Posts Tagged ‘“conservative blog”’
Posted by Andrew Roman on June 16, 2010
The latest Presidential Daily Tracking Poll numbers from Rasmussen are in … and they’re not good.
Now to be fair, these figures were tabulated almost entirely from surveys taken before Obama’s Gulf oil spill address last evening – the defining moment of Barack Obama’s presidency.
Thus, I concede to being somewhat hesitant in posting the results.
It would be akin to assessing the life and accomplishments of Winston Churchill ten years before the start of World War II, or evaluating the career of Babe Ruth before he ever put on a major league baseball uniform.
Honestly, how can one appraise Lincoln without acknowledging the Gettysburg Address?
How can one take measure of Reagan’s stand against the Evil Empire without acknowledging his “Tear Down This Wall” speech?
Likewise, I grant that citing the President’s ever-plummeting approval numbers based on data compiled before last night’s history-altering, game-changing speech from the Oval Office places my credibility at risk.
But hey, what the hell …
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows that 24% of the nation’s voters Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as president. Forty-four percent (44%) Strongly Disapprove, giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -20 (see trends).
Forty-eight percent (48%) of Democrats Strongly Approve while 75% of Republicans Strongly Disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 12% Strongly Approve and 52% Strongly Disapprove.
These results are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. As a result, today’s results are based almost entirely on interviews conducted before the president’s speech to the nation. The impact of the president’s speech will be seen over the next several days.
Heading into the speech, 30% of voters gave President Obama good or excellent marks for handling the oil spill. Forty-five percent (45%) said he was doing a poor job. Most voters (57%) still favor offshore oil drilling.
Rasmussen also says that only 42% of Americans “somewhat approve” of this President’s performance. Since the dawn of the Messianic Age, that number has never been lower.
(Feel free to take an “ouch” out of petty cash).
But Obamacrats need not fear. Last night’s “Wrong Speech At The Wrong Time” presentation will figure in to the Presidential Daily Tracking Poll soon enough.
Hopefully, by then, the White House can squeeze in one more glitz-and-glam event with another ex-Beatle.
Ringo turns seventy next month.
Posted in Polls | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Rasmussen Daily Tracking Poll | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on May 1, 2010
In the absence of being able to piece together a coherent argument opposing Arizona’s new illegal immigration law, liberals have been reminding us that America is a nation of immigrants – that being opposed to immigration is akin to being opposed to America itself. New York Senator Chick Schumer recently recounted the famous words inscribed on the plaque at the Statue of Liberty – from Emma Lazarus’ sonnet “The New Colossus” – about the poor and tired huddled masses.
That’s all well and good, but like most things out of Schumer’s pie hole, it has substantively nothing to do with the issue at hand.
Libs, of course, have cornered the market in both intellectual dishonesty and selective disclosure, so for them, it isn’t necessary to make the distinction between legal immigrants and illegal ones. That would get in the way of a good sound bite. In libspeak, to be opposed to illegal immigration is to be opposed to all immigration – just like being opposed to the redefinition of marriage means hating gays, or being opposed to race-based quotas means hating minorities.
I’m anti-incest, but I don’t hate my sister.
Earlier today, the President of the United States spoke out against those – like me – who have voiced their dissent at the Obama administration and its Big-Government-Is-Better-For-Everything approach to running the country.
From Fox News:
President Obama took aim Saturday at the angry rhetoric of those who denigrate government as “inherently bad” and said their off-base line of attack ignores the fact that in a democracy, “government is us.”
Obama used his commencement speech at the University of Michigan to respond to foes who portray government as oppressive and tyrannical — and to warn that overheated language can signal extremists that “perhaps violence is … justifiable.”
“But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad,” said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. “When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us.”
To begin with, no one on the right has ever said – or believes – government is inherently bad. I would invite any lib to point to one prominent Republican or conservative who has ever asserted, implied or hinted at the fact that government is inherently bad. It’s that familiar tactic, that old liberal chestnut – the “all immigration is bad” play – that keeps the Left thinking they’re intellectually up to snuff with the thinking class.
Rather, those of us on the right believe big government is inherently bad.
The Framers’ vision of limited government will suit me – and everyone else – just fine, thank you.
Second, isn’t it funny how opposing Obama somehow equates to a threat of violence? To stand up against Obamacratic policies cannot possibly be the result of liberty-loving Americans legitimately questioning and petitioning the actions of their government. To resist Barack Obama is to summon the demons that dwell in the deep recesses of the conservative soul – those that could be prone to violence, or incite others to it.
