Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘CNN’

OBAMA LOSING HIS TOUCH?

Posted by Andrew Roman on June 11, 2010

CNN's curmudgeon, Jack Cafferty

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

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

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

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

Said Cafferty:

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

The President’s in trouble.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree.

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

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

CAN MICHAEL STEELE SAY THE WORDS “ILLEGAL ALIEN?”

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 »

LIB NEWS CHANNELS SINKING

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2010

It’s probably a stunner (or a conspiracy) to many that only one news network saw their ratings increase during the first quarter of 2010 – The Fox News Channel. Perhaps perplexed leftists could make the argument that more KKK clubhouses are equipped with cable television these days, or that an increasing number of Young Republican clubs have gotten satellite dishes, but the fact of the matter is that only Fox’s numbers have gone up. The rest have taken a statistical dump. CNN, in fact, has lost half its viewers over the past year.

Take an “ouch” out of petty cash.

And it isn’t as if there hasn’t been enough news to keep people’s interest:

The stimulus bill, the omnibus package, TARP, Obamacare, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons, Cap and Trade, the Nobel Peace Prize, the International Olympic Committee, ClimateGate, North Korea, the takeover of banks, the takeover of automobile companies, Haiti, alienating our allies, the Henry Louis Gates fiasco, teleprompters, bowing to foreign heads of state, and those ridiculous looking WWE Championship-like belts Michelle Obama wears.

There’s been plenty to keep the lefty media complex busy.

Bill Carter of the New York Times (of all places) writes:

The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.

CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was apparently unable to benefit.

The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour. (CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox News at all hours.)

And not that they should – because, after all, I believe in the free market and everyone’s right to fail – but CNN bigwigs say they will “not change their approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with any partisan point of view.”

(insert pause)

Here’s the real scoop: CNN hosts are crushingly uninteresting and their perspectives are unmistakably liberal. Has their been a more disastrous combination since the pairing of Chevy Chase and the late-night talk-show desk?

Of course, MSNBC – with the likes of Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow – don’t do much better number-wise in prime time, but at least their evening docket is a tad more interesting than the likes of the phlegm juggling Larry King and the exceedingly metrosexual Anderson Cooper. The problem with MSNBC’s lineup is that after about four minutes, the mouth-foaming and vein-splitting get to be too much. Liberalism is already impossible to peddle to thinking people based on its merits. Hysterical ideologues hurling saliva at the camera through tirades, lies and tantrums shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone.

Unfortunately, Americans aren’t buying that either.

Zip, at the great Weasel Zippers blog, says, “… Proving once again, pumping out lefty propaganda is not a viable business model…”

Swish.

wordpress statistics

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

HAPPY JACK CAFFERTY AGAIN?

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010

On Sunday, I posted a piece in praise of CNN’s Jack Cafferty – commentator, curmudgeon, Bush-hater.

(I know, I know … I double-checked to see if any icicles had been reported as forming in hell).

Cafferty’s staunch opposition to “Bush’s War” is well known. A good portion of his past huffings, puffings and grumblings, you’ll recall, were directed toward the “war criminals” of the previous administration. Donald Rumsfeld, you’ll remember, was an “obnoxious jerk.” When Fox News’s Brit Hume interviewed then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Cafferty commented it was “a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde.”

Clever.

To his credit, however, he had the gumption to lambaste the Obama administration for going back on campaign promises to televise debates on health care reform.

Said Cafferty:

How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

Good for him.

Well, as unbelievable as this is going to sound – and after checking my vital signs – I have to tip my hat once again to Cafferty for calling it like it is.

This time, according to Mr. Happy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “horrible woman.”

Said Mr. C:

Things are tough – very tough – for millions of American in this country, but you’d never know it watching the way Congress spends our tax money on themselves. CBS News has a stunning report on the all-expense paid trip of at least twenty members of Congress to the Copenhagen Climate Summit last month.

