Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Conservatism’


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 26, 2009

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

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

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

It just isn’t enough.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By definition.

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

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

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

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

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

It isn’t difficult to understand.

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

He certainly has the forum to defend his assertions.

wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

Nancy Pelosi

Nancy Pelosi

From the “I Wish It Mattered, But It Really Doesn’t” file…

Interesting, yes … but largely irrelevant. (I’ll explain in a moment).

Although tempting, the question to ask isn’t why do only 34% of residents of the Golden State approve of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s performance. The question isn’t why do 44% percent of Californians say they outright disapprove of Pelosi. The point isn’t even trying to get to the bottom of why 22% have no opinion at all. Unfortunately, until the majority of voters in her district vote to oust her from office, state wide poll numbers mean nothing.

The real question is: How in hell do 7% of Californians who identify themselves as Republicans say they approve of Nancy Pelosi?

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

A poll released over the weekend shows that only 34 percent of Californians approve of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) job performance, down 14 points from March.

39 percent of “non-partisans” approved of her while 37 percent disapproved, with 24 percent responding that they had no opinion.

Pelosi’s job approval had sunk to similar lows in October and December 2007 during President George W. Bush’s second term.

Numbers, numbers, numbers.

Indeed, like Pelosi’s, George W. Bush’s approval rating often came close to scraping shoe tops during his second term. However, a cohesive case could be made as to why he had the support he had – his prosecution of the War on Terror being the largest factor.

In contrast, what on God’s green earth has America’s Official Observer of Swastikas done to warrant any support? What precisely has she accomplished – apart from crying at the microphone, expressing her fears that angry conservatives could unleash terror on unsuspecting, good-intentioned progressives – that could even elicit a reasonable argument of support from “Republicans?”

Despite firm Democrat control of the House, her ineffectiveness is becoming legendary – on par with the President’s own impotence. Yet, more than half of Democrats in California still approve of her job performance.

That’s expected, of course – although her approval numbers, even among friendlies, has dipped since March.

But …

None of this really matters, except for the fact that it makes juicy water cooler fodder.

None of this relevant in the grand scheme of things because the entire state of California does not elect Nancy Pelosi to the House – only her district does (the 8th District), which include almost all of San Francisco.

Her job description as Speaker of the House of Representatives means she matters on a national level, but as long as 50.1% of District 8 voters give Pelosi the thumbs up, the rest of the state’s numbers, while interesting, mean nothing.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 19, 2009

global warmingThat meteorologists and other weather predicting specialists often have a hard enough time dealing with the extended five-day forecast doesn’t ever seem to bother the save-the-earth climate warriors. The certitude with which leftists and other children predict the end of the planet as we know it due to global-warming (within a generation or two, they say) is surpassed only by their eerie ability to coin a dim-witted – and entirely incorrect – phrase for in-unison chanting and demonstration sign painting.

The term “flat earther” is a popular phrase I’ve heard bandied about to describe those who are skeptical of the notion of a planet in danger due to this climate-killing inevitability. And while I will concede it is a commendable attempt at intertwining environmental consciousness, witty nomenclature and historical awareness, it is – in a word – stupid.

Indeed, as readers of this blog are well aware, I am one who unabashedly – passionately – rejects the view that the planet is in peril, or that it is on the verge of irreversible devastation, or that it is teetering on the edge of complete destruction due to the dangerous warming of the earth (now called “global climate change” because of recent, unmistakeable cooling trends) – thus, I am a flat earther.

Eleanor Wolf, a columnist with the Leader-Telegraph of Eau Claire, Wisconsin, last year commented on Republicans in her state who denounced the global warming threat in a column she called, cleverly enough, “Flat Earth Republicans.” The link, interestingly, has since been broken; but trust me on this, she did write it.

She wrote:

Republican state representatives attending a recent meeting in Eau Claire called the recommendations of Gov. Jim Doyle’s Task Force on Global Warming “hairbrained”(sic) and “nonsensical.” Rep. Terry Moulton obviously represents the “flat Earth” contingent when he stated that “Nature, not human activity, rules the climate.”

I love the word “harebrained” – particularly when it’s spelled correctly. I must use it somewhere.

There are two things to point out here.

flat_earthOne – the modern connotation of “flat earth” largely originates from Washington Irvin’s fantasy novel “The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus,” published in 1828. It is from there that the myth of medieval Europeans believing that the earth was flat was propagated. How ironic that the term “flat earth” was, too, used by Darwinists in the 19th Century as a weapon against Christians. In fact, Christians believed in a spherical earth, dating back to – and far beyond – the medieval period.

Two – the belief in a flat earth was ubiquitous among humans until the Classical Greek period. Up until that period, believers in a flat earth were virtually unanimous. It was, to summon a phrase, conventional wisdom – much like the granola-chomping notion of an earth so delicate and so fragile that it is about to descend into an environmentally-induced chasm of grim death is today. It took time for the majority to swing in the other direction.

Overwhelmingly, academia and the media have bought into the hysterical claims of impending global-warming doom – and admittedly, so have the majority of the scientific community.

Don’t be fooled, however.

Many of the most well-known, accomplished, distinguished, learned people on the subject of climatology do not believe we’re on the eve of destruction. They have no agenda, are not concerned with angering those who would provide critical funding, understand the millennia-old patterns of climate fluctuation and can cite as many examples of growing glaciers as they can of melting ones.

Ms. Wolf, in her column, went on to say:

Moulton and his Republican cohorts choose to ignore scientific consensus as presented in the 2007 report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The report stated: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal. There is a very high confidence that human activities since 1750 have played a significant role by overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, hence retaining solar heat that would otherwise radiate away.”

Since 1750?

Those nasty, nasty hot air balloons…

The idea of a “consensus” on the matter is absolute nonsense – and the debate is nowhere near over, as those renowned virtuosos of climatology, Al Gore and Barack Obama, have declared.

One of my favorite quotes about those of us who rebuff the claims of looming disaster actually comes from a blog I used to frequent. A particularly ardent proponent of imminent earthly demise, a blogger who went by the name of “green_or_die” (I’m not making that up), wrote:

“In a few years, climate change skeptics will be ranked alongside the Flat Earth Society.”

There’s that phrase again.

If I may …

It would be more accurate to say, “In a few years, the belief in ‘climate change due to human activity’ will be ranked along other fossilized, antiquated concepts – like, for instance, the idea of a flat earth.”

Add to that the disastrous threat of a heterosexual AIDS epidemic in the United States during the 1980s, the running out of natural resources by the year 1990, the indisputable danger posed by global cooling in the 1970s, and the prediction that the New York Jets, at home, would beat the lowly Buffalo Bills yesterday.

Don’t get me started on that.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

anti-smokingToday’s leftists – and some on the right – have decided that health is now a moral issue. It has become a religion, a value as important and ethically significant as any other Americans hold sacred. This morality is manifesting itself through marginally coherent (and agenda-driven) feel-good science. It is a result of  the propensity of today’s liberal to create policy out of emotion.

We see this, for example, in the ongoing evangelism that characterizes the man-made global warming movement. Despite the fact that there is not an iota of scientific data to back up the contentions of a world headed for disaster due to human activity, it is an ongoing hysteria that continues to be sold as absolute truth.

We see it in the ongoing debate that has consumed the bulk of the American dialogue in recent months – health care reform. Despite the fact that the United States has the best health care delivery system on the planet – the envy of the world – and the fact that only a relatively small percentage of Americans are uninsured, the word “Holocaust” is used to describe the “crisis.”

Clearly more critical to the well-being of humanity than the ongoing war against Islamo-fascism is the real battle facing freedom loving people everywhere, the next true peril. While the word “victory” has been vanquished by leftists from any discussion relating to the war in Afghanistan, the emergence of a nuclear Iran, and against evil in general, it has been expropriated for the Left’s fight to preserve this new value system.

It is, in a sentence, a struggle for the good of us all.

The enemy is (and actually has been for some time) tobacco … and to these new moral crusaders, it is the very existence of liberty itself that enables this diabolical adversary to continue to kill innocents. That’s why in almost every sector of life, actions are being taken to eradicate this evil with the same kind of vigor that used to be reserved for totalitarians and murderous dictators. That’s why government must involve itself. This is war. From bans in privately owned restaurants and bars, to making it illegal to smoke in one’s own car, the assault on cigarettes makes the Normandy invasion look almost pedestrian.