There is nothing “overheated” about defending liberty from the encroachment of big government.
Incidentally, by definition, “extremists” – regardless of what side of the aisle they are on – don’t need anything special to act as such.
They are extreme.
They are the ones who go against convention, regardless of tradition or institution. They are the ones who act outside of the mainstream. They are the radicals.
Kind of sounds like the current administration, doesn’t it?
Posted in Big Government, Obama Bonehead, Tea Party, Uncategorized | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Big Government, dissent, extremist, Tea Partiers, Tea Party Movemnet | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on April 9, 2010
(Actually, quite believable).
There is ostensibly nothing – absolutely nothing – the current administration will not endeavor to involve itself in (except competent national security). Perhaps a better way to state it is that this administration believes nothing should be beyond the reach (and direct influence) of government.
With an audacity remeniscent of a chorus of crunching jackboots slowly approaching from just over the hill, Obamacrats – the same folks that recently turned over the student loan system to the federal government simply because they felt like it – is on a no-holds-barred course of seizing and controlling as much of the private sector as it possibly can.
I am well aware of how that sounds, but I assure you, this is not paranoia.
These are not radical right-wing talking points.
If you want radicals, just look to the White House and Capitol Hill.
America has never seen anything quite like the way this administration operates. The will of the people be damned, and to hell with the Constitution, never has a President ever attempted, in such a short amount of time and in such a brazenly agenda-driven anti-American way (yes, anti-American), to imbue the heavy hand of government in everything possible. Not like this. The President, in fact, seems to have made it his central focus to thrash whatever maxims of American liberty repulse him (which, being a disciple of Saul Alinsky, means just about everything). He’s doing so with a deaf ear and an iron mallet of relentless leftism – the master overseer of the largest, most intrusive and controlling government monster ever to occupy this part of the North American continent.
This is just the latest episode of “Power To the State!”
It seems that Bammy and Crew have decided that they are not happy with the concept of the unpaid internship. In fact, the Labor Department is now looking into the legality of having someone serve as an intern, without pay, at any for-profit enterprise in the United States; and if the President gets his way, these private sector unpaid internships – meaning free-market, free-enterprise agreements made between private business owners and willing individuals (almost always college students looking to gain critical experience as well as college credits) – will go the way of betamax machines, rotary telephones and (eventually) American liberty itself.
From Fox Nation:
“If you’re a for-profit employer or you want to pursue an internship with a for-profit employer, there aren’t going to be many circumstances where you can have an internship and not be paid and still be in compliance with the law,” said Nancy Leppink, deputy administrator of the department’s wage and hour division, according to a story in the New York Times.
It’s easy to view the action as the inevitable mischief of Democrats, irritating but not fatal. Such an attitude, however, overlooks what a blow this policy can represent to young people trying to establish careers.
Back in our parents’ or grandparents’ days, interns were mostly thought of as physicians-in-training. Eventually, an internship came to mean an initial training experience, perhaps unpaid, for people on the cusp of entering the workforce. This stepping stone to a hoped-for paid job became commonplace in many industries and a rite of passage for the college set, especially Ivy Leaguers.
These temporary positions became popular partly due to prosperity. During the past half century, many U.S. college students enjoyed the luxury of trying out different fields whereas previous generations had to make career choices quickly.
In other words, the Chief Executive of the United States is telling (nay, dictating to) this nation’s young people – America’s future, I’ve heard the President call them – that they will no longer have the option (the right to choose, you might say) of volunteering his or her time with a privately-owned, free market enterprise. The point of such internships, of course, is to afford prospective interns the opportunity to gain vital experience that will, in turn, make them productive and valuable assets in the work force. Yet, the President of the United States has decided, by whim and whisper, that he will put the kibosh on a system of learning, training and invaluable networking that has helped sustain the very existence of America’s free-market system by literally helping to provide for its future in the best and most efficient way possible.
Not that Barack Obama is particularly enamored with free enterprise.
Incidentally, one needn’t receive money to be “paid.” Experience is often a more valuable commodity in the work force at that early stage of a person’s professional life. Unpaid internships are wonderfully important resume fillers. Bosses look for things like that.
The real question is: How in the world is doing away with unpaid internships good for America? How does eliminating such a thing benefit this country’s young people looking to prepare for their futures?
This is simply unbelievable.
(I keep saying that. Actually, it’s very believable).
Mr. President, these are individual choices made by free Americans! Stay the hell out of it!
Erick Erickson at Red State points out, if Obama gets his way, young people will still have the option to volunteer with the government.
