developed and exploited properly.

Extraordinary as her Godless-given ability is, there is one thing that Ms. Dowd falls short on – namely, the ability to hear things that actually are there.

Of course, that can be a decidely difficult thing in and of itself.

To be fair, one can hardly blame her.

Having to deal with the things that resonate only in her head can predictably have a detremental effect on comprehending the tangible.

It’s not easy being Maureen.

Recall these controversial words by Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor:

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

While the shallow (and less clairvoyant) among us might have heard what were seemingly racist sentiments coming from Sotomayor, Dowd heard no such thing, writing in a column called “White Man’s Last Stand“:

You can’t judge a judge by her cover. Despite the best efforts of Republicans to root out any sign that Sonia Sotomayor has emotions that color her views on the law, the Bronx Bomber kept a robotic mask in place. A wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not know that a gaggle of white Republican men afraid of extinction are out to trip her up.”


How delightfully discerning.

Note how selective and unpredictable liberal racist radar can be.

There are times when its trigger mechanisms are tripped falsely by innocuous phrases like “black eye,” or “in the black.”

Call them false positives.

And there are other times when the alarms are dead silent, like when rap artists use the “n” word in their songs, or when Charlie Rangel opens his mouth.

Recall earlier this week when former President Jimmy Carter said:

I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man.

Radar systems were apparently offline.

Carter is so morally detestable on so many levels that it’s hard to be angry with him anymore when he reaches new highs in taking the low road.

To him – and all other desperate Dems – health care reform’s demise, should it come to that, will be because the President is black.

What was the excuse when it failed under Bill Clinton?

I know he was called “the first black President,” but come on ….


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 5, 2009

Venezuela's positive dictator wannabe, Hugo Chavez

Venezuela's positive dictator wannabe, Hugo Chavez

I recall an incident that occurred during the 2004 presidential election cycle – the year the Republicans held their convention in New York City – while taking my then-twelve year old twin daughters to an RNC event at the big Post Office (The Farley Building) on 8th Avenue in Manhattan. We were climbing the steps, making our way inside to create banners and signs for the upcoming convention – pro-Bush stuff – when the three of us we were accosted by a small group of foul-smelling, maggot-infested, neo-hippie types shouting out their anti-Bush slogans at us.

They waved angry fingers at us, showered us with endearing terms like “nazi lover,” “fascist” and “baby-killer” and prettied it all up with some choice expletives. They moaned and groaned about Bush eroding the rights of American citizens, compared him to Hitler, and waved their own signs (cleverly substituting the “s” in “Bush” with a swastika).

The irony of being able to protest against one’s own government without the fear of being hauled away because of it, while screeching about the corrosion of civil rights, was obviously lost on them.

The “protestors” were still there when we left about two hours later, but by that time, they were tuckered out. They were sitting on the steps in front of the big post office, signs strewn all over the ground, probably too stoned to lob insults at anyone anymore. One exhausted Kerry-gal – obviously worn out beyond words – could only muster a glance at my daughters and a single comment: “Lookit. Twins. Cool.”

Obviously, it’s hard to take people who cheapen words like “fascist” seriously. These pampered rabble-rousers who bellow incessantly about totalitarianism and the suppression of rights and the destruction of civil liberties have no sense of how infinitely foolish and contemptible they sound spouting off about despotism in a country that affords them the most liberty of any in the world. It goes without saying that spoiled brat college kids who use words like “nazi” in describing George W. Bush – as well as American conservatives in general – profoundly dishonor and degrade the millions and millions of innocents who experienced the utter brutality and ruthlessness of the Nazi regime, not to mention the brave warriors who fought against them and lost their lives defending the very liberty these campus brain-deads take for granted.

And while people like George W. Bush are relentlessly vilified by the artists and performers we admire, ruthless dictators like Fidel Castro are somehow glorified. While leftists continue to pump fists and cry about the need for President Bush to stand trial for crimes against humanity, they laud genuine violators of human rights like Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez.

This is an extension – or the logical result – of what talk show host Dennis Prager calls the “Age of Stupidity,” born in the 1960s. We now live in an age where free, young people – with more liberty than they can handle or often deserve – walk down the streets with the likeness of a murderous hooligan like Che Guevara on their t-shirts thinking it’s “cool.” (Try to envision young Americans walking around with Hitler apparel in the 1930s and 1940s).

This is the era where equality trumps liberty and moral equivalence runs rampant. This is the time where thug nations like Syria hold a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. This is the moment when the President of the United States is content to stay silent while innocents lay slaughtered in the streets of Iran by the hands of government.

And yes, this is the time when American elitists embrace dictators.

Totalitarian hob-nobber and well-respected thinker Sean Penn once said that Hugo Chavez is “much more positive for Venezuela than he is negative.”

(All he needs are some tasty waves, a cool buzz, and he’ll be fine).

One must wonder what the likes of Penn, Kevin Spacey, Danny Glover, Harry Belafonte and other back-slapping entertainment-land comrades of totalitarians and thug rulers across the globe think of a story like this from Reuters:

More than a dozen of 34 radio stations ordered shut by the Venezuelan government went off the air on Saturday, part of President Hugo Chavez’s drive to extend his socialist revolution to the media.

The association of radio broadcasters said 13 stations had stopped transmitting, following an announcement Friday night by government broadcasting watchdog Conatel that 34 radio outlets would be closed because they failed to comply with regulations.

Critics said the crackdown infringed on freedom of speech and that owners were not given the right to a proper defense.

“They’re closing the space for dissidents in Venezuela,” William Echeverria, head of the National Council of Journalists, told RCTV, a private cable TV station, which did not have its broadcasting license renewed in 2007.