The University of Montana, for instance, is the latest institution of higher learning in the United States to break out its can of regulatory RAID and help stop the freedom bug in its tracks by pushing toward a “tobacco-free” campus – something they hope to accomplish by 2011.

Carmen George of the Montana Kaimin writes:

Julee Stearns, UM health promotion specialist and chair of the UM Tobacco Task Force that drafted the plan, said that as of Oct. 2, there are at least 322 smoke-free campuses and 172 tobacco-free campuses nationwide. Montana Tech will also be completely tobacco-free in July 2010. The tobacco-free plan, drafted at the request of UM President George Dennison, aims to ensure the campus environment is healthy and accessible for everyone, Stearns said.

Yes, you read that correctly; there is a UM Tobacco Task Force.

(I’m guessing there must also a UM Separation of Church and State Task Force, among others).

In Pennsylvania last summer, one day after a statewide ban on smoking took place in workspaces and public areas, the Keystone State became the first in the nation to create completely smoke-free campuses at its fourteen state universities. Following the state’s lead, Chancellor John Cavanaugh decided to do what he could to save the children. As Martha Raffaele of the Associated Press wrote:

After discussions with university presidents and system board members, Chancellor John Cavanaugh said he interprets the law to extend beyond buildings at educational facilities to include all campus grounds, such as courtyards, parking lots and athletic fields. Cavanaugh, who took over as chancellor in July, said some classes occasionally meet outside, and the schools also hold outdoor fundraising events and receptions. “After all of that deliberation, we decided we would go on the side of caution,” he said.

How fascinating.

I love it when liberals come down on the “side of caution.” (I’m willing to wager a vital body appendage that Mr. Cavanaugh is on the left).

no smoking signI wonder if that “side of caution” is in play when these open-minded, clear-thinking educators discuss the viability of a human life in the womb. (Perhaps that one flies above their collective pay grades). Either way, these health-as-the-new-morality crusaders – let’s call them “Mommy” for this discussion – have decided that smoking should not only be expelled from public view but must be abolished from every nook and cranny of life – including vehicles and secluded getaway spots.

It’s another small step toward Utopia.

It is reminiscent (and emblematic) of what Councilman Dave Warden of Belmont, California said three years ago when that community was looking to implement the most comprehensive smoking ban in the nation. He summed it all up for the members of the council when he asked, “What if every city did this, imagine how many lives would be saved?”

Sheer brilliance.

That’s the kind of vision that communes and sit-ins are made of – not to mention totalitarian societies. It is also another example of the unadulterated arrogance of today’s leftist. They have taken it upon themselves to regulate and legislate our lives so that, presumably, we will never ever die. This is all okay, of course, because smoking is a filthy, disgusting habit that kills trillions anf trillions of people each year. The fact that “Mommy” cares enough to imperil your personal freedoms should speak to the moral imperative.

It’s ironic (don’t you think?) that these anti-tobacco warriors are the very same people who angrily pumped their fists in outrage over provisions of the Patriot Act, claiming they were a direct threat to personal liberties, all the while justifying the government’s right to annex a person’s freedom to engage in a completely legal activity under the phony guise of saving lives – even though there is not a single human being who has ever been documented to have died from second hand smoke.

Not one.

Today’s purveyors of the new morality know better than you, and they’ll tell you so.

And this isn’t just relegated to the United States.

In a piece published Monday on the UK Telegraph Online website, columnist Ed West wrote about a particularly fanatical anti-smoking commentary he had come across – a piece he called “the most sinister article I’ve read in a long time.”

West wrote:

Duncan Bannatyne of Dragons’ Den has written an article that sent a shiver down my spine. Entitled “I’ll only be happy if smoking is banned”, it proposed measures so dismissive of any sane person’s idea of individual liberties that I’m tempted to say that it sounded better in the original German.

First he praises the Government for banning smoking in pubs and supports the latest proposal to put cigarettes in shops out of sight. But then he goes really mad:

“In my view smokers who currently stand outside a pub or restaurant having a fag should have to stand at least several yards away from the front door, to save the 79% of us who don’t smoke from breathing in their smoke when we go in or out. We should curtail the rights of the 21% and increase their responsibilities towards the 79%. In other words, we should stop them killing us and our children.

Studies estimate that about 11,000 people a year die because of passive smoking. This isn’t nanny statism, Big Brother, or wrongful interference in people’s personal freedoms – it’s the right thing to do to protect the health of the vast majority of us who don’t smoke from the declining minority who do.”

Really? Well, wouldn’t you have been better protected if you’d allowed smokers to meet inside smoking pubs rather than forcing them outside, where they kill you and your children?

“Smoking should be banned in cars, and particularly any vehicle with children in it.”


“On a school visit I met a 12-year-boy who wanted to be an athlete who told me that every morning his mother lit up when she was driving to school, even though he’d begged her to stop. He should be able to report her to the police.”

Are you out of your mind?

“It should also be illegal to smoke at home in front of children. I accept that enforcing such a law would be difficult, but it would send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable. And shops should need a licence to sell cigarettes. They need a licence to sell alcohol, which is sometimes addictive and certainly harmful, just like tobacco, so why not? That would make shopkeepers less likely to sell fags to people under age.

Some shopkeepers are genuinely afraid of a ban on tobacco displays. But that is because the tobacco industry have been up to their old tricks. They tried to convince pubs that the smoke-free law would drive them out of business so they would lobby against the law.”

Er, the smoke-free law has driven loads of pubs out of business, you lunatic. I’m all for reducing tobacco use, but it isn’t any of the Government’s damned business whether people smoke in their own homes. What next? Will officials be able to come around and check they’re eating five a day?

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

Logical, yes?

When Belmont, California finally passed its landmark anti-smoking legislation into law in September, 2007, the ban was an outright prohibition of cigarettes in all areas of the city, except single-family detached homes.

This prompted me to wonder, if second-hand smoke poses that kind of calamitous threat to everyone everywhere, why then are single-family homeowners immune in Belmont? Don’t they matter? Aren’t the potential “innocents” in that single-family home as much at risk as someone who lives three floors above a smoker in an apartment building?

It is all sheer nonsense.

Yet, “mommies” all over the country are getting precisely what they want – control.

Should we expect the ACLU to step up and defend personal liberty? Perhaps a better question is whether or not anyone truly believes that once the evil of smoking is wiped clean from the lives of people everywhere, it will simply end there.

nanny-stateIn New York City, for example, the attack on cigarettes wasn’t enough. It extended to cooking oil and, most recently, salt.

Government infringements on personal choice always begin with “harmless,” “reasonable-sounding” discussions draped in genuine “concern.” It is always for our own good.

The zealotry from the left when it comes to the smoking issue is remarkable. The anti-smoking crowd is among the most – if not the most – intolerant in our society, and they continue to push falsehoods and fabrications to further their agenda. Despite inconclusive evidence, rigged statistics, and studies showing that the catastrophic dangers of second-hand smoke are bogus (note the recent report by the British Medical Journal as one example), these people are more than willing to sacrifice your liberties for you.

It is truly ironic how leftists aim to protect the physical body from selected poisons while scoffing at any suggestion that poisons of the mind and soul (hyper-sexed music videos, profanity-laced pop music, the banishing of God from schools, etc) have any kind of impact on people.

Morality, indeed.

Once the scourge of tobacco is eradicated and people stop dropping like Warner Brothers’ cartoon anvils from second-hand smoke, then we could turn our attentions to more casual fancies – like Islamo-facism.

No, I am not a cigarette smoker.

Yes, there can be no dobut that cigarette smoking is bad for you.

So what?

This is about liberty.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Health is the New Morality, Junk Science, Nanny State | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

Admittedly, comparing poll numbers to bona fide election results may not be the most scientifically prudent method of making a point, but because in the world of politics polls actually do matter, it can be a revealing exercise.

Otherwise, why conduct them?

Thus, I ponder the following:

down arrowIf 52.7% represents a sweeping mandate – a conclusive and unambiguous message from the American people that “we can” – then what shall we call 57%?

The answer, of course, is contingent on whom you ask … and the subject matter.

If we’re talking about the election of Barack H. Obama last November, 52.7% is a number that represents an indomitable roar from a discontented electorate ready for change; it is a mighty bellowing from a people tired of “politics as usual;” it is a thunderous call for a comprehensive metamorphis of a reupblic in need of healing; it is a wake-up call for three-hundred million – a mandate for the transformation of America.