If you want to work as a Congressional or White House intern, for Organizing for America, or any other non-profit, they’ll let you do it. But if you want to actually work for a business that produces goods and services in the free market? You’re screwed as is the business. And guess what? Existing workers will be spread more thinly and college kids will wait longer and longer for jobs.
My next question (in a long list of thousands) would be to ask whether or not this policy applies to non-profit organizations as well. Would these new anti-intern laws pertain to left-wing “community organizing” groups, too? Or will some enterprising Capitol Hill Democrat try to devise a workaround of some sort to allow the likes of ACORN (or whatever it’s called now) to indoctrinate – er, take on interns?
Or is this just a blatant, in-your-face, no-need-to-cloak-it assault on the free-market system?
Honestly, there can be no other purpose here than to intentionally hamstring free enterprise.
The President of the United States does not – repeat, does not – have the authority to curtail rights guaranteed to the people of the United States in the Constitution – namely, the freedom of assembly (and, by extension and definition, the freedom of association). How is it possible for the Chief Executive to say that it will be against the law for me, or anyone, to volunteer my time anywhere I damn well please (assuming that institution is not engaging in illegal activity)? Do I not have the right to charge an individual or company for my services, if I so choose? And if I decide to charge nothing for those services, do I not have that right as well?
These are choices that I make, as an individual.
This has nothing to do with the President, Congress, the government, the cleaning lady or anyone other than the privately owned enterprise that wants to have an intern, and the individual who wishes to be an intern.
No one is being taken advantage of, no one is being cheated, no deception of any kind is taking place.
We leave that to the government.
Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Dumb Liberals, leftism, Liberalism, Nanny State | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, Big Government, college students, Department of Labor, for-profit employer, free enterprise, free market, President Obama, unpaid interns, unpaid internships | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 25, 2010
I didn’t want them to go.
I admit I was wrong.
Yes, I swore I was only going to pay peripheral attention to this Obama health care summit thing. For the past week I was pecking lightly at the “I Couldn’t Care Less” snack platter. The whole notion of Barack Obama holding court with those he treats worse – and sees as more of an enemy – than Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a joke of epic proportion. I saw the entire thing as a fraud, a no-win situation for Republicans.
Besides, the last thing on earth I was interested in was another one of these Obama “summits.” Using the word “Obama” and “summit” in the same sentence is like saying “Jimmy Carter” and “national security” in the same breath.
Yet, thus far, I have been surprised – although I shouldn’t be. I have been entertained – although I didn’t want to be. For our President, it has proven to be a carnival of unparalleled arrogance, worthy of a slot on the Gershwin Theater stage.
No one does it better.
Along with the fact that the smooth-talking, well-dressed Chicagoland socialist has looked wholly unprepared for the questions and commentary he was fielding this morning, it is obvious that he hasn’t even read the health care bills that are being discussed, unlike the Republicans who have come in primed and ready. Stellar performances by people like Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia, who clearly has read the bill – and quite literally confronted the President on actual portions of the proposed legislation – has made the stumbling, bumbling Chief Executive look foolish.
Of course, Bammy didn’t need Cantor’s help for that.
If ever there was a human in need of a teleprompter, it is Barack Obama.
It’s quite comical.
At every turn, the President has managed to criticize the method by which Republicans are taking this bill to task.
As expected, everything the Republicans say is unhelpful to the process. Republican criticisms of the health care bill are political ploys to obstruct. Using or referring to the 2,000-plus page health care bills to make points is a distraction of “props.” So, while Republicans weathered messianic criticism for resorting to visual aids, Democrat Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa – and others – read emotional letters from constituents without ever being accused of “prop manipulation.”
As expected, Democrats rarely addressed the bill itself, instead playing the emotion card as often as possible.
You can do that when you think Americans are idots.
But the highlight of the day thus far – the thing everyone has been, and will be, talking about – is the Monument to Arrogance erected by the messiah himself when speaking to John McCain. It is this moment alone that has made this “summit” worthwhile.
Following remarks made by Senator John McCain, the President – with a pomposity and superiority that would have made Lady Gaga seem timid – responded, “Let me just make this point, John … because we’re not campaigning anymore. The election’s over.”
McCain retorted, “I’m reminded of that everyday.”
(What he should have said is that America is reminded of that everyday).
Is Barack Obama kidding? He lives in campaign mode. His entire political life is campaign mode. He is a revolving bumper sticker dispenser in well-tailored suits. He is Bromide-Man, able to leap over reality in a single bound.