Chavez defended the closures, calling them part of the government’s effort to democratize the airwaves.

I suppose that’s what President Obama is trying to do to the American health care system – democratize it.

“We haven’t closed any radio stations, we’ve applied the law,” Chavez said on state television. “We’ve recovered a bunch of stations that were outside the law, that now belong to the people and not the bourgeoisie.”

Chavez supporters say they are waging a “media war” against private news companies and have denounced in recent days what they say is a renewed offensive by privately owned domestic and international media to discredit Venezuela.

Diosdado Cabello, the public works minister who also oversees Conatel, said some of the radio stations were shut because they did not have their broadcasting licenses renewed and others transferred them illegally to new owners.

Those damn bourgeoisie. They ruin everything.

Kevin Spacey with Hugo Chavez

Kevin Spacey with Hugo Chavez

To hear it from the left, President George W. Bush was everything from a war-hungry, civil rights crushing totalitarian to a flat-out murderous fascist. He was a war criminal and a free-speech thwarting right-wing power-crazed authoritarian. All of the world’s ills can, in some way, be traced back to something done, said, conceived or associated with George W. Bush, according to leftists, Obamacrats and other mental adolescents.

No, there were no rape and torture rooms in Bush’s America like there was in Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, nor did W’s government round up those who spoke out against his administration like the governments in Iran and Venezuela do. (Hollywood, the music industry and newsrooms across the nation would have gone to tumbleweeds if they had). Also, keep in mind that no media outlets were shut down by George W. Bush’s government – nor would they or could they have been.

Yes, First Amendment rights remained fully in tact under W.

Nonetheless, ask any leftist for his recollections of the Bush years, and the vast majority of them will tell you that fascism practically ruled the day. His “regime” couldn’t have ended fast enough. That America survived to reach the Messianic Age may be proof positive that God really does exist. (You can catch him sneaking cigarettes in the rose garden now and then).

Imagine for a moment if anyone in the Bush administration had even remotely suggested that a privately-owned media outlet in this country be shut down by the government.

Imagine the backlash.

With the announcement that the ever-benevolent, big-hearted Hugo Chavez is “democratizng” the Venezuelan airwaves by shutting down opposing-viewpoint media outlets, when will we be privileged enough to hear from Mr. Penn and Mr. Glover on the matter? Where are the representatives of the American branch of the Hugo Chavez fan club today now that free speech has taken another hit in Venezuela? Where are the defenders of freedom and human rights now?

Not that it will matter, mind you.

Chavez is a hero to these people.

Indeed, he could line up a hundred dissenters against the wall, have them shot, and you can bet your bottom dollar that someone as detestable as Danny Glover will still kiss his ass and call it ice cream.

… and, of course, still manage to find a way to blame it on George W. Bush.

…or the slave-owning Founding Fathers.

…or something.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Hugo Chavez, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 28, 2009

She's on her way

She's on her way

She hasn’t made it yet, but it’s just a formality now.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor will be the newest member of the United States Supreme Court.

Earlier today, she cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 13-6.  (All Republicans voted “no” except one. Care to guess which one gave the Constitution a good swift kick in its manhood?)

The Senate confirmation vote will make it official next week.

The phrase “goody-goody-gum-drops” immediately comes to mind.

E-mails from liberal friends have been filling my “inbox.” I even let a buddy borrow one of the “hip-hip-hoorays” I had stashed away for a special occasion. I knew I wouldn’t be using it.

I celebrated the news by dislodging a pebble from the garden hose and reloading the bathroom tissue dispenser in the upstairs bathroom.

(I’m out of control, I know).

Indeed, I only wish Sonia Sotomayor well and a long life.

I mean that.

This afternoon, radio newscasts were filled with reports of Sotomayor’s committee approval – as they rightfully should have been. It was, after all, newsworthy – as it would have been for any nominee who moved on to a full Senate vote.

As expected – within twenty seconds of every newscast I happened to ingest – the significance of Sotomayor being the “first Latina” to make it to the high court became a focus of the story. Like taxes and death, I could have bet the deed to the house that the word “Latina” would have been the money word for the day and not worry a damn bit about winding up homeless.

Having worked in news, I understand why her ethnicity in this case is noteworthy.

However, it doesn’t change the fact that I am sorry it is so.


Because I couldn’t give a mongoose’s nipple what ethnicity Sonia Sotomayor is.

My concern is how she views the Constitution of the United States – whether she sees it as a document created by the Founders with very specific intent, with every word in place by design, steadfast and unwavering (save for the amendment process), or whether she views it as something with lungs that is wholly adaptable to whim and folly.

Today’s approval only made the replacement of one “living and breathing document” liberal with another that much closer to being a reality.

The culture from which Judge Sotomayor comes from, the shading of her skin, the blood that runs through her veins and the neighborhood where she grew up are of less interest to me than the tag in my t-shirt neck.

The nominee who said, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,” concerns me.

The nominee who holds that the Constitution of the United States does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments scares me.

The nominee who ruled that racial statistics are more relevant than merit angers me.

True, Sotomayor’s appointment doesn’t swing the court into darker liberal shadows since it is effectively a replacement move, but so what?

This is a matter of qualification.

As Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions said, “In speech after speech, year after year, Judge Sotomayor set forth a fully formed, I believe, judicial philosophy that conflicts with the great American tradition of blind justice and fidelity to the law as written.”


Incidentally, did anyone mention that Judge Sotomayor will be the very first Hispanic member of the Supreme Court?

Interesting tidbit, isn’t it?