If, however, we’re talking about the percentage of people who would not vote for Barack Obama were the 2012 election held today, then 57% is a number that most likely represents the fruits of a flawed survey replete with deceptively worded questions and manipulated data – especially because the poll from which this percentage was tabulated is coming from an organization of bigoted louts and clodhoppers, Fox News.

However, if you can buy into the concept that something of value and integrity can come from Fox News, the trends are crystal clear:

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama’s job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. That’s down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president — and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.
Moreover, the number of Americans saying they would vote to re-elect President Obama has dropped. If the election were held today the poll finds more voters say they would back someone else in the 2012 election than would back the president.

Despite winning the Nobel Peace Prize last Friday, the latest Fox News poll finds the president’s ratings on foreign issues are lower than his overall job ratings. All in all, 49 percent of Americans say they approve of the job President Obama is doing and 45 percent disapprove. His average approval for the term so far is 58 percent.

This news comes on the heels of Gallup’s revelation that former President Bill Clinton’s wife has a higher favorability rating than Barack Obama.

Call me silly, but the reality that Hillary Clinton gets more hoorahs from the American people than the Copenhagen Kid is funny for so many reasons.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama-Mania, politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

As a public service to faithful readers of this blog, I am going to cautiously lead some of you to a place that is all at once frightening, disorienting and embarrassing. It is a place that many of you have heard about in one context or another, but one that can make even the most iron-constitutioned conservative shudder.

Be forewarned.

It isn’t pretty.

I take you deep within the chattering ranks of a leftist blog.

(Now would be the time to remove any children or frail seniors from the room).

At Think Progress, back before it was announced that Rush Limbaugh would be dropped from the group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team,  many of leftism’s deepest and most articulate thinkers weighed in on Limbaugh potentially becoming a part-owner in the NFL.

The best and brightest of post-racial America voiced their concerns and shared their intuitive analyses.

Not a single word has been altered, and not a single one of the screen-names has been changed to protect the pathetic.

If Rush is approved , he could change the name from Rams to the Nazis or KKK, have his own Brown Shirt Army and at half time have them drill march with swastika flags and have a KKK celebration with a burning cross at midfield.                                    -Nellieh

When I heard that Boss Limbaugh expressed interest of buying the Rams, I had to wonder what bad pain killer did he take. Having Limbaugh buy any football team which have predominently African-American players is like having the KKK buy a football team. This would put a black eye on the NFL franchise if EL Rushbo brought the Rams.                               -SP Biloxi

After all, when Limbaugh told an African-American caller to “take the bone out of his nose”, he was just “commenting on race.”                                   -Ralph the Wonder Llama

I’m sure plenty of owners have racist tendencies. The only difference is that Rush’s feelings are on the record.                                         -Badmoodman

It would be a real hoot if after tub-o-lard shelled out all that dough and bought the team, the entire team walked out on his fat ass.                                -Bozo the Neo Clown

Rush couldn’t even pass the NFL’s drug abuse policy.                     -Kid Charlemagne

Rush just wants a bevy of team doctors to shop from.                            -Xisithrus

Limpballs has so thoroughly immersed himself in white-wing racism that it will be a monumental task for any team he would own to keep non-white players. Limpballs has catered to the stereotypical dumb white bozo who hates anyone non-white.                              -Evangenital

This is great news… After Limberger’s ego gets back into shape after finding out he can’t change the symbol on the St. Louis Cards helmets to a burning cross, and that they refused to wear white hoods under their helmets, he’ll go on a two-week rant about his being singled out for discrimination. What joke this lump is.                               -Winski

You folks are thinking the wrong way about Rush. He thought that, by buying the team, he was actually buying the players. He figured that this would be an end run around the 13th Amendment and that he could treat his black players like the slaves he wishes he could own.                                -fergus

He also fantasizes about hanging around the locker room ogling his big, strapping athletes and ordering them to do nasty things to him.                                          -fergus

I’m not sure any additional commentary is needed here. It speaks for itself.

And keep in mind, this was but a sampling.

These are the same cerebral heaviweights who profess that if you are in favor in same-sex marriage, you must hate homosexuals. These are the same intellectual powerhouses who say that if you are opposed to affirmative action, you must hate minorities. Therefore, what other reason could there possibly be for Rush Limbaugh to want to be part-owner of a professional football team other than his desire to be able to say he effectively “owns” black men?

Reasonable, no?

Meanwhile, on his radio program yesterday – just one day after being booted from the potential buyers group – Limbaugh took a few moments to speak with Ken Hutcherson, a former NFL linebacker who is now best known as the pastor of the Antioch Bible Church in Kirkland, Washington.

Incidentally, “The Hutch,” as Rush calls him, is black.

(It shouldn’t matter, but to the American leftocracy, nothing matters more).

Here was the exchange between Hutcherson and Limbaugh. (That’s Uncle Tom and Adolf Hitler to you lefty bloggers):

Ken Hutcherson

Ken Hutcherson

Limbaugh: Hutch, Welcome to the program.

Hutcherson: Hey, my man. I am so mad. I am doing backflips up here in Seattle. What in the world is going on in the United States? I mean, the whole issue, Rush, whether you like it or not, is they have done you wrong. And this is intolerance. It’s prejudice. And if America don’t wake up, it’s going to happen to them. I am so mad, man, I can’t even – and I’m a man of the cloth, Rush. I’m not supposed to get this upset.

Why don’t they talk to some African-Americans who know you?

Limbaugh: Oh, that would destroy the narrative. That would destroy the template.

Hutcherson: Oh, forget that. You know, and talk to some African-Americans who know the poverty pimps, Sharpton and Jackson. They’re nothing but slave sliders and pushers to get their way. And they’re going to let them have a voice on all the stuff that they’ve done? Jesse Jackson was telling Bush to, “Stay out of the bushes.” He was the one in the bushes having illegitimate kids. How in the world can the NFL – and I’m going to tell you something else, brother, straight from me, who played football – those African-American brothers who talk about they wouldn’t play? That is the biggest lie on this side of the universe. Not only would their wives get on them and make them go – and their girlfriends, and their moms – they would beat them all the way to the 50 yard line and tell them, “You better get out there and get that game check.” And why don’t they talk to the hundreds of African-American players that would be excited about you owning a team?

Limbaugh: Well, they want to present the idea that there are none, and that’s what they’ve done. 

I’ll have to check the archive of Rush’s famed “ditto cam” to see if he was still wearing his minstrel paint when talking to Hutcherson.
wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

Hill and BamFrom the “Gee, I Wonder Why” file …

There aren’t icicles forming in hell exactly, but still … who’d have guessed that former President Bill Clinton’s wife would be more popular than the Annointed One himself, President Barack Obama, less than a year after the ushering in of the Messianic Age?

Take a huge “wow” out of petty cash.

Wasn’t it only a year ago that Barack Obama, as a candidate, was causing unsuspecting young women all across the United States to stick to the script – er, faint in his presence?

Today, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton – in many ways, a better man than he – rates six points higher in favorability than the President.

A new Gallup poll shows that the number of people who have a favorable impression of Barack Obama has fallen to its lowest point since he became president. Fifty-six percent say they have a favorable impression of Obama, versus 40 percent who say they have an unfavorable impression. (Four percent say they have no opinion.) Historically, a president’s personal favorable rating has often been higher than his job approval rating; right now, Gallup has Obama’s job approval at 52 percent.

Gallup points out that in this latest survey, Hillary Clinton is now more popular than Obama. Sixty-two percent say they have a favorable impression of the Secretary of State, versus 34 percent who have an unfavorable impression. That’s a big change from the height of the battle for the Democratic nomination last year; in February 2008, just 48 percent had a favorable impression of Mrs. Clinton, versus 49 percent who had an unfavorable impression.

I’ve got to ask … Who are these people clinging to their favorable impressions of him, and what narcotics are they taking?

What is there to be impressed about exactly?

His unending compassion for those less fortunate than he? (i.e., his facility to confiscate money from society’s most successful and distribute it to others?)

There are only so many $250 bribery checks that can be handed out to America’s seniors  before it all starts looking suspicious, you know.

It’s regrettable that ObamaCare couldn’t have been implemented sooner.

There’d be a lot less old people around to have to buy off.

Posted in politics, Polls | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

contemptible, as always

contemptible, as always

Whenever the repugnant slice of human debris that is Al Sharpton declares anything a moral victory, it should be an unmistakable signal to anyone with a functioning cerebrum that taking the opposite position is the best – and ethical – course of action. So sure am I in making such an authoritative statement that I am willing to stand up on any stage, in any forum, in any location, anywhere on God’s green Earth to not only state it with conviction, but explain in impassioned detail why it is so.