It’s as obvious as the ears that dangle on his head that he hasn’t read the health care bill, and thus speaks about it in campaign buzz phrases. To accuse McCain – who ran his campaign like Air America ran their radio network – of being in campaign mode is beyond hilarious.
Incidentally, during this morning’s session, out of 164 total minutes of discussion time, Democrats had spoke for 108 of those minutes. Republicans spoke for 56.
Out of the 108 Democrat minutes, President Obama spoke for 58 of them.
Of course, that doesn’t count, according to Bam.
He’s the President, after all.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, CSPAN health care debates, Eric Cantor, health care reform, Health Care Summit | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 19, 2010
Congressman Steve King
I happen to like Congressman Steve King from Iowa. He is a strong conservative – both fiscally and socially. Admittedly, up until yesterday, I was only vaguely acquainted with him, having heard his name come up a few times here and there, if that.
However, effective today, I hereby proclaim that he is unequivocally one of my new Capitol Hill favorites.
Good ol’ Steve King, I’ll call him from now on.
“There goes old Stevie Boy,” my friends and I will say, if we should ever happen to find ourselves speaking about him here in Staten Island, New York.
Two reasons: One, he is a huge Second Amendment guy (always good), and two, he has royally pissed off PETA (People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals) … and anyone who can do that is a moral Goliath, as far as I’m concerned.
What, you may ask, did he do?
He shot an intruder in his home, dead.
The panty-twisting at PETA this week cannot be calculated.
J.R. Absher from Outdoor Life writes:
When U.S. Rep. Steve King found a raccoon trying to chew into his rural Western Iowa home during a snowstorm last week, he reacted like most folks who live out in the country and away from the city.
He grabbed the closest and most familiar firearm and preceded to dispatch the troublesome critter, which he thought might be rabid because of its bizarre behavior during the middle of the day.
Rep. King’s “most handy gun” turned out to be a .45 ACP Desert Eagle 1911 pistol, a popular firearm and caliber for personal and home protection.
Perhaps the congressman was a tad bit over-gunned for the pesky varmint, but it served the purpose, quickly and decisively.
But the best part of the story is what Congressman King wrote about the event on Twitter.
“Mid-day, mid-blizzard, 15 degrees, Crazy Raccoon chewing and clawing his way into my house. Desert Eagle 1, Crazy Raccoon zero.”
I am still laughing.
But, sadly, not everyone is getting a chuckle out of this.
The organization that brought the world “Holocaust On Your Plate,” compared dog breeders to Klansmen, and pushed for the word “fish” to be extricated from the English language in favor of the phrase “sea kittens,” is mad at King.
From Fox News:
On Tuesday, the animal welfare group challenged the Iowa Republican to “pick on someone your own size, not a small animal seeking warmth in a blizzard.”
“It doesn’t give you comfort in your representatives when a member of Congress finds it amusing to boast of shooting a desperately cold animal who is 100 times smaller than he is and whose only misstep was trying to get into a large, warm house,” Jaime Zalac, a PETA spokeswoman, said a written statement provided to FoxNews.com.
“I hope he’s not on any committees that made decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishment,” Zalac added. “Decent people would call animal control for help, not get on Twitter to boast about having a really, really big gun.”
I would beg to differ with the ethically retarded (thank you, Rahm Emanuel) folks at PETA. Their brain-dead, morally twisted, moronic moonbattery is perfectly wrong. I, for one, draw a wealth of comfort knowing that a man like Representative King – a law abiding family man, with respect and reverence for the Second Amendment – is prepared to defend his home and family from all intruders, whether they be the two-legged or four-legged kind. I think it’s marvelous.
Too bad there weren’t more animals trying to gnaw their way into King’s home.
I’m sure he could have used the target practice.
And I hope he is a member of every committee in all of human existence – especially any that may be involved in decisions regarding cruel and unusual punishment. (I’m still waiting to hear how it’s safer to have a gun in the hand of one criminal instead of twenty million guns in the hands of twenty million law abiding citizens).
And spare me the “poor, little freezing animal in the woods looking for warmth” routine, okay?
For those who see human beings as a poison to the natural world – those who view humanity as toxic intruders – what, pray tell, would that poor little freezing raccoon have done if there wasn’t a house there for it to try and gnaw its way into? Would it have been forced to brave the cold and fend for itself, just as that species has always had to do?
After the last blizzard that pummeled the eastern United States, the countryside should have been littered with raccoon corpses who lost their lives scratching at the windows of warm wintertime human dwellings, no?
Posted in PETA, Second Amendment | Tagged: "conservative blog", Desert Eagle, Iowa Congressman, Iowa Representative, PETA, raccoon, Steve King | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 18, 2010
However you chose to commemorate the one year anniversary of the passage of Barack Obama’s $787 billion porkulus package yesterday – a dinner party with friends, a bowling night, an appendectomy – my hope is that you were afforded the opportunity to stroll down Stimulus Lane and relive some of the magic of the last twelve months. My wish is that you were able to get a true sense of how your hard-earned tax dollars were appropriated and put to work for the good of the country. My desire is that you were able to see for yourself that not an electron of waste nor a morsel of pork – according to the President – can be attributed to his almost one-trillion dollar spendulous extravaganza.
So, how exactly did you spend your Recovery Act Commemoration Day?
Assuming your festivities began with the President’s reaffirmation of its unparalleled success in rescuing the American economy from the ruinous Bush regime – and saving twenty billion jobs and keeping unemployment below twenty percent – I can only assume that you and yours must have pitched one hell of a wang dang doodle.
Personally, I ate pasta salad and snaked the bathroom sink.
How the President’s approval rating ever dipped below 72% is beyond me.
Of course, Senate Republicans – in their never-ending crusade to discredit the otherwise all-feeling, all-knowing, ever-compassionate Barry-O – continue to stop at nothing to portray the stimulus bill as an abject failure and a colossal waste of taxpayer money.
At the Republican.Senate.Gov blog, a list (complete with links) has been compiled highlighting some of the more “stimulating” aspects of the Obama’s porktabulous spend-a-thon.
Along with such economy-saving initiatives as sending $250 stimulus checks to prisoners, funding the construction of a turtle tunnel in Florida, and putting money aside to study cactus bug sex, these tasty projects made the list:
$219,000 TO STUDY THE SEX LIVES OF FEMALE COLLEGE FRESHMEN:
“Five hundred Syracuse University freshmen will divulge the details of their sex lives as part of a women’s health study called ‘The Women’s Health Project,’ being conducted by Michael Carey, SU professor of psychology and medicine. Carey has found himself the target of nationwide criticism from conservatives since he received $219,000 in stimulus funds for the study, which looks at the sex patterns of college women.”
$15,551 TO STUDY DRUNK MICE:
“The Rodent Study At Florida Atlantic University In Boca Raton Used $15,551 In Stimulus Funds To Pay For Two Summer Researchers To Help Gauge How Alcohol Affects A Mouse’s Motor Functions.”
$1 MILLION TO STUDY ANTS:
“Half A Million Dollars Went To Arizona State University To Study The Genetic Makeup Of Ants To Determine Distinctive Roles In Ant Colonies; $450,000 Went To The University Of Arizona To Study The Division Of Labor In Ant Colonies.”
$500,000 TO STUDY “SOCIAL NETWORKS LIKE FACEBOOK”:
“A $498,000, Three-Year Grant” To Study “Social Networks Like Facebook.” “Millions of Internet users have been enjoying the fun — and free — services provided by advertiser-supported online social networks like Facebook. But Landon Cox, a Duke University assistant professor of computer science, worries about the possible down side — privacy problems. … To delve deeper into these issues and begin the search for alternatives, Cox recently won a $498,000, three-year grant from the National Science Foundation.”
$54 MILLION IN STIMULUS FUNDS USED FOR THE NAPA VALLEY WINE TRAIN:
JONATHAN KARL, ABC News: “The Napa Valley Wine Train, To Tourists A Great Way To See America’s Most Celebrated Wine Region, To Others Exhibit A In What’s Wrong With The Stimulus.” SEN. TOM COBURN: “What that is, is a situation where you see the wealthy or well connected get taken care of and the community suffers.” KARL: “He’s talking about the Napa Valley wine train relocation project, 54 million stimulus dollars to build a new rail bridge, elevate and relocate 3,300 ft of tracks and put flood walls around the train’s main station.”
You can imagine that as a New York Mets fan, I am simply thrilled to know my tax dollars are also helping to pay for a spring training baseball complex for both the Arizona Diamondbacks and the Colorado Rockies.
And a pox upon me for neglecting to mention the removal of cracks and potholes in Montana tennis courts – as pork-free as any recession-busting, economic recovery project can get.
As is the study of honeybees.
Or the study of malt liquor and marijuana consumption.
And just think … not all of the stimulus money has yet been spent.
Just wait until they get to studying the effects of crushed ice on nasal mucus, and the long term ramifications of neglected toe jam.
Happy Birthday, Trillion-Dollar Excrement-Fest!
Posted in Big Government, stimulus bill | Tagged: "conservative blog", $787 billion, Obama, one year anniversary of Recovery Bill, porkulus bill, Recovery Act, spendulous bill, stimulus bill | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 12, 2010
I hate to be the bearer of bad news – unless, of course, it involves the defeating of Democrats and you happen to be one of those people who would find such news troubling – but for all of you entrepreneurs and moguls who had your hearts set on opening a little gift shop or flower store in Saudi Arabia, you may want to re-evaluate your strategy.
Nothing says “no” to free enterprise like Sharia Law.
Whereas in the business world being “in the red” is a financial negative, in Saudi Arabia, it has a far more serious connotation.
Saudi religious police launched a campaign Thursday to prevent hotels and stores from making any special preparations ahead of Valentine’s Day, celebrated worldwide on February 14.
Flower shops are forbidden to sell red roses. Toy stores have hidden red teddy bears and sweet shops put away the heart-shaped boxes they sell throughout the year for fear that the religious police might seize them.
‘Anyone who does not respond to our demands will be subjected to punishment,’ announced the police spokesman, known as the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice.
This is not to be confused with the Department of Throat Slicing and Advanced Decapitation, which generally stays out of areas of commerce.
Each year, a few days before Valentine’s Day, the commission warns shops, hotels and restaurants against celebrating it in any way. They also increase their presence in public parks and places where young people meet, to catch anyone who breaks the rules.
While gift shops comply with these rules, sales are reportedly up by 50 per cent over the past few days, despite the increasing prices that accompany the celebrations.
A few years ago, Saudi Arabia’s top cleric, Sheikh Abdul-Aziz al-Sheikh described Valentine’s Day as ‘a pagan holiday.’
Keep your head up, Mr. Business Tycoon.
Don’t give up.
The Saudi business climate can still be conducive to creativity and ingenuity. You might try a kosher deli in Medina, or a strip club in Mecca.
Posted in Islam | Tagged: "conservative blog", red roses, Saudi Arabia, Sharia Law, Valentines Day | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2010
No, that sound you heard was not another tongue-clacking liberal demonstrating why leadership needs to be left to the adults.
It was simply Michael Steele … again.
With every ounce of due respect I can muster, this man’s act is painfully tired.
It’s time to pull out a “farewell to thee” out of petty cash.
I’m sure he’s a wonderfully personable guy – the kind you’d like to hang out with while watching the game, or share a platter of cocktail franks with – but so is the guy who replaced my shocks. That doesn’t mean he is qualified to be the head a political party.
I hate to be the one to break it to Mr. Steele, but it is not advantageous or strategically sound for the Chairman of the Republican National Committee to sound like a typical, non-substantive liberal whinycrat.
I’m out on a limb, I know.
Not that I have ever found him particularly motivating or very effective at his job. I don’t really care for the way he’s “led” the Republican Party – especially during this time of across-the-board Democrat implosion and plummeting poll numbers.
As the Obamacracy continues to sputter, you’d think one would realize, at least in theory, that the door is wide open for the GOP.
This should be the time when a real party leader steps in and makes things happen for the party. This should be a time when a real leader picks up the ball and marches it down the field – especially when the opposition’s defense is non-existent. Outside of a two-thousand foot tall, two-million watt neon sign outside of RNC Headquarters flashing, “Hey, Republicans, This Is Your Shot!” I’m not sure how much more obvious it can be.
Unfortunately, Steele has fallen far short.
One minute he’s convinced Republicans can’t win in November, the next minute he’s saying they can – maybe, sort of.
You may recall that, according to Steele, white Republicans are afraid of him. You may also recall his inability – or reluctance – to respond when D. L. Hughley said the Republican National Convention looked like Nazi Germany. Steele sat there like a soggy Wheat Thin and let it go.
Of course, Steele, by his own admission, never ever plays the race card.
On that point, he‘s absolutely right … except, of course, when he plays the race card.
Greg Sargent at the Plum Line blog writes:
It’s been awhile since Michael Steele has landed himself in the news, but this might stir things up again: In a new interview, Steele bluntly suggests criticism of his tenure — and all the media coverage it’s garnered — may be motivated by racism.
The story, called “Up in the Air,” is in the February issue of Washingtonian magazine, and it isn’t online yet, but here’s the key passage, buried way at the end of the piece, on page 96 of the mag:
Steele acknowledges that at times he has a tendency to take things too far. “And I get checked on that, just as when I was a young boy and I pushed the envelope too far and my Mama was there to check me.”
But there’s an edge to his voice when he talks about a double standard that he believes has been applied by his critics, and he posits racism as the cause: “I don’t see stories about the internal operations of the DNC that I see about this operation. Why? Is it because Michael Steele is the chairman, or is it because a black man is chairman?”
The larger context of the story is the tension created by the fact that Steele continues to take constant criticism, despite the GOP’s undeniable gains and the likelihood of more advances in the future.
There are two ways of reading Steele’s stab at an explanation: Either Steele is suggesting the media gives more ink to the RNC’s inner workings because a black man is chairman, or he’s suggesting that fellow Republicans are leaking damaging info about the RNC because a black man is chairman.
Either way, it seems at odds with his claim back in November that he doesn’t “play the race card” or “play the race game.”
On one hand, I agree whole-heartedly with the assertion that liberals are far more obsessed with race than conservatives. It is demonstrably so. And perhaps there is some truth in the notion that the left-leaning mainstream media pays a little extra attention to Steele because he’s black. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit. The media is always looking to pounce on right-leaning blacks for any sign that their “blackness” is inauthentic.
But Steele has been such a stunning disappointment to conservatives, and has shoved his foot in his mouth so many times, my initial reaction to all of this is to tell him (respectfully) to shut up, step aside, and allow a real leader to step in.
Incompetence is color blind.
Many of us on the right are disgruntled with him because he is bad. Not black.
Besides, Mr. Steele leaves himself open to easy pot shots. If criticisms of him are based on his color, as he suggests, Steele loses a whole lot of credibility when he says that criticisms of Barack Obama are not.
It makes our side look like Democrats.
Posted in Racism, Republican Politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Michael Steele, race card, Racism, Republican National Committee Chairman, RNC | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 8, 2010
I was fortunate enough to get a quick mention on Dennis Prager’s radio show earlier today by name, not because of this blog or anything, but because I found myself doing something I wouldn’t normally do – namely, correcting something the host said.
Admittedly, I felt funny doing it, seeing as I admire Dennis very much. My intent was not to show him up or get the better of him by any means
He was simply wrong on a point he was making and I felt it needed correcting in order for the point to be more effective.
Besides, he welcomes corrections.
They don’t occur very often, but when they do, he embraces them, you might say.
I couldn’t get through on the phone, so I e-mailed the show toward the end of the first hour. Much to my delight, Dennis came out of a commercial break during the second hour and announced my correction to an assertion he made regarding last night’s Focus On The Family Super Bowl commercial featuring Heisman Trophy winner Tim Tebow, and his mother, Pam.
Before it ever hit TV screens across America, the spot caused a much-publicized uuproar among many pro-abortionists for what was anticipated to be an “in your face” pro-life message. Based on how controversial the ad was supposed to be, Dennis was among those on the right who felt the ad shouldn’t air. His position raised more than a few eyebrows among his conservative brethren.
After all, why would any conservative not want to see an ad on television that advocated for a genuine conservative value – namely, the right to life? In a world where the mainstream media is so obviously slanted left, one would think that such a thing would garner unanimity among conservatives.
Leading up to the Super Bowl, Prager made it very clear that he personally supported the pro-life position. He had no problem with the Focus On The Family message in and of itself, but his reservations were rooted in his displeasure of having advocacy ads airing during the Super Bowl – or any other sporting event, for that matter. He felt that allowing one controversial, issues-based ad to air would open the door to a slew of politically-charged commercials, which would eventually devolve into an all-out political ad war. The Super Bowl, he argued, was no place for that kind of sparring. In a nation already rife with political discontent, there should be some venues, he argued, free from such things.
It’s a fair argument.
Of course, as it turned out, the ad was neither controversial nor political in any way. In fact, after seeing it twice, as Dennis explained today, unless a viewer specifically knew what Focus On The Family was all about, he or she would be hard pressed to attach any political position whatsoever to the spot. On its face, it was about a Mom loving his Son, sponsored by some family oriented organization. While Dennis continued to maintain that advocacy spots should not be aired during broadcasts like the Super Bowl, Dennis conceded that the Tim Tebow spot did not fall into that category.
Pam and Tim Tebow
Where Dennis made his mistake was in his description of the commercial’s ending for his audience. According to him, the commercial’s final scene, although very brief, gave away the fact that it was, indeed, a pro-life ad – not because the Focus On The Family web address came on screen, but because the phrase “pro life” appeared in the closing graphic. Dennis argued that if not for that, it would have been impossible to know what the ad was advocating, other than Mom and Son love eachother.
He went on to say that even with the short appearance of the words “pro life” at the end, the commercial was not the kind of issues-oriented ad he spoke out against prior to the Super Bowl.
He ultimately had no problem with the commercial.
Dennis got into a debate with one caller who claimed the commercial was clearly an advocacy ad precisely because the Focus On The Family web address was shown. According to the caller, that alone made it an issues-based spot because all one would need to do is go to the website and see that the organization is, in fact, a pro life organization (among other things). Dennis challenged the caller, saying that no one could possibly know that it was an anti-abortion commercial by its contents – except for the final graphic featuring the words “pro life.”
The problem with Prager’s otherwise effective argument is that the words “pro life” do not appear anywhere in the ad – not even at the end, as he stated.
There isn’t a hint of anti-abortion to be found in that spot – and that’s where I felt Dennis needed to be corrected.
His argument was worth hearing – and it was a good one – but for the sake of clarity (Dennis’ best friend), the facts needed to be sound.
On its content, the ad was as much an anti-abortion spot as it was an anti-tofu burger spot.
What actually does appear at the end of the ad are the thoroughly innocuous and inoffensive phrases “celebrate family” and “celebrate life” – and who, in their right mind, could argue with those sentiments?
Not even leftists. (I think).
The Tim Tebow spot was as antispeptic and non-controversial as a commercial could be.
Unless one is ready to make the claim that Life cereal is an anti-abortion breakfast food or that Milton Bradley’s “Game Of Life” is a disguised effort to undermine Planned Parenthood, the most talked-about Super Bowl commercial turned out to be the most wholesome one of them all.
Posted in abortion, Television, Values | Tagged: "conservative blog", anti-abortion, Dennis Prager, Focus On The Family, Super Bowl ad, Super Bowl commercial, Tim Tebow | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 4, 2010
"It's yours." "No, it's yours."
It’s fairly common.
Talk radio hosts will field phone calls from liberal callers who, when asked to offer their take on President Obama’s skyrocketing deficit numbers, will inevitably, unfailingly, reflexively bring up George W. Bush. (I think it’s a law now). After all, as is made evident on a daily basis by this administration, there wasn’t anything in all of recorded human existence impervious to W’s gross mismanagement and downright destructiveness, particularly during the dark wilderness that defined America’s “BB” days (Before Barack). The inexpungible mark President Bush left on this nation was (and is) so ubiquitous, even eight disastrous years (God forbid) of Barack Obama can (and will) be overlooked by rational people, because no man – not even a Messiah – could ever hope to salvage anything from the splintered wreckage left by W.
Barack Obama’s budget, even by conservative estimates, will catapult America’s deficit to levels never seen before – and yet somehow, astoundingly, Democrats are talking about fiscal responsibility. It’s like a Weight Watchers class going out for chili dogs and cheeseburgers after the meeting.
And while this administration continues to count on the stupidity of the American public to buy into their “let’s spend our way out of debt” approach, they have no problem continuing to cite the deficits they inherited from George W. Bush when confronted with challenges to their own spend-and-more-spend agenda.
“Look at the hole Bush dug us into before we got here,” they say.
“You best look at what Bush did before you start pointing fingers this way,” they’ll exclaim.
But as political analysts Dick Morris and Eileen McGann write at Townhall.com, Obamacrats are not telling the whole truth.
President Obama was disingenuous when he said that the budget deficit he faced “when I walked in the door” of the White House was $1.3 trillion. He went on to say that he only increased it to $1.4 trillion in 2009 and was raising it to $1.6 trillion in 2010.
As Joe Wilson said, “You lie.”
Here are the facts:
In 2008, George W. Bush ran a deficit of $485 billion. By the time the fiscal year started on Oct.1, 2008, it had gone up by another $100 billion due to increased recession-related spending and depressed revenues. So it was $600 billion. That was the real Bush deficit.
But when the fiscal crisis hit, Bush had to pass TARP in the final months of his presidency, which cost $700 billion. Under the federal budget rules, a loan and a grant are treated the same. So the $700 billion pushed the deficit — officially — up to $1.3 trillion. But not really. The $700 billion was a short-term loan, and $500 billion of it has already been repaid.
So what was the real deficit Obama inherited? The $600 billion deficit Bush was running plus the $200 billion of TARP money that probably won’t be repaid (mainly AIG and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). That totals $800 billion. That was the real deficit Obama inherited.
So what, pray tell, happened once The One set up shop in the White House?
Then … he added