Posted in Liberalism, Supreme Court, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 21, 2009

Ralph Peters

Ralph Peters

Private 1st Class Bowe Bergdahl went missing on June 30th in the Paktika province of Afghanistan. Since then, a video of the captured American soldier pleading for his life and calling for American troops to withdraw from the region has been posted on a Taliban website. The paratrooper, surrounded by his captors, also expressed a desire to learn more about Islam and commented on the low morale of the American soldiers there.

Officials from the US military called the video pure propaganda and vowed to find him.

Over the weekend, on the Fox News Channel, anchor Julie Banderas was interviewing military analyst Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters (retired). He is a regular contributor to the network, a frequent guest on radio talk shows (including the Michael Medved Show) and a columnist to boot.

I have consistently found Peters to be informative, well-spoken and an insightful thinker on matters related to the war against Islamo-fascism.

However, while speaking to Banderas about the Bergdahl matter, he raised more than his share of eyebrows by suggesting that if it should come out that Private Bergdahl walked away from his post while at war, the Taliban should be permitted to execute him.

From Fox News, the exchange went like this:

Julie Banderas

Julie Banderas

Banderas: Apparently Bergdahl was captured while he walked away from his US base camp. Many people are e-mailing me and asking, “How can a soldier walk off from a base on his own? Wouldn’t there always be another soldier with him? Would he be partnered with another person?” What can you tell us about that?

Peters: I want to stress first of all that we must wait until all the facts are in to make a final judgment. But nobody in the military that I’ve heard is defending this guy. He is an apparent deserter. Reports are, indeed, that he abandoned his buddies, abandoned his post and walked off. We’ll see what the ultimate truth of it is. But if he did – if he’s a deserter in wartime – as one of my old platoon sergeants used to say, “He is in beaucoup deep kimchi.”

Now, there’s another problem, Julie. On that video, he is collaborating with the enemy. Under duress or not – that’s really not relevant – he’s making accusations about the behavior of the military in Afghanistan that are unfounded, saying there are no rules. He’s lying about how he was captured, saying he lagged behind a patrol. Julie, I’ll tell you, any 11-Bravo infantryman will tell you that’s not how it works. In a war zone, any soldier is aware of where all his buddies are. If it’s a night patrol, you’re sure aware of where the guy in front of you, behind you is. So, we know this private is a liar. We’re not sure if he’s a deserter. But the media needs to hit the pause button and portray this guy as a hero.

Banderas: Wow. Obviously, I don’t want to speculate here.

She went on to say how the Fox News Channel will not air the video, lest that network appease the Taliban.

Peters: The best bet getting him back is tipsters, surveillance, special operations. For right now, I think he’s okay. They’re not going to kill him right away, if at all, because he has tremendous propaganda value. He’s making anti-American statements. He wants to investigate Islam, blah, blah, blah … Now look, Julie. I want to be clear. If, when the facts are in, we find out that through some convoluted chain of events, he really was captured by the Taliban, I’m with him. But, if he walked away from his post and his buddies in wartime… I don’t care how hard it sounds, as far as I’m concerned, the Taliban can save us a lot of legal hassles and legal bills.

Banderas (somewhat stunned): All right Lt. Colonel Ralph Peters, thank you very very much … Regardless of what the situation is, we don’t want to see any US soldier in harm’s way and we hope this guy gets out of there safely. He’s an American. He’s one of ours.

Peters: Julie, think about his buddies. Think about his buddies.

Banderas (still perplexed): Yeah .. and, of course, everyone who is over there …

Despite the tedious caterwauling and hollers coming from some left-wing bloggers over his appearance on Fox – calling him a right-wing “psycho” (among other clever leftocrat lingo) – Peters is not a gun-happy war-loving crackpot, nor is he a particularly controversial pundit. He has shown himself to be, through his writing and TV appearances, quite reasonable and articulate.

He is unquestionably a patriot.

However, for a member of the United States military – retired or not – to call for or advocate the killing of an American soldier by the enemy, even if that soldier did abandon his wartime post, is nothing short of outrageous. At the very least, it is undignified and unbecoming – particularly coming from a man with Peters’ resume. It also goes against the very standards that the heroes who defend this nation fight for.

If Private Bergdahl did abandon his fellow soldiers and country, he must be allowed to face a court-martial. He must be permitted to stand up against his accusers and defend himself. Such a detestable and cowardice act (should it be proven) must be afforded the scrutiny and judgment it rightly deserves. And if it should come out that the worst-case scenario is, indeed, a reality – that he actually defected to the enemy – then he should be tried for treason by the nation he betrayed and given the appropriate punishment.

I have no argument with Peters’ contempt at the prospect of an American soldier running away from his brethren-in-arms in a time of war.

But it can never be acceptable for an officer of the United States military to openly call for an enemy of his own country to administer any justice on an American soldier.

Posted in military, Uncategorized, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 15, 2009

Greetings all!

Thanks to all who have sent well-wishes!

The move has been completed! I am now in Staten Island. It has been hectic, exhausting, expensive and something I wouldn’t wish on most of my enemies.

I will be back in full force here on ROMAN AROUND on Monday, April 20, 2009.

It’s also TEA PARTY DAY across America.

I will be attending New York City’s Tea Party tonight and will post pictures.


God Bless America.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 28, 2009


For a while, I was concerned that some of the tax dollars being yanked from my paycheck to help fund the $787 billion stimulus pig-meat package were going to frivolous projects. In the run up to its passage, I spent a substantial amount of time (and space) on this blog hurling invectives at the plan. I chastised, criticized, denounced, excoriated and otherwise condemned the Obama pork-o-rama stimulus bill up one side and down the other.

My mantra was “waste.”

I sang it from the rooftops.

Like so many on my side of the aisle, I pointed out and enumerated, in abundance, just how much of the Big Bam Pig Meat Plan had absolutely nothing to do with stimulus. I felt it was my duty, and I served the conservative movement well.

Sure, I scoffed as much as the next blogger at some of the things located therein.

But when I found earlier today that some of my hard-earned tax dollars would be going to help curtail suicides in Akron, Ohio, I knew I had been out of line.

After all, if I can assist in making suicidal bridge leaping that much more difficult by simply electing an over-spending, Marxist-like, pork barrel Big Cheese, I can sleep easier at night. It would bring the same kind of satisfaction as knowing that my bucks are helping to make some housing project somewhere more environmentally friendly.

Now that’s stimulus.


From the website:

One man jumped to his death off the All-America Bridge this year.

Two more used the Akron bridge — more commonly known as the Y-Bridge — to commit suicide in 2008.

Akron hopes to curtail future deaths on what has been dubbed ”Suicide Bridge” by installing a fence.

The controversial fencing — some have been pushing for it, while others think it’s a waste of money — was among the local projects the state approved Thursday for federal stimulus funds.

”It just makes a safer Akron for everybody,” said Robert Conley, who has been urging the fencing since his son, Kevin, jumped off the bridge to his death in 2006.

I don’t wish what Mr. Conley has gone through on anyone.

But let’s be serious for a moment.

Building a fence makes Akron safer for everybody? Since the beginning of 2008, three people have ended their lives by jumping off this bridge.  Indeed, I was (and still am) opposed to the Obama spendulous package. But were there no other projects that warranted more attention than this? Something that would be a benefit to more people in Akron?

I can see the e-mails now:

Roman, you cold-hearted bastard! How can you be so flip about suicide?

-You son of a bitch! Only a heartless right-wing Nazi would equate suicide with windmill powered door buzzers.

Before the Connecticut Working Families Party sends out their bus-filled harassment squads to my house, like they did to the AIG executives, let me be clear.

This is not about suicide. To be opposed to using so-called federal “stimulus” money to build a fence on a bridge where people have leapt to their deaths does not, by default, mean that one is in favor of people killing themselves. It does not mean the act is any less tragic or hurtful. It is a non sequitir. It is an intellectually dishonest argument.

What about those who take their own lives by overdosing on pills? Do we outlaw medications?

How about those who hang themselves? Do we regulate the sale of rope or other potentially neck-breaking materials?

And those who slit their wrists? Should the federal government enforce strict razor blade legislation?

Why not just close down the bridge?

As one blogger at put it:


A fence will only stop people from jumping off that bridge! What about the two others that you can see from the Y bridge???

A fence doesn’t save suicidal people….their family/friends do.

This is only about wasteful spending – and atrociously wasteful spending, at that.

This is not a federal issue.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?


Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.


Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?


Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.


Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2009

There are apparently a hell of a lot of babies being made in this country.

Last July 4th, President Bush marveled at how our country had grown from 13 colonies to a nation of 300 people. In seven months time, we have exploded to the point that a half-billion Americans a month are losing jobs – according to Nancy Pelosi. At this rate, by next July 4th, there will be two-and-a-half-billion people out of work here in the United States.

I’m no economics guru, but I would think this is something to avoid, no?

It’s been out there for more than a week, but for those who haven’t already seen it, here’s a funny little clip – 19 seconds long – of our Speaker of the House going a bit math-numb.

Note that when President Bush did it, he was an idiot. When Nancy Pelosi does it, she is simply misspeaking, and vindictive conservatives need to settle down and stop being so damn petty.

Reporter: The economic recovery package is going too fast? And maybe it won’t be ready by the President’s Day recess?

Pelosi: Every month that we do not have an economic recovery package, 500 million Americans lose their jobs. I don’t think we can go fast enough …

Come on. Tell me the truth.

Is this Joe Biden in drag?


Okay, everyone misspeaks. The point is, not all gaffes seem to get the same kind of coverage, do they?

Fancy that.

Leno? Letterman?


Update:  February 4, 2009  11:42 PM

Fair is fair.

Jay Leno, did, in fact, mention Pelosi’s magic math during his Tonight Show monologue.  



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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

Daddy’s little girl will not make like Uncle Teddy and Uncle Bobby (and Daddy too). Caroline says no. And now that Hillary is officially Secretary of State, there is an empty Senate seat to fill.

From the New York Post via Fox News:

caroline-kennedy1Caroline Kennedy has told Gov. David Paterson that she is withdrawing her name from consideration to replace outgoing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the U.S. Senate, The Post has learned.

Kennedy cited “personal reasons,” according to sources.

Her stunning move comes as sources revealed that Paterson had intended to appoint her to the now-vacant seat today.

The 51-year-old Camelot daughter’s decision removes the highest-profile name in the ring to step into Clinton’s seat, as she departs after getting confirmed as President Obama’s Secretary of State today.

The surprise decision leaves a crowded field of about 15 people, mostly elected officials, vying to replace Clinton — including Long Island Rep. Steve Israel, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, upstate Rep. Kirstin Gillibrand and Rep. Carolyn Maloney.

A lib is a lib of course, of course …

In other news, I found that missing two-dollar bill I’d been looking for. It was between Pages 74 and 75 of my first edition copy of “See I Told You So” by Rush Limbaugh.