The bi-partisan delegation, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was so large, they needed three military jets, two 737s and a Gulfstream V. Some members of Congress brought along their spouses, their kids. There were also Senators and staff members who made the trip to Denmark – most of them, flying over commercial.

Pelosi refused to answer any questions about costs for this, or where they all stayed, even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will “comply with disclosure requirements.”

It’s a disgrace.

The national unemployment rate is 10%. Employers cut more jobs than expected just last month. We got the numbers on Friday. People are suffering in this country.

California, Pelosi’s home state, is faced with a twenty-billion dollar budget deficit.

This nation’s hurting, but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen and then refuse to answer any questions about it.

What a horrible woman she is.

What he said.

Just another delectable slice of the post-partisan “hope and change” pie.

Thus far, without question, the best thing – the only thing – to come out of Obama’s Messianic Age is the ongoing exposure of the fraud of modern liberalism

… oh yeah, and the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody.

I invite Americans to keep watching. It’s only going to get  better.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

UNHAPPY JACK

Posted by Andrew Roman on January 10, 2010

When conservatives lash out against the most liberal president in the history of the nation, it isn’t exactly earth-shattering. While some arguments against the unprecedented growth of government, loss of liberty, accumulating debt and weakened national security may be more cogent than others, generally speaking, it’s hard to be incoherent when writing about – and rightfully criticizing – the radical transformations taking place under the Obamacrats.

It’s elementary stuff.

However, when dissent rises from the ranks of the mainstream media – default Messianic bedfellows – it can be earth shattering. When one of their own emerges from the refuge and aegis of the leftist womb to serve up some shredded Bammy, it’s tough to ignore. The reasons for his or her anger may be very different than that coming from conservatives, but they are no less relevant.

Enter CNN’s Jack Cafferty.

This has already made the rounds across the conservative blogosphere – and also on some liberal blogs – but I had to acknowledge it. I had to take the time to tip my hat to Cafferty. (Just saying that is uncomfortable).

If you’ve heard it already, it’s worth revisiting. If you haven’t – and you’re on the right side of things, literally and figuratively – it doesn’t get old.

Here’s what he had to say:

How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.

What a far cry from the election when then-candidate Obama pledged to “broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are.”

President Obama hasn’t even made a token effort to keep his campaign promises of more openness and transparency in government. It was all just another lie that was told in order to get elected.

The head of C-Span wrote a letter: “Ask Congress to open all the important negotiations, including any Conference Committee meetings, to electronic media coverage.”

When White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs was asked whether the administration would support televising the negotiations, he refused to answer – instead mumbling something about, “I haven’t seen the letter.”

That wasn’t the question, Mr. Gibbs. You either support openness or you don’t.

The Democrats insist this is all on the up-and-up with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi saying, “There’s never been a more open process for any legislation.”

Really?

This is the same Nancy Pelosi who, you may recall after becoming Speaker in 2006, promised the Democrats would have “the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

Here’s hoping some of the voters remember this crap when the midterm elections roll around later this year.

This is the same Jack Cafferty who said he will go to his grave believing that George W. Bush and Company are war criminals.

This video link from YouTube has had almost 350,000 hits in a little less than four days.

wordpress statistics

Posted in health care, Nancy Pelosi, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

OH YEAH … AND THERE WERE NO TERRORISTS IN IRAQ BEFORE WE GOT THERE

Posted by Andrew Roman on December 29, 2009

CNN's Rick Sanchez

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(H/T to Weasel Zippers)

wordpress statistics

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

UNPRECEDENTED … OR NOT

Posted by Andrew Roman on July 13, 2009

obama messiah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mabuse: Indeed, Don

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

A shame, really.