Sharpton is to civil discourse what ulcerative colitis is to the large intestine. That the repulsive race-baiter Sharpton is given even a whit’s worth of credence by anyone in the mainstream media, let alone camera time and print space, indicates that white America is still very afraid of him.

It also shows that the bulk of racist Americans live and thrive on the Left.

It is they who infuse race into every nook and cranny of American life.

It is they who reject assessing their fellow human beings based on the content of their character, and instead focus like laser beams on the color of their skin.

Do the names Maureen Dowd, Charlie Rangel, Henry Louis Gates, Diane Watson, Paul Krugman, Jessie Jackson, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi (among others) ring a bell?

Following Rush Limbaugh’s booting from the investment group looking to purchase the St. Louis Rams football team late Wednesday, the lying, riot-inciting, shakedown king Al Sharpton said in a statement, “It is a moral victory for all Americans — especially the players that have been unfairly castigated by Rush Limbaugh. This decision will also uphold the unifying standards of major sports.”

This statement fascinates me, because if there is anything I am obsessed with, it is the truth.

What players, pray tell, have been unfairly castigated by Limbaugh?

Who are they? What was said about them?

Are these “castigations” as provable as the malicious falsehoods spread across the internet about Limbaugh’s sympathies with James Earl Ray? Or Limbaugh’s belief that there was good that came from slavery?

Mr. Sharpton, you are a boldface liar.

I am an American, sir, and this is no moral victory for me.

Unlike Reverend Al, I do not see people in terms of race, and I do not slander those with whom I disagree.

And just where has the melanin-obsessed reverend’s moral compass been during the NFL’s ethically-challenged nine-year period dating back to the year 2000? Surely he’s aware that over 450 NFL players have been arrested since then for a veritable cavalcade of offenses, ranging from sexual assault to domestic violence to drugs.

I’d love for the slick-haired, unapologetic slanderer of innocent men to explain the moral victory in keeping someone like Leonard Little in the National Football league. Remember him? Eleven years ago, he killed a 47-year old mother of two while driving drunk. Where was Sharpton on behalf of the innocent back then? Where was Sharpton’s deep concern for the “unifying standards of major sports” then? And where was he when Mr. Little found himself arrested yet again for drunk driving six years after that?

Sharpton went on to say that major sports leagues like the NFL shouldn’t welcome owners who are “divisive and incendiary.”

Divisive and incendiary?

Kettle, meet pot.

And yet, Rush Limbaugh – who hasn’t a racist bone in his body, and adores the game of football – is a moral threat to the National Football League? 

Rush Limbaugh is somehow more intolerable than convicted felons?

Excuse me, have I slipped through a crack in the space-time continuum?

Do the names Dante Stallworth, Adam Jones, Plaxico Burress, Michael Vick and Travis Henry ring a bell for the adjudicator of all that is morally sound and ethically conscious, Al Sharpton?

This isn’t an issue of race. It’s an issue of values.

By all means, let the scrupulously upright powers-that-be in the National Football League (and those outsiders who influence it and shake it down) crucify Rush Limbaugh and stand in the way of his free-market right to invest in a team that can use all the help it can get, but let’s be sure bona fide criminals are afforded infinite chances to play the game.

Do the words “upside down world” mean anything?

Please don’t misunderstand me.

League owners, players and observers can certainly hold any opinion they wish regarding Rush Limbaugh. The NFL is well within its rights to deny Limbaugh the opportunity to invest in one of its teams as a minority partner.

However, all credibility within the ranks of the anti-Limbaugh brigades is shattered as they squawk about what’s good and bad for a league that accomodates thug players with no regard for decency and the law. It is laughable to hear these people portray Rush as being the worst thing that could ever happen to the game because of things he never said or did while common criminals are accepted and embraced as heroes.

How about a little moral clarity?

Moral victory, my ass.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Ethics, Racism, Sports, Talk-Radio, Values | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009

the rams and rushDid you know that Elvis Presley was not only seen at the Payless Shoe Source on North Avalon Street in Memphis, but he is contemplating a state senate run as an Independent? I know this is so because I read it on the internet.

Were you also aware that only two days before Michael Jackson died, both Madonna and Dick Cheney were seen tinkering with the gas meter outside of Jackson’s California home? I know this is so because I read it on the internet.

And have you read about the latest evidence that proves Desi Arnaz had a role in the murder of John Lennon? I know this is so because I read it on the internet.

So then, how does a Pulitzer Prize winning jouranalist and Professor of Journalism at Hunter College in New York – a professor, mind you – verify the accuracy of an allegation regarding a well-known celebrity? How exactly, in the name of professionalism and integrity, does she get all of her journalistic ducks in a row before speaking publicly on a highly controversial subject? How does that professor, who has presumably spent her entire professional life in the realm of investigating the unknown, conveying the news, uncovering the truth, and mentoring those who wish to forge their professional paths in the fields of objective and opinion journalism, go about getting to the bottom of something that is causing such a stir?

She googles, of course.

Such is the case with Karen Hunter.

Indeed, she is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist, a successful author, and a teacher of Journalism, among other accomplishments.

But she is not too happy that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is interested in becoming part owner of the St. Louis Rams football team. In fact, her discontentment with Limbaugh’s bid – according to her – is based, in part, on negative things she found about him on the internet.

During a segment on MSNBC yesterday afternoon, Hunter – the obvious choice for a discussion of football ownership (author of such dazzling titles as “Pimpology: The 48 Laws Of the Game” and “On the Down Low: A Journey Into the Lives of “Straight” Black Men Who Sleep With Men”) – showed the nation why her journalistic prowess is in such high demand.

Hunter said:

I can just see the visions of plantation grandeur dancing in (Limbaugh’s) head as we speak. Yeah, it doesn’t make you a racist to want to own a team. But, it does kind of with all his history question his power position over these players who make millions of dollars and his ability to be able to move them around, deny them contracts and do whatever he wants willy-nilly. It’s the ultimate power position to be an owner of an NFL team.

Plantation grandeur?

If that phrase alone – coming from the mouth of an allegedly well-read, well-spoken, highly-respected journalist – does not summon the gastric secretions to bubble up into your throat, you need to have your decency meter re-calibrated.

What in the name of Sam Hill is she talking about?

Moving people around and denying players contracts are what all owners in the National Football League do, Professor Hunter.

And yes, there are plenty of conservative white owners in the National Football League – and they all have a large number of black athletes working for them.

My Lord, do knee-jerk, victimization-happy liberals ever listen to the things they say?

But hold on … that was not the sweetest plum to come from the intellectual tree of the Pimpology Queen.

Hunter went on to say:

You even put up two of the statements he said about the NFL looking like the Crips and the Bloods. He even said that Dr. Martin Luther King, his killer, James Earl Ray should have a medal given to him, a medal of honor. He says, ‘We miss you, James.’ You can go online as to the top 10 Rush Limbaugh racist comments.”

Is there anything else that needs to be said?

You can go online …” she says.

Such rectitude. Such honor.

Karen Hunter

Karen Hunter

Incidentally, I happened to read online that Karen Hunter did not author her own books, and instead hired a twenty-one year old white girl to do the job, so it must be true.

I also read online that she had a torrid affair with a West African man who made his fortune in the sex slave trade, so it must be accurate.

I’m still a bit sketchy as to whether or not the reports of her transexuality are true, but I’ve read it enough times on the internet to believe there must be some truth in it.


The fact is, if Limbaugh had even come close to ever saying the reprehensible things that are being attributed to him by his enemies, it would have, by now, seen more reprintings than the King James version of the Bible. And because there are liberals who are actually paid to sit down, record, and take out of context every word that comes from his lips, the sound bites extracted from such despicable commentary would have been played and replayed incessantly via every news outlet this side of his golden EIB microphone.

There can be no doubt about that.

Talk show host Dennis Prager, never one to resort to name calling – and one of the most cordial and civil talk show hosts in the country – announced today that he will begin referring to MSNBC as M-Sewer-N-B-C until “they apologize and do right after this. It is now, in my mind, the ‘Sewer Network.'”

For me, MSNBC became permanently gutter worthy the day Keith Olbermann accused talk show host Michael Medved of endorsing and supporting American slavery.

By the way, as far the “ultimate power position” is concerned, I wonder if Karen Hunter has ever heard of Barack H. Obama?


Update October 14, 2009 – 6:57 PM

Mark Levin, on his radio program, had a great line just a few moments ago in reference to Karen Hunter.

He said, “They’ll give a Pulitzer Prize to anyone. The next thing you know, they’ll give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize.”

wordpress statistics

Posted in Liberalism, Racism, Sports | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009

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

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

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

Nice, Sean.

Loathsome, isn’t it?

Disgusting, don’t you think?

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

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

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

Jamming a CO2 pellet in someone’s head?

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

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

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

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

(Cue Jeopardy music)

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

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

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

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

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

That, and no one watches MSNBC.

Here’s the entire quote in context:

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

“We’ll be there to watch?”

Nice, Chris.

Loathsome, isn’t it?

Disgusting, don’t you think?

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

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

Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters writes:

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

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

Liberals can’t even get their insults right.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 13, 2009

Russell Simmons

Russell Simmons

Honestly, if there is anything more enchanting than listening to lefties prioritize things, I’ve not yet found it.

Hip-hop pioneer Russell Simmons is astounded that we are all still breathing.

In a piece at the Huffington Post called “The Indictment of America,” he writes, “With horrible abuses of animals, the planet, and human kind, it’s amazing that we are still here.”

Before even commenting on the content of his article, I must say that the title of his piece is simply priceless. Anytime the words “indictment” and “America” are used in the same sentence, you can rest assured that liberals from sea to shining sea will be salivating.

Also, note that in the trio of horrific realities threatening this country he lists the abuse of animals first, followed by the abuse of Mother Earth, and finally “human kind.” Remember, to most leftists, human beings are like gobs of phlegm in the throat of nature.

(I’d have assumed that the planet would come first, seeing as if there is no Earth, animals would be homeless).

Regardless of the order, Simmons is clearly troubled. He sees an America that is free-falling out of control.

But, it isn’t metastasizing secularization or the erosion of traditional values that are contributing to the demise of the country. It isn’t the culture of easy sex, gratuitous violence, and instant gratification – regularly embodied and exemplified in the very music Mr. Simmons has made his fortune in – that is contributing to his feared decline of America. It isn’t pandemic multiculturalism and moral equivalency that is eating away at the very fabric of the United States.

It’s none of these things.

Instead, according to Simmons – scholar, thinker, historian – it is America’s “lack of compassion and love” that is destroying us.

To Simmons, the very nation that is provably the most giving, most accommodating and most charitable in all of world history is lacking the necessary quantities of “compassion and love” to fulfill its promise. (Of course, that can mean anything from tax rates on the rich not being high enough, to America holding on tightly to its racist past by not supporting the Messiah-In-Chief).

True, this is the nation that allots more than half of its annual budget to entitlement programs. This is the nation that sent $15 billion to Africa to help the victims of AIDS. This is the nation that, by law, provides free health care, via emergency rooms and free clinics, to anyone (including illegals) who asks for it. This is the nation that is always the first to come to the aid of natural disaster victims the world over. This is the nation with the most extensive network of charities, non-profit organizations, faith-based help groups and volunteer institutions on Earth.

But that’s just not good enough.

Simmons laments:

Our progressive president is so loving that the whole world is praying for us to lift ourselves up, yet we are still so afraid. And we have allowed hurtful, spiteful and small-minded people like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to scare the love out of us.

America, our country is under indictment. And we will be found guilty if we don’t act. If we allow these nasty, malicious people, who harbor so much hate with views that separate us from the rest of world, to continue to tell us how to think, we will be found guilty of charge one. If we allow so-called “men of faith,” who don’t practice a word Jesus Christ preached, to bully us and scare us, we will be found guilty of charge two. If we allow leaders of our country who claim that they represent us, when they really represent big business and corporate greed, to create policy in our name, we will be found guilty of charge three. If we allow leaders of a political party that only know one word, and that is “no,” to work against the best interests of our country, we will not only be found guilty of charge four, we will be sentenced by God to self-destruction.

Rush Limbaugh, Glenn beck, blah, blah, blah … The compulsory allusion to hateful, uncompassionate, multi-phobic conservative radio talkers is, quite frankly, tedious and unimpressive.

However, most relevant is the first portion of Simmons’ quote – which is downright frightening.

President Obama is “so loving,” he says, that the whole world is “praying for us to lift ourselves up” and follow Barack Obama … into the light, presumably.

Obama JesusBarack Obama is love.

Obama loves us.

Obama loves all the little children of the world.

Obama has extended his loving arms and asked us all to follow him from the Land of Division (i.e., conservatism, American exceptionalism), to the Land of Compassion and Love (anywhere near him).

And if we don’t – if we refuse the undeniable truths set before us by Barack Obama, and if we choose to place our feet on more divisive paths (e.g., listening to conservative talk radio, watching Fox News) – we will all be found guilty … by God.

(I wonder how God will react when Mr. Simmons has the opportunity to explain his support of killing the unborn, his promulgation of destructive gangsta violence through his “art,” and putting other gods – like Obama – before Him.) 

Indeed, the “Loving One” will show us the way; he will lead by example – because Islamo-Fascist terrorists are just waiting to be shown the way to peace by an American liberal. 

(Pause for a deep breath).

As I re-read Simmons’ plea for all of us to fall in line – er, rally around Barack Obama, so that we the people can avoid God’s punishment, allow me a moment to school Mr. Simmons on a few of the finer points of compassion.

First of all, in terms of the monetary (which is, by far, the most important benchmark to leftists) Americans are the most compassionate people on the face of the planet, bar none.

It isn’t even close.

And despite liberal endeavors to commandeer the word, “compassion” is not correctly defined as tax-the-rich, big-government pacifism. Indeed, America offers her incalculable compassion in a surplus of ways, whether Mr. Simmons chooses to accept it or not – from the steadfast vocal support of those who struggle and oppose their repressive governments, to the liberating of millions from totalitarian regimes through military means. America comforts when comfort is needed. America assists when assistance is needed. America fights when fighting is needed.

Second, above all, affording fellow human beings the opportunity to be free from evil is the ultimate example of American compassion. In over two-hundred years, Americans have liberated more human beings than all of the other countries of the world combined. What greater measure of compassion can there be than in sacrificng one’s life so that others may live free from tyranny?

Seeing as Mr. Simmons is quick to play the Jesus card in putting forth his argument that Christ himself would want us to follow the “progressive” and “loving” foot steps of Barack Obama into the Promised Land, it’s necessary to counter with an important point I made last week  in my piece Michael Moore, Sean Hannity and Loving Your Enemies.  

(Keep in mind that Jesus was an observant Jew).

I wrote:

In the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – there is only one law that appears in each of those books. It is the commandment to kill those who have murdered the innocent. Genesis 9:6, for example, reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

God commands us, “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.” (Leviticus 19:16).

Mr. Simmons ought to remember …

thank you usaUnder Ronald Reagan, the policies of this nation resulted in the dissolution of the Soviet Union, thus freeing over 120 million human beings in Eastern Europe.

If not for the United States, 48 million South Koreans would be living under the oppressive thumb of the North.

If not for the United States, 20 million Taiwanese would be living under the oppressive thumb of Communist China.

If not for the United States, Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, responsible for the murder of hundreds of thousands, would not have been removed from power.

If not for the United States, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths in the Middle East, would not have been removed from power, and 25 million people would not have been liberated.

I have to assume that these things matter to folks who claim to care about the innocent – like Simmons claims he does.

He continues by saying that he fears America is standing on its last “wobbly legs,” afraid that “the karmic effects of our negative actions will finally come home to roost.”

So, I must ask … what “negative actions” would Mr. Simmons be referring to? The same “actions,” perhaps, that President Barack Obama has made it his business to apologize for on several occasions while on foreign soil? And are these the same chickens that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was clucking about during the presidential campaign season?

(Those nettlesome karmic effects will get you every time).

I must also ask … were America’s legs as “wobbly” under the previous President?

If I am to understand Simmons’ thinking – and please correct me if I am mistaken – America has gotten worse since the President’s inauguration in January because opposing Barack Obama is worse for the country than to have George W. Bush in the White House? Or has it actually gotten better since the end of Bush’s last term, but not nearly as good as it could be because of the people (like me) who openly oppose Barack Obama? Or is this all about Barack Obama simply being the long-awaited “agent of change” that all of us – even non-believers – need to put their “faith” in?

Can you say “religion?”