Also, Kermit the Frog’s voice has never sounded right since Jim Hensen passed away.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009


 “If it wasn’t for your bum knee, you coulda carried two of these things.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

If skies were cloudy where you were yesterday – Inauguration Day, 2009 – don’t look to the ravages of climate change for the explanation. Rather, blame it on a bloated, overloaded Cloud Nine that hovered like a Goodyear Blimp over the entirety of the nation, swollen with salivating main-stream media types, blocking out just about all light, objectivity, reason and sanity from the American airwaves and landscape. Had a cure for cancer been discovered, or Jesus’ return to Earth confirmed by two or more sources, one would still have to believe that Barack Obama’s ascendancy into the Messianic Palace would have garnered more thrills and tickles among the newsroom elites. Why President Obama did not just walk across the Reflecting Pool on his way to the Inauguration still befuddles me.

Talk show host Sean Hannity has a montage that runs about two-and-a-half minutes, illustrating the post-Inauguration outbreak of Obama-mania across the giddy ranks of today’s mainstream media. Whereas at one time the likes of Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Eric Sevareid and John Chancellor would have at least tried – I say, tried – to keep their biases to themselves for the sake of objectivity, today’s lot of TV heads are unabashed in their leg-jiggling, mouth-watering, happy-dance Obamacratic glee.

Here is the audio.

Be sure to have a towel-ready. The flow of saliva is particularly heavy.

Many thanks to AT for the audio.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

At the great Vocal Minority website, ETR follows up on a story that both he and I have written about in the past few days – namely, the desecration of the American flag by ardent Obama supporters in the name of patriotism.

My article, Symbolism Matters, touches upon the decline of importance Americans place on the symbols this country holds dear. As I see it, it is a situation that is both sad and infuriating.

ETR’s comments are poignant, direct and spot on.

He writes:

A couple days ago I posted on a Baltimore Sun article that exposed Obama fans parading through Baltimore with American flags with Barack Obama’s face and name on them. I wondered whether these flags, which are illegal, would appear inauguration day in D.C. And sure enough, they did:


Um, were there any actual American flags at the coronation?

Nice job, ETR.

He also links to Michelle Malkin, who has additional pictures of this new uber-patriotism.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 21, 2009

Joseph Lowery

Joseph Lowery

Yesterday’s inaugural ceremony benediction by the Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery certainly has caused a bit of a stir – at least among those of us who pay attention. My short little harmless commentary on yesterday’s closing prayer called “This Is A Benediction?” has received a host of responses on Free and at Roman Around.

Indeed, I do very much enjoy engaging in debate. When I receive opposing viewpoints that are not riddled with expletives and personal attacks, I like to take them on. Occasionally I’ll even post them.

This is just such an occasion.

Someone called “Judi” took issue with my disdain at yesterday’s benediction – particularly the closing. 

Recall that Reverend Lowery said:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back … when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man … and when white will embrace what is right …” 

I’ll address Judi’s points one by one.

Judi wrote:

My my my. Who knew that something so simple would turn into such a mess.

The simplicity of what was offensive about Reverend Lowery’s benediction, Judi, is found in the explicit racism of his words. His condemnation of whites in total –  false condemnation, as it were – is, by definition, racist. Thus, the situation is a “mess” for two reasons: One, because of the gross inappropriateness of the comments and, two, because of the downright falsehoods contained therein.

The sad irony is that the benediction delivered at the inaugural of America’s first black President – a man who had the word “unity” tattooed on his forehead during the campaign season – was as divisive as any I have ever heard.

His words were entirely ill-suited because a benediction is no place to spew politically controversial – and ultimately fallacious – statements in the guise of prayer. That he chose the inauguration of the first black President of the United States to fight a battle that has long since been won, using phraseology of a time and era that no longer exists is what makes it as much embarrassing as it is unbecoming.

The implication of a society so mired in racism that blacks still are relegated to the “back” (as in “back of the bus,” I assume), or that “browns” (whoever they are) are being made to not “stick around” is as patently ridiculous as the notion that opposing same-sex marriage, by default, means despising homosexuals.

All non-whites, in the gospel according to Mr. Lowery, are still victims. Whites, on the other hand, are still the oppressors. America, therefore, is racist.

Judi wrote:

Maybe instead of whites looking to find something to be offended about perhaps we should all look at situations where someone was being oppressed and we were complacent. For whites to embrace what is right has been a long time coming.

Judi, if you think that conservatives were just lying in wait for the benediction to be delivered so that they might spring into collective action against Barack Obama, you are more naïve than your post would indicate. Why bother attacking the benediction – the portion of the ceremony that would seem to be the most appealing to conservatives – when there is so much else to get on Obama’s back about? After all, don’t conservatives dig all that “God” stuff?

American whites elected the man into office. The transition of power was peaceful. There were no “white uprisings” against the election of the new President.

And what exactly do you mean that it’s about time whites embraced “what is right?”

Are you ignorant of world history? Or American history?

Since you choose to spit out knee-jerk nonsensical race-based gibberish that is altogether inapplicable in this context, here are a few facts you should embrace, as enumerated by a blogger called lady lawyer at Free

It was white people who, for the first time in the history of the world said, “We are strong enough to enslave other people, but it is wrong, and we are not going to do it any more.”

It was white people who then pressed the rest of the (non-white) world to give up slavery. It was legal in parts of the Arab world until the 20th century.

It was white people who set up a government of laws guaranteeing them freedom. But that freedom presumed and required that individuals “embrace right” by regulating their own behavior, providing for their families, obeying the laws, respecting the property of others, and being productive.

It was white people who kept that system going and productive, and created a country which has given more freedom and prosperity to its citizens — of all colors — than any other country in the world.

Any person of any color who “embraces right” in this country can get ahead. “Embracing right” means work before pleasure, paying rent before buying bling, marriage before children, and all the other daily choices that constitute “embracing right.”

Elizabeth Alexander - delivered a "what the heck was that?" poen at Obama's inauguration Tuesday.

Elizabeth Alexander - delivered a "what the heck was that?" poem at Obama's inauguration on Tuesday.

Words mean things – and perhaps Mr. Lowery’s rhyming passages of lyrical whimsy could have best been applied to the portion of the program reserved for the “poem.” (Lord knows, whatever it was that Elizabeth Alexander read during the “poetry” portion of the program made the ingredient listing on a box of Kibbles ‘N Bits much more thought provoking).

After all, “yellow” and “mellow” certainly do rhyme – but I am not aware of any tendency of Asain-Americans to suddenly fly into fits of fury. Nor is there any problem with those who are “brown” not sticking around. I don’t even know what the implication is supposed to be there, but it does rhyme.

No one can deny the wrongs of America’s past. But those wrongs were not uniquely American. They were universal injustices that existed throughout all of human civilization for millenia.

Yet it was uniquely Western Civilation that, in a relatively short period of time, erradicated slavery. 

Judi wrote:

Regardless, at the end of the day it was meant to be uplifting and positive and spread a bit of joy by encouraging all people to do the right thing towards your fellow man and speak out when injustice is being done. That’s what a benediction is meant to be. 

It was “meant” to be uplifting?

Do liberals do anything other than proffer good intentions? Do liberals ever behave as adults and think about what happens next as a result of their well-meaning actions?

How exactly does the Lowery diatribe uplift? What positives come from such stale discrepant poppycock? How does portraying non-whites as perpetual victims of an institutionally racist country motivate? How does telling people they are not good enough, or suggest that they are not afforded the same opportunities as others, when they most certainly are (as the inauguration of Obama illustrates), inspire them? 

There is nothing that could be further from the truth than to imply that the United States of America is a racist nation, Judi.

This country is the most accommodating, least racist nation on Earth.

Judi wrote:

These posts are heartbreaking really. Just sad and petty. If you are embracing what is right then he wasn’t speaking to you. If instead you we’re offended perhaps that’s a bit of guilt and maybe you should reevaluate the way you lead your life.

Jesus loves the little children/All the children of the world/Red and Yellow Black and White/They are precious in his sight/Jesus loves the little children of the world.

How offensive. The audacity.

There is a time and place for everything – no matter how obtuse or inane. But the inaugural of the President is not the time for a man of faith to regurgitate his political rhetoric, nor is it felicitous, in the name of God, to invoke racial divisions. The fact that the man being inaugurated was, in fact, a black man renders Mr. Lowery’s comments as ludicrous and outrageous as screaming out against global warming while braving harsh winter winds.

Judi, shouldn’t statements like these have some truth in them?

That you choose to quote lyrics from the famous song about Jesus loving all the little children of the world is adorable, to be sure, but perfectly irrelevant to any of this discussion. I also love puppies, chocolate fudge and little babies, but how on Earth is that pertinent here?

The audacity lies with those on the Left who continue to foster these divides between races.

And believe me … there is not a racist electron in my body. As God is my witness, the race of a human being is absolutely of no consequence when making decisions, arriving at judgments, or ascertaining character.

Kind of like Dr. King said.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009

Obama takes the oath

Obama takes the oath

The Reverend Dr. Joseph Lowery gave the benediction at today’s inauguration of Barack Obama. It could more accurately be called a political ramble. It was, in no uncertain terms, an embarrassment. And as loathe as I am to have to use a word that has long been at the heart and soul of liberal thought, I will break out my Liberal/English dictionary and say it … It was offensive.

Said Mr. Lowery:

“We ask you to help us work for that day when black will not be asked to get in back … when brown can stick around … when yellow will be mellow … when the red man can get ahead, man … and when white will embrace what is right …”


First off, this is a prayer?

Second, was the Reverend Lowery listening to old Jesse Jackson speeches before he gave this so-called prayer? The fact that the man can rhyme words only means that his faculties may parallel those of Dr. Suess, not that he is coherent. 

What on earth is the man talking about?

Is this the segregated South in 1948?

What blacks are being kept “in back?” Where exactly is this happening? Did he not notice that Barack Obama just took a slightly fractured Oath of Office?

What “browns” are not sticking around? What precisely does that mean? Because it rhymes doesn’t mean it makes sense.

The same holds true for “yellow” and “mellow.” Is he referring to the propensity for Asain-Americans to resort to violence? Or the tumultuous uprisings that have defined orientals in the United States?


“The red man?” “Get ahead, man?” (You’re kidding, right?)

And that “white will embrace what is right?”

Who on earth do you think elected the man, sir? White America.

Of course, if electing Barack Obama is what constitutes “right,” he may be onto something.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 30 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009




Doesn’t the bike get a blanket?

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009

red, withe, blue ... and black?

red, white, blue ... and black?

When The One famously said, “I decided I won’t wear that pin in on my chest. Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism,” he decided that his kind of patriotism did not involve displaying the American flag on his lapel.

His choice.

Of course, within days, he had that pesky little bugger back on his jacket. (Political Expedience 101).

But that was the traditional, everyday, run-of-the-mill American flag – the kind with 13 red and white stripes and fifty stars. (Ho hum). It wasn’t the new American flag – or should I say, the flag of the Obama-Nation – as displayed at a recent rally for Obama in Baltimore. Oh, sure it looked the American flag in many ways. Indeed, it had the stripes, the stars and the familiar red, white and blue color scheme, but it also had the Messiah’s face on it, along with the “O” that has become his trademark symbol. It also had the words “44th president” on it and his inauguration date.

The problem is … it is a violation of US Code to desecrate the American flag, and that is precisely what these enthusiastic supporters have done by adding pictures and words to it. They’ve defaced the flag of their own country.  (I’m guessing most didn’t even know it. More’s the pity).

Specifically, it violates Title 36 of the US Code:

Title 36
§176. Respect for flag.

No disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America; the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor …

(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.

This isn’t capital murder, obviously.

Can people be prosecuted for it?


Is there a mechanism prescribed by law that allows for the “enforcement” of such violations?


Did I feel the same way when President George W. Bush did the same thing by signing his autograph on American flags?

I did. (Although a case could probably be made that asking the President to sign a hand-held flag is not quite the same as having people willfully and deliberately desecrate the flag with symbols and writing).

But simply because one cannot be arrested for desecrating the American flag does not mean the act is acceptable or should be ignored. Children, for example, cannot be hauled away for cursing at their parents. Adults cannot be locked up for infidelity to their spouses. Both acts, however, are examples of non-arrestable actions that are unacceptable.

But what of the greater issue here?

The American flag is the symbol of our nation … and symbolism matters. It is how we pay tribute and show respect to the values and traditions we hold dear. Having reverence for the symbols that represent our most cherished customs and institutions is a sign of strength and identity. Symbolism matters not just on a personal level – photographs, trinkets, heirlooms – but they matter just as much, if not more, at the national level. To cheapen the symbols of America cheapens our very character, our oneness, our personality, our uniqueness.

These things do matter.

Why desecrate a symbol is you are not intending to desecrate what the symbol represents?

(If that is your intention, so be it. That’s a separate issue. But if the intent is not to demean what the symbol stands for, then how does one justify it? What does that say of the character of the one doing it?)

The idea of respecting symbols is seen by many as just another way of preserving the crotchety antiquated past.  It is also seen as a barrier to those who think “freedom of expression” should always trump the need to respect those things most meaningful to the society as a whole. “It’s how I feel, so I’m gonna do it!” 

Thank you, Age of Narcissism.

Symbols simply mean nothing to many.

I’ve read comments on other blogs that reflect this kind of sad attitude:

bush_signs_flag“It’s just a flag. Get over it.”

“The flag is not America, idiots.”

“This somehow bothers you when innocents are dying in Iraq?”

Comments like these are disappointing – but expected. There are things that should – I say, should – transcend politics.

My point, by the way, is not to imply in any way that the next President had anything to do with these exuberant rally-goers in Baltimore. I don’t think it for a moment.

There are simply many of us who take the desecration of flag seriously … and wish others did too, regardless of what political stripes they wear.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2009

we the people

Believe it or not, today will not be the most important moment in the history of the United States. It won’t be, despite the rhapsodic coverage the main stream media has afforded it. Indeed, I would say the same thing if Obama were a Republican – but then the media wouldn’t be wetting itself as it is now.

Quite literally, today is the inauguration of the nation’s 44th President. It is an historic day, to be sure. I’d be intellectually dishonest to deny the reality of it.

To review … Barack Obama is a Democrat – a liberal with dark skin, something I mention only because it is seemingly more relevant to a whole host of folks than the leftist policies he advocated during the campaign, born of one white parent and one black parent (not descended from slaves). I cannot help but wonder what sort of spin we will see when the first black President born of two black parents hits the Oval Office, both descendants of slaves. That, too, will depend on whether he or she is a Democrat or Republican. 

The new President comes to power with a list of questionable acquaintances from his Illinois past. He is a man who reads from cue-cards and teleprompters like no other before him, one who mesmerizes audiences like a 22-year old Paul McCartney at the Hollywood Bowl, with a resume as thin as a piece of egg matzoh, who believes that we “can.”

God Bless him.

I truly only wish the best for my country, the United States of America. Whether that is possible under an Obama administration is a different kettle of sea-kittens.

Yes, today is, indeed, a big day … and I can hardly wait for it to be over.

If you are not among those of us who will be at work today when Obama takes the oath of office at around noon, and you do have access to a television set, but you just aren’t inclined to watch the inaugural proceedings, there are other options available to you.

The Learning Channel’s “My Shocking Story” looks at a man born with a parasitic twin in a special called “Octopus Man.” The Golf Channel has Paid Programming … but who knows what they’re selling. Home Shopping Network has “Elegant Fine Jewelry,” for those of you interested in elegant fine jewelry. And don’t forget to set your DVRs to Planet Green’s “Emeril Green.” In today’s noon-time episode, an annual block party takes place where party planners decide to go green.

Hold me.

It’s always good to have an alternate plan of action, just in case the other seven-hundred and eighty-nine channels covering the Obama inauguration go out.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

I recognize that this particular choice as one of the most memorable moments from the George W. Bush presidency may appear painfully cliche and wholly predictable.

I accept that.

That it has been seen many times makes it no less powerful or less stirring.

It is from September 14, 2001 at Ground Zero.

It is the third of three moments I have chosen to commemorate as the Bush presidency draws to a close.

The first two clips I have chosen as ones to remember can be seen here:

George W. Bush – September 20, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.

George W. Bush – September 11, 2001 – We will make no distinction.



Update: 19 January 2009, 12:55 AM

A blogger from Free called Wolfstar commented:

Why does the author have to clothe his praise in such simpering defensiveness? That moment at Ground Zero was wildly uplifting, unique among presidential speeches, and wholly unpredictable.

He is, of course, right. While I certainly did not wish to be defensive in any way (nor did I feel I needed to be), it nontheless seems to have come across that way. It is a fair assessment. My intention, rather, was to present this clip in the spirit of  “No matter how many times you’ve seen it, it is no less moving, no less stirring.”

I should have worded it that way.

The fact remains, it was an unforgettable moment.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

With less than two days before Barack Obama takes the oath of office, and with seemingly every square inch of American humanity and culture consumed with all things messianic, I wanted to recall a few memorable moments of the George W. Bush presidency.

I ‘ve already posted one – a powerful moment from George W. Bush’s speech before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001.

Not surprisingly, for me, they all center around 9/11.

This is the second of those three.

It comes from the night of September 11, 2001 – just about twelve hours after the North Tower of the World Trade Center was attacked.

The clip is only :22 seconds in length, but it is the very essence of how the President chose to approach the war against Islamo-fascist terrorists.

It is, for me, one the most memorable moments from the Bush Presidency.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009


On January 6th, Congressman Jose Serrano from the Bronx introduced a bill in the House of Representatives calling for a repeal of the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. For those who are not aware of what that is, it is sometimes known as the “Roosevelt” amendment, adopted in 1951, setting term-limits on the United States Presidency. Franklin Roosevelt, recall, was elected four times – the only President in the nation’s history to be elected more than twice.

Mr. Serrano is calling for a Constitutional Amendment making the 22nd null and void.

The bill is short and sweet.

It reads as follows:

Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the twenty-second article of amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as President.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:


`The twenty-second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed.’

My initial instinct was to ask if Mr. Serrano would have ever considered introducing such a bill following the elections of George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. As it turns out, Mr. Serrano has called for the 22nd Amendament’s repeal several times before … but in terms of press coverage, it was always relegated to Page Thirty status, just underneath the ads for armpit hair removal gel.

The story is making headlines now because of The One’s annointment on Tuesday.

Frankly, this rise of the Obama-Nation has me Obama-nauseous. I’m even seeing praises being heaped on our next President in supermarket in-store coupon booklets.

But let’s be perfectly honest … is an amendment to the Constituion even necessary?

How can mere mortals expect to impose any limitations on a messiah? Saviors have work-arounds.


Update: 18 January 2009 11:35AM

A blogger at the great Free website by the name of Venturer posted this comment:

He has been doing this for years.

From his Wiki:

José Enrique Serrano was born in Mayagüez, Puerto Rico.

In each of 1997, 1999, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2009, Serrano introduced a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd Amendment, thereby removing the limitation on the number of terms an individual may serve as president. Each resolution, with the exception of the current one, died without ever getting past the committee.

A member of the Progressive Caucus, he is widely regarded as one of the most liberal members of Congress.

Congressman Serrano has been a critic of the Bush administration’s approach to handling President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela. In 2005, while the Venezuelan President was in New York City speaking before the United Nations, the congressman invited him to his district to speak to his constituency.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 10 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 18, 2009

In recent days, there have been a host of articles, recollections, retrospectives and commentary tendered on the Presidency of George W. Bush.

As expected, with the grace of a five-year old’s temper tantrum, many of the Bush missives have been mercilessly scathing and unforgiving. Some have been fair, but most have been written by spoiled-brat foot-stompers who cannot stop sticking pins in their “W” dolls long enough to string two coherent thoughts together. Admittedly, there is enough to criticize President Bush for from a conservative perspective, but it’s difficult to take any analysis of his eight years in office seriously that relentlessly punishes him for keeping the United States free from terrorism for seven years.

Rather than compose a piece trying to summarize the Bush Presidency, as many more have done far better than I could ever hope to, I decided to post a modest little video, just over a minute long, that I consider one of the shining moments of his Presidency – a powerful, moving and unforgettable moment from his time as Commander-In-Chief.

It illustrates his strength as well as his humanity.

It was nine days after the attacks of September 11, 2001 in front of a joint session of Congress.

It moved me then and still does, to this day.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 17, 2009

hero-pilotI am still amazed.

Thursday’s miraculous water landing of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson River has been all anyone has been able to talk about here in New York City for almost two days now – and rightly so. Capt. Chesley B. Sullenberger pulled off what the Wall Street Journal called “one of the rarest and most technically challenging feats in commercial aviation: landing on water without fatalities.” It was nothing short of astounding.

155 human beings are alive today to share their harrowing, larynx-scratching, inseam-wetting stories of the doomed flight because of Sullenberger’s heroics.

Make no mistake, this is a genuine American hero.

J. Lynn Lunsford at the Wall Street Journal writes:

In the minutes after takeoff, the pilot managed to maneuver past the skyscrapers of Manhattan and into the crowded Hudson River, even though the engines were disabled after apparently hitting a flock of geese.

Passengers said the plane was vibrating violently and the cabin began to fill with smoke. To reach its splashdown spot, witnesses said the jet glided over the George Washington Bridge before plopping into the water.

“The fact that passengers were able to walk off that airplane and wait on the wing for rescuers to arrive is remarkable. It’s amazing,” said aviation consultant Tommy McFall, a former airline pilot and retired accident investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board.

I just had to take a few ticks of the clock to tip my hat to the man who pulled off the nearly impossible. In an era when Britney Spears’ pantiless escapades grab headlines, Boy George’s frolicing adventures in same-sex bondage warrant media attention and foul-mouthed gangsta-rappers are considered heroes, it was necessary to spare one moment to celebrate a real hero – Chesley B. Sullenberger.

At the great Ace of Spades HQ website, blogger “Slublog” sums it up perfectly: “If there’s any justice in the world, Sullenberger will never have to pay for another beer in his life.


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