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

It seems to me a golden opportunity was missed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

D.L. HUGHLEY – LOVE THOSE DOUBLE STANDARDS

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 6, 2009

dennis prager
dennis prager

The irony is that while they call themselves “progressive” (instead of “liberal”), Leftocrats continue to stagnate, if not digress – reaching back into history’s dustbins, resuscitating policies and positions that should have long ago been fitted with cement shoes, clinging to concepts and arguments with the obstinacy of an infected corn. That is the modus operandi of the American liberal – not to ask if something works, but to determine if it feels good or if it plays advantageously on the emotions of the electorate.

One old playlist favorite that never seems to lose its luster with the ever-mindful and substantive liberal thinkocracy is the “Nazi Card.”

On Wednesday, during the first hour of his radio program, Dennis Prager commented on remarks made by CNN host (and entertainer) D.L. Hughley, who last weekend proved once again that the only people obsessed with race in this country are Leftocrats. Hughley – deep thinker, social scholar and butcher of coherent English – put on display his intellectual prowess, digging deep into his bag of tired Leftocrat tricks by (once again) equating the Republican Party to the Nazi Party.

Said Hughley:

“The tenets of the Republican Party are amazing, and they seem warm and welcome … but when I watch it be applied – like, you didn’t have to go much further than the Republican National Convention. It literally looked like Nazi Germany. It really did.”

Hughley made the comments speaking with Michael Steele, head of the Republican National Committee, who, frankly, was not particularly compelling during his appearance and failed to react in any way to Hughley’s imbecility.

This little ditty went largely unnoticed, save for some conservative commentators, while the rest of the media was belly-button deep in Rush Limbaugh talk.

With Steele making the rounds and being bombarded with questions on the influence of Rush Limbaugh – a radio personality – on the Republican Party, Dennis Prager went on to make this excellent point:

… if Michael Steele is being asked to respond to Rush Limbaugh, then the head of the Democratic National Committee should be asked to respond to this CNN host. “What do you say about a host who says that the Republican Convention looks like the Nazi Party?”

In all candor, I was in the process of composing an article on this very subject, but in deference to the great Dennis Prager, who articulated my point as good, if not better, than I could have, I am simply commenting on the commentator here.

Prager went on to say:

d. l. hughley

d. l. hughley

“I assume he meant because there were so many white people there. It’s quite a remarkably stupid comment aside from being a vicious comment.

So, if it’s overwhelmingly white, it looks Nazi.

If it’s overwhelmingly black, what does it look like? What does that look like? … I would say, “Hughley, Did the Constitutional Convention look like the Nazi Party? Did the signing of the Declaration of Independence look like a Nazi Party?

Were you born foolish or did you become foolish when you adopted liberal ideas?”

Of course, there were “people of color” at the Republican National Convention, so in the most literal sense, Hughley is wrong. But the foolishness of Hughley’s position is best illustrated to liberals by turning the tables – although I’m fully prepared to field the inevitable birrage of comebacks from outraged leftists explaining to me how it is not the same.

Still, how do you think these words would play?

“The tenets of the Democrat Party are amazing, and they seem warm and welcome … but when I watch it be applied – like, you didn’t have to go much further than the Democratic National Convention. It literally looked like an inner city welfare office. It really did.”

As God is my witness, it turned my stomach just to write that, but you can bet if someone on the conservative side would have been asinine enough to say something such as that, it would have been splashed across every newspaper in the country and would have already spawned three MSNBC news specials on the ugly face of modern racism in America.

Posted in American culture, politics, Racism | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »

IT’S GREAT HOW RUSH RATTLES THEM, ISN’T IT?

Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009

022809_limbaugh

The hundred-dollar phrase of the week is “de facto” – as in “Is Rush Limbaugh now the ‘de facto’ leader of the Republican Party?

True, the word had been caroming around main-stream media news sets for a few weeks – particularly since Rush’s now notorious “I hope Obama fails” sound morsel hit the news cycle – but it had quite a revival over the weekend, following his landark speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Saturday. In fact, for most of the weekend, the news channels were devoting almost all of their non-Messianic time allotment to Rush. Anchors, analysts and others of the blathering class have since been falling over themselves trying to figure out who will lead the Republican Party from the ruins of their Obamacratic trouncing. (After all, it was a mandate, wasn’t it?)