More precarious than Simmons’ fear of the insatiable and uncompromising karmic wheel are those other pesky “effects” that can prove even more problematic – like the ones that are inevitable when one operates from a position of weakness, as President Obama has done since taking office.

I am referring to the emboldening of America’s enemies; the fostering of uneasiness in long-time allies (such as Poland, the Czech Republic, Israel) as they wonder whether or not America can be counted on to stand by them; and the placing of terrorism-supporting despotic regimes on a plane of moral equivelency with freedom-loving nations.

The fact is, the world suffers when the United States is weakened. The world is a better place, a safer place, a more moral place because of the strength of the United States of America.

She is a good and noble nation.

Simmons writes:

(Obama) needs our support and he needs it now. I respected what he said on Saturday night at the annual Human Rights Campaign dinner, “I appreciate that many of you don’t believe progress has come fast enough. Do not doubt the direction we are heading and the destination we will reach.” Remember, they killed Mahatma Gandhi. They killed John F. Kennedy. They killed Martin Luther King. They killed Malcolm X. They killed Robert F. Kennedy. They killed Yitzhak Rabin. They killed many of the great dreamers. With all of the fearful men running our media, we no longer have to kill the dreamer, it is possible just to kill the dream.


Note how Simmons’ specifically named Rush Limbuagh and Glenn Beck – conservatives – in his piece as being among the nasty and malicious who are inhibiting Obama and his good work. Is there any reason to believe that Simmons does not have them (or their staunch supporters) in mind when talking about “they” who do all of these dreamer killings?

Like the Islamic radical who killed Robert Kennedy?

Like the communist who killed John Kennedy?

Like the followers of Elijah Muhammed who killed Malcolm X?


Here’s an exercise to try.

Go through the Simmons piece and substitute the words “Barack” and “Obama” with “George” and “Bush.” Then change the author’s name from Russell Simmons to Pat Robertson.

Any guesses on what Keith Olbermann would be talking about on his show tonight?

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 12, 2009

GoreIt isn’t uncommon for malevolent e-mails to find their way into my ever-unsuspecting “inbox.”

I am regularly asked why I have the effrontery to use the offensive phrase, “liberals and other children” in my hate-filled screed.

Admittedly, I use the expression, in small part, for effect (knowing it will trigger responses). It is rooted, however, in what I feel is an undeniable truth – namely, that liberals don’t bother thinking things through beyond the initial “feel good” step of whatever policy they’re advocating. They don’t bother asking the question, “What happens next?”

It is the sort of unsophisticated, undisciplined, unnuanced approach one would expect from the undeveloped, uncritical, unanalytic mind of a child. While adulthood is about dealing  with, and understanding, consequences, liberalism is almost always about what feels good now.

The great Thomas Sowell calls it a lack of “Stage Two Thinking.”

The other thing that is indicative of modern liberalism is the notion that whatever is happening now is the worst ever seen by human kind. Whatever the situation or circumstance, no matter what has happened before, or what history has shown us, today’s challenges are commonly portrayed as the most extreme ever faced by Americans. Today’s complications and predicaments are unprecedented or unheard of.

Such is the reality when it comes to man-made global warming – or climate change – or whatever the phrase of the month is for liberalism’s latest disaster-to-end-all-disasters fairy-tale.

Last Friday, former Vice President Albert Gore spoke to 500 environmental journalists in Madison, Wisconsin. (I assume these environmental journalists rode their bicycles to the conference, used pens made out of cypress mulch and pomegranate juice, paper made out of regurgitated bovine saliva, and communicated with cups and strings instead of cell phones and lap tops).

Said Gore:

“We’re very close to that political tipping point. Never before in human history has a single generation been asked to make such difficult and consequential decisions.”

***Liberals and other children ALERT***

Words mean things.

“Never before” in all of human history has a generation had to make such difficult decisions.


In human history!

Powerful stuff, Al.

Whether it was the American Civil War ravaged generation of the 1860s, the American Independence seeking revolutionaries of the 1770s, or the Nazi and Imperial Japan fighting generation of the 1940s, no one in all of recorded existence has had to face the challenges or the “consequential decisions” that the squiggly light bulb generation is having to deal with today. The invasion of the European continent by the Allies in June, 1944 seems so inconsequential compared to the inherent dilemmas of paper or plastic. The decisions that led to the defeat and subsequent demise of the Soviet Union pale in comparison to the perplexities of multi-ply or single-ply toilet tissue. And if there is as mystifying an issue as to whether or not to succumb to the evil of notching up the thermostat during the winter, I am not aware of it.

Also interesting to note from the Gore chat is this little exercise in open and honest debate. From the Wisconsin State Journal:

Gore has been criticized for not publicly debating his position since the release of his 2006 Oscar-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

In what organizers said was a rarity, Gore took half a dozen questions from journalists, including one from Phelim McAleer, an Irish filmmaker who asked Gore to address nine errors in his film identified by a British court in 2007.

Gore responded that the court ruling supported the showing of his film in British schools. When McAleer tried to debate further, his microphone was cut off by the moderators.

You don’t say.

Cut off by the moderators?

Has this been fact-checked?

Maybe it was a loose wire.

Or someone on Dick Cheney’s payroll.

In other news, record-low temperatures are threatening to destroy some of this season’s crop of potatoes in Idaho; record cold temperatures are being seen in Western Montana; and even in Austria, they are seeing the earliest snowfall ever recorded there.

Dammit, pay attention to your carbon footprints, people!

wordpress statistics


Posted in Global Warming, Junk Science, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | 3 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 8, 2009

Hannity speaking with Moore

Hannity speaking with Moore

If the world were void of clichés, empty bromides and feckless platitudes, how exactly would a leftist fill the time while being interviewed? If they could not rely on silly slogans and bumper sticker smugness, what else would they have to offer that could be passed off as substantive?

At the great Ace of Spades blog, Ace posted a portion of an exchange between fuzzy-bunny film maker Michael Moore and conservative commentator Sean Hannity. It was one of those back-and-forth television time-killers that changes no one’s mind, rarely goes beyond the time-constrained familiar superficiality of left versus right, and draws high-fives from supporters who believe their guy was head and shoulders better than the other.

(Of course, I love that kind of television).

Without actually posting the video here, I’d like focus on one small portion of the exchange between the two.

The segment in question involved Moore – thinker, philosopher, scholar – asking Hannity if he loved Al Qaeda because of Jesus’ commandment to “love your enemies.”

Hannity responded, “I love them in the sense I want to destroy them.”

Indeed, as Ace points out, it was a funny line – although I am skeptical that Hannity actually meant it that way. I am more inclined to believe that his response was the first thing off the top of his head as he tried to keep pace with the portly movie maker. (I certainly could be wrong).

Either way, it was a good line.

Ace then posts the following:

Incidentally… Hannity’s line is funny, but glibly dodges the question through humor. I’m curious how religious folks resolve this question in their minds.

As I’m not religious, I just flat-out hate Al Qaeda and feel no need to even attempt to “love” them, except in a Hannity sense of love. (Which, given that love is a battlefield, actually does make some sense, but I digress.)

The left loves trotting this chestnut out (and here Michael Moore trots out nothing but cliches, cant, and chestnuts, making Sean Hannity look positively contemplative), but I am curious as to the response to this.

He loves America, except for everything about it

He loves America, except for everything about it

There is a trap that most anti-religious types, like Moore, seem to stumble into that predicates the type of hostility they are prone to exude when confronting people of faith. Often they forget that Christians (or any religious people, for that matter) are as human as atheists and agnostics. Religious people do not claim to be less imperfect than anyone else. Indeed, they are subject to the same fallibilities and frailties as those who reject God. Yet, somehow, folks like Moore – who make a living at scoffing at the traditions and institutions of America, and routinely pull out words like “hypocrite” when describing a person of faith who stumbles – believe they are exposing the fraud of religion when those who try to live more righteous lives fall short.

Leftists use the human condition as a “gotcha” tool.

Another trap that angry anti-God types fall into is the one that suggests that loving others somehow precludes justice. The fact is, punishing those who commit crimes is neither related to nor dependant on love. One can love another, or pray for another, or wish for their genuine repentance, but still understand that crimes committed by that person must be punished.

What does one have to do with the other?

I can love my daughter or spouse, but if they are guilty of a crime, they must be punished appropriately.

Indeed, both Jews and Christians are commanded to love each other as individuals, but not necessarily to love groups, associations, or nations that perpetrate evil.

But even if one believes we are, so what? Who says that one cannot love someone and still fight them? (Think of Jesus and the money changers in the Temple).

The bottom line is … when an individual is engaged in an evil action, it is incumbent of us – indeed, God commands us – to stop that individual from harming the innocent. Even if violence is required, there is no inherent contradiction in stopping the evil-doer and loving that individual.

There is such a thing a moral violence.

Loving someone in not synonymous with letting someone “off the hook.”

Think of the famous verse from the Book of Matthew:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also.” (Mat. 5:38-39)

Does anyone truly believe that “turning the other cheek” really means one is to permit evil to run rampant? As talk show host Dennis Prager often says, “In the context of World War II, do you think ‘turn the other cheek’ means that the United States should have rolled over and offered the West Coast of California to the Imperial Japanese after they bombed Pearl Harbor, Hawaii?”

Pastor Pastor Bob Enyart, in his commentary “God and The Death Penalty” writes:

peacePacifists have an unworkable interpretation of this passage. Imagine applying the pacifist view to a woman being raped? Does a father tell his daughter to not resist the rapist? Pacifist father to daughter being raped: “Don’t resist the evil man, honey. Remember, Jesus said, ‘Love your enemy.’ If he wants you for one hour, stay with him two.”

Rather, this teaching is similar to Paul’s teaching, “Do not avenge yourselves,” knowing that the government is to bring wrath and vengeance against the perpetrator. The command to not avail oneself of “an-eye-for-an-eye” is not a strictly New Testament concept. Many falsely presume that this is a New Testament teaching which opposes Old Testament teachings. However, the command to avoid personal vengeance was just as applicable to Old Testament believers as to us. “Do not say, ‘I will do to him just as he has done to me; I will render to the man according to his work” (Prov. 24:29). Graciousness from the believer in his personal life is an enduring virtue and not a new concept.

Enyart goes on to explain that there is a distinction between individuals and governments, and that Jesus said so in the Sermon on the Mount:

“Agree with your adversary quickly, while you are on the way with him, lest your adversary deliver you to the judge, the judge hand you over to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Assuredly, I say to you, you will by no means get out of there till you have paid the last penny.” (Mat. 5:25-26)

Jesus did not tell the judge or the officer to turn the other cheek or to void the law. God wants the governing authorities to uphold the law without mercy. (Heb. 10:28; Rom. 13:3-4)

In the Torah – the first five books of the Bible – there is only one law that appears in each of those books. It is the commandment to kill those who have murdered the innocent. Genesis 9:6, for example, reads, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed.”

For me, as a Jew, this commandment is central to understanding how precious human life truly is. A murderer has no right to his own life if he has stolen the life of an innocent.

God requires us to fight evil.

Rabbi Joseph Telushkin, in his book The Book of Jewish Values, writes:

Regarding those who set out to murder others, the Book of Exodus teaches that if a thief tunnels into a house at night and is discovered, the householder has the right to kill him. At first reading, this ruling seems surprising, since Jewish law forbids killing someone who is committing a property offense. However, the Torah assumes that a thief breaking into a person’s house at night, aware that it is probably occupied, is prepared to kill the householder; therefore, if the householder preemptively kills the thief, “there is no bloodguilt” (Exodus 22:1).

The sole exception is when the householder has reason to be certain that the thief has no intention of killing him or her (see Exodus 22:2).

In the Talmud’s language, “If someone wishes to kill you, get up and kill him first.”

The logic informing this Talmudic teaching applies to national as well as individual threats.

Think the War on Terror.

God commands us, “Do not stand by while your neighbor’s blood is shed.” (Leviticus 19:16).

If there is a better, more appropriate way to “love thy neighbor” than defending him against evil, I don’t know of one.

wordpress statistics

Posted in religion, Secularism, Values | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 11, 2009

I was going to post this little tasty morsel myself, but proper credit goes to the outstanding Vocal Minority blog, via the equally exceptional Notoriously Conservative blog …

I recently asked my friend’s little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be President some day. Both of her parents, liberal Democrats, were standing there, so I asked her, “If you were President what would be the first thing you would do?”

She replied, “I’d give food and houses to all the homeless people.”

Her parents beamed.

“Wow…what a worthy goal.” I told her, “But you don’t have to wait until you’re President to help people. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and rake my yard, and I’ll pay you $50. Then I’ll take you over to the grocery store where the homeless guy hangs out, and you can give him the $50 to use toward food and a new house.”

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, “Why doesn’t the homeless guy come over and do the work, and you can just pay him the $50?”

I said, ‘Welcome to the Republican Party.”

Bookmark to two aforementioned blogs if you have not already.


Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2009


If tugging on Superman’s cape and spitting into the wind are no-nos, then messing around with Rush Limbaugh – while donning the apocryphal moniker of conservative – is sheer blockheadedness. Time and time again, counterfeit conservatism is reconstituted in the columns and commentaries of convoluted right-leaning hyper-intellectuals – David Brooks, Ross Douthat and Chris Buckley come to mind – while attempting to reinvent the movement in order to set themselves apart from the pack.

All the while, conservatives such as me are derided and repudiated as being too narrow-minded, out-of-touch and parochial.

Reconstructing conservatism into a more media-friendly animal, i.e. making it palatable to the Left, while infusing it with an Upper West Side sensibility, complete with nuance and compromised core values, is the goal of these new rightists – and be damned those still clinging to the dinosaur that is musty old one-dimensional Reagan conservatism.

And if the transformation (or rebirth) can be accomplished by going after the most well-known conservative of them all, Rush Limbaugh, it’s bound to garner some extra invites to the best social functions on the East Coast.

Granted, Rush Limbaugh needs no one – least of all me, an unknown, small-potatoes blogger fortunate to scratch out a few hundred hits a day – to defend him or come to his rescue. If there is anyone in the Land of Conservatism who has weathered more storms and has withstood more personal attacks from the outraged cackling masses on the left (and now, some on the right), it is he. Indeed, if anyone can stand up for himself, it is El Rushbo.

Rather, I’d like to take a moment and comment on a much talked about column published on Monday by faux conservative, David Frum.

In taking the position that left versus right has ostensibly boils down to Barack Obama versus Rush Limbaugh, Frum sounds as if he has gotten dibs on rubbing talcum powder on the feet of President Obama after a bath. He gushes like a grandmother lavishing praise on a horrible kindergarten drawing, showering The One with effusive acclaim for his grace and elegance, calling him “soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims.” (Kind of like Senator John Kerry always invoking his service in Vietnam every thirteen seconds).

Summoning my own intellectual Dramamine to keep me from losing my dinner, Frum salivates, “This president invokes the language of “responsibility,” and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.”

Yes, Mr. Frum, it was incredibly “disciplined” of the leader of the free world to publicly call for Americans to stop listening to Rush Limbaugh – a man who has quite literally built his success through dedication and hard work, living the American dream – wasn’t it? How astutely presidential of Obama to attack a successful private citizen.

And you’re right, David (if I may call you that) … it was equally “responsible” of the Chief Executive of the United States to say that “catastrophic” results were in store for the country should his stimulus pig-meat spending bill not pass in Congress as soon as humanly possible. It’s a good thing he waited four days to sign it into law.

Such leadership.

Incidentally, Mr. Frum, Obama’s devotion as a father and a husband has absolutely nothing to do with the job he is doing as President.

Still, your adoration of him is admirable.

Mr. Frum, if you need a moment, there are paper towels in the back by the radiator.

In commenting on Rush Limbaugh, whose speech at CPAC on Saturday was as energizing and substantive as any given by any conservative in a long time, Frum decides that personal attacks are the way to dissuade Republicans from hoisting the leadership banner atop Fort Limbaugh.

As if taking dictation from Rahm Emmanuel, Frum writes:

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as “losers.” With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence – exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we’re cooperating! Those images of crowds of CPACers cheering Rush’s every rancorous word – we’ll be seeing them rebroadcast for a long time.

When will the little pups realize that no matter how much they yap at the back door or pee on the porch, they’ll never be able to belly up to the bowl and eat with the big dogs?

Frum’s obnoxious elitism – drawn from the liberal’s operational manual – is surpassed only by his contemptibility. While he cavalierly dismisses Obama’s cigarette sneaking as a mere occasional vice, he dispenses a whole lot of fat-catism on Limbaugh for his love of cigars. While Obama’s drug use in his youth is roundly discarded, Limbaugh’s long since conquered bout with pill dependency is exploited. To Frum, Obama is an Adonis who is physically “honed,” while Rush’s “personal bulk” somehow puts a blight on conservatism.

Yes, that’s what the new conservatism is apparently all about – fostering classism, mocking personal triumphs, and scorning appearance.

How petty, Frum. How pompus. How liberal.

And what exactly did Mr. Frum find “rancorous” about Limbaugh’s speech? Was it the idea that Limbuagh wants every American to succeed? That he doesn’t see Americans as victims but as individuals? That it is the individual, and not government, that has made America the greatest nation that has ever existed? These are core conservative principles that have been starving for eloquent and energized articulation for quite some time.

Rush did just that on Saturday.

There was not an electron of hatred or acrimony in his presentation. There wasn’t a scintilla of anger or bitterness therein. Instead, Limbaugh conveyed his awe and love of this country and its citizenry. What he did for those enthusiastic CPACers was inspire and encourage them. He reaffirmed the foundation of the movement. He did not attampt to redefine conservatism as the Frums of the world do. Limbaugh’s was a call to reclaim conservatism and bring it back to its roots.

The funny thing is … while talking heads on both sides of the aisle stumble about trying to develop their “Rush is now the ‘De Facto’ Leader of the Republicans” angle, Limbuagh trudges forward as he has, unchanged, since the day he first entered talk radio – when AM radio was about carrot cake recipies and the golden EIB microphone was still aluminum. He advances and advocates the same brand of conservatism he has since Day One. Two decades in the national spotlight has not changed where he is coming from nor where he would like to see this country go. David Frum, et al, portray Limbaugh as some sort of emerging leader, but Rush is simply doing what he has always done – namely defending the institutions, traditions and values of the United States.

Frum finished up this way:

Rush is to the Republicanism of the 2000s what Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic party in the 1980s. He plays an important role in our coalition, and of course he and his supporters have to be treated with respect. But he cannot be allowed to be the public face of the enterprise.

The “enterprise?”

Like “Jesse Jackson was to the Democratic Party in the 1980s?”

Jackson is a race-baiting, corporation strong-arming extortionist whose Sesame Street-like rhyming schemes and cartoonish cadences are as coherent as Barney Frank on peanut butter. This sounds like David Frum attempting to be the “smartest guy in the room,” as Rush often says, with an analogy that could use some cerebral Cialis.

Going after Rush Limbaugh is not a particularly shrewd strategy. It hasn’t proven successful for those who have attempted it. Safe to say, it probably won’t be a winner in the future.

Limbuagh has, for years, been at the forefront of the conservative movement in this country. That the most prominent conservative in America is not a politician, but a radio entertainer, speaks volumes about where the Republican Party is right now (and has been for some time).

The irony here is that if the Republican Party actually listened to Rush Limbaugh, they might win something.

Posted in Conservatism, politics, Republican Politics | Tagged: , , , , | 7 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009


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.”


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 »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 12, 2008

stop all the shouting, guys

stop all the shouting, guys

Were you aware that Republicans have been shouting at the world? Former Secretary of State Colin Powell says so. According to him, the GOP needs to just calm itself down, quit the ideological screeching, ditch listening to Rush Limbaugh and start paying attention to the concerns of minority groups. Powell says the Republicans have failed at the polarization game – fuelled by the likes of Limbaugh – and needs to take a “hard look at itself.”

The pro-Obama “Republican” – *ahem* – will appear this Sunday on CNN’s “GPS” program.

Said Powell:

“There is nothing wrong with being conservative. There is nothing wrong with having socially conservative views — I don’t object to that. But if the party wants to have a future in this country, it has to face some realities. In another 20 years, the majority in this country will be the minority.”

Meaning what exactly?

That whites corner the market in “socially conservative” values? That “minorities” do not posses these same values? Was it not the overwhelming majority of blacks who voted for Proposition 8 in California? Whites, by contrast, were almost split on the issue, if I recall.

Powell, who crossed party lines and endorsed President-elect Barack Obama just weeks before the election, said the GOP must see what is in the “hearts and minds” of African-American, Hispanic and Asian voters “and not just try to influence them by… the principles and dogma.”

Principles and dogma?

Oh, Lord.  A nice choice of words, sir.

If one who wishes to lead  – whether it be an indivudual, or a political party – is not there in large measure to influence and inspire, then why bother at all?

How successful was the dubious, squishy-in-the-middle campaign of John McCain? How did his “trying to appeal to the median” approach work?  He was anything but the staunch, cacophonous conservative Mr. Powell is castigating here. McCain, in fact, did everything he could to tap into the “hearts and minds” of the entire electorate  – everyone, that is, except the traditional “core” of the Republican Party … and where did it get him?

I agree wholeheartedly that Republicans need to spend much more time in minority neighborhoods reaching out to people. It is critical, not just strategically, but from a public relations standpoint. Republicans have to make the effort.

However, to do so for the purpose of “seeing” what lurks in the “hearts of minds” of those citizens sounds too much like a “wet your finger and test the wind” approach. Republicans need to go into minority areas, unafraid, unabashed, ready to take the arrows that will inevitable come, and prove that Republican values are their values. No one has quite done that yet.



“I think the party has to stop shouting at the world and at the country,” Powell said. “I think that the party has to take a hard look at itself, and I’ve talked to a number of leaders in recent weeks and they understand that.” Powell, who says he still considers himself a Republican, said his party should also stop listening to conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

“Can we continue to listen to Rush Limbaugh?” Powell asked. “Is this really the kind of party that we want to be when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?”

This is remarkable. The Republican Party is listening to Rush Limbaugh? As in taking their cues from him?

Rush himself would beg to differ.

As Mr. Powell is surely aware, the Republican Party fell short in the last presidential election. It made all the papers, in fact. Rush Limbaugh and John McCain were not exactly kissing cousins during the campaign season. I’m guessing they aren’t exchanging Christmas cards this year either. (I like it out here on the limb). That McCain differed with Rush on so many different levels makes Powell’s assertions sound silly. Many on our side would even argue that if the Republicans had been listening to Limbaugh, America might not be facing a stroll into history with Big Bam the Chicago Man.

And who says Rush Limbaugh is a spokesman for the Republican Party anyway? He certainly doesn’t. He bills himself as a conservative, not a Republican.

Oh yeah, and what leaders has Powell been yakking it up with? Arnold Schwarzenegger? Michael Bloomberg? Oprah Winfrey?

And who exactly is shouting at whom?

It’s more than a little amusing that Powell attacks Republicans for shouting at everyone when Democrats all but have a patent out on it.

Allow me to assist the former Secretary of State.

From the “Shouting at the World from the Left” file ….

better instincts?

better instincts?

Mr. Powell … meet Keith Olbermann – loudmouthed liar extraordinaire; lip-pursing snot-nosed arrogant liberal hack; more abrasive than an army of angry brillo pads; host of a primetime news magazine on MSNBC. Shouts often.

Mr. Powell … meet Howard Dean – Chairman of the Democratic National Committee; screeching ideologue; has his foot in his mouth so often he needs his tongue fitted for a pair of Jordans; says Republican values include having children going to bed hungry at night. Shouts often.

Mr. Powell … meet Al Gore – invented the internet; was the inspiration behind the movie “Love Story;” used to be the next President of the United States; Global Warming zealot; environmental whack-job; Unaffected by the carbon credit crunch. Shouts a whole hell of alot.

Mr. Powell … meet Michael Moore – successful filmmaker of negligibly accurate fake-umentaries; would have Fidel Castro’s love child if possible (or would eat it); Democratic National Convention buddy with former President Jimmy Carter; does nothing but attack America. Shouts often.

Mr. Powel … meet Jimmy Carter – former President of the United States; disgraceful human being; terrorist-lover; anti-semite; bashes other US presidents on foreign soil. Makes me shout often.

And of course, Mr. Powell … I’d like you to meet the next President of the United States, Barack Obama – former state senator from Illinois; associate of a known terrorist; a two-decade patron of an anti-American church led by a hateful racist preacher who thinks America dropped A-Bombs on Japan on December 7, 1941; proponent of redistribution of wealth; advocate of sitting down unconditionally to talk with despotic leaders; supporter of late-term abortions; a man who asked people to “get in the face” of opponents during the campaign; a man who criticized middle-Americans for clinging to God and guns.

He, too, can shout.

Perhaps the real question is … Can we continue to listen to Democrats? Is this really the kind of party that we want when these kinds of spokespersons seem to appeal to our lesser instincts rather than our better instincts?

Just asking.

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