De facto this, de facto that…  (It is the “nuance” or “hubris” of 2009).

To liberals, Limbaugh is already the de facto embodiment of Hitler and the de facto personification of racism. Being the de facto leader of the Republicans is almost pedestrian in comparison.

Still, it has been incredibly fun to watch.

Following Limbaugh’s talk on Saturday afternoon, the first words from CNN’s equitable political analyst Bill Schneider’s mouth were:

“Well, it was an angry tone. He was the hero of 1994. Fifteen years ago when Republicans won a big victory in Congress. And that was the year of the angry white men.”

Angry tone?

I have no doubt that Mr. Schneider, along with almost everyone else who comprises what Limbaugh famously calls the “drive-by media,” genuinely heard it that way.

For liberals, any impassioned oratories delivered by conservatives must be filtered and processed as “angry right-wing rhetoric” because to try and substantively deal with the contents of a speech such as Limbaugh’s would reveal the weakness and indefensibility of leftist ideology. Thus, when Leftocrats hear conservatives speak of individualism, liberty and achievement, they hear indignation and acrimony. When conservatives talk about American exceptionalism, liberals hear animosity and exasperation.

By contrast, when liberals hear themselves go on about government as the people’s problem-solver, and the need to level the American playing field by punishing the most successful among us, they see the greatness of America.

CNN’s Schneider went on to foam:

“Well, this was a very angry speech. By the way, they’re not all white and they’re not all men but they are angry conservative voters. They didn’t do so well last year but they’re still angry. The tone of this speech was mocking, bullying, it was full of contempt, and I thought it was a very harsh speech.”

Translated from my brand-new 2009 edition of the ‘Drive-By Media/English” dictionary, Schneider is affirming and validating the Bos-Wash news media mindset – that anything critical of liberalism, i.e. Barack Obama, uttered by any conservative can only be rooted in antagonism – maybe even racism. After all, what the mainstream media does so well – aside from nothing – is portray conservatives as angry and bigoted. The playbook says so.

And conservatives aren’t just wrong, mind you, they’re bad – replete with ulterior motives and underhanded intentions, looking to crush the working man, the struggling mother and the “trying-to-make-ends-meat” family in favor of their white corporate overlords.

Ask anyone who doesn’t think … or calls themselves an independent voter. They’ll tell you so.

All of this right-wing antipathy, of course, came through manifestly through Limbaugh’s speech.

Sample some of the mockery and contempt from Rush’s lips:

“When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential.”

Wow.

Bitter, scathing, offensive, wasn’t it?  Watching someone drop kick a baby duck would have been less ghastly.

“We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.”

The scoundrel. Does he also favor open-hand slapping the elderly?

“… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed.”

Hang him from the highest tree, take him down, and string him up again.

And not even a mention of food stamps.

While the likes of the always-vainglorious Keith Olbermann and the never-interesting Janeane Garofalo carry on about Limbaugh with all the charm of two old men in a nursing home comparing their bowel obstructions, what the American Leftocracy simply doesn’t comprehend is that Limbuagh in not the de facto leader of the Republican Party – nor does he wish to be. He is, however, one of America’s most eloquent and compelling spokesmen for conservatism … and it is conservatism, through world class communicators such as Rush, that must  – and will -reclaim its place as the core of the Republican Party.

– – – – –

And since Rush’s “I hope Obama fails” remark is getting so much play and is so remarkably misunderstood, I am going to once again stand by him and his courageous – and completely correct – position on the matter.

I am REPOSTING RIGHT HERE, something I posted back on January 27, 2009 – an article that prompted more hate-mail and personal attacks than I have gotten since starting this blog – but something I firmly stand by. It is the Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure:

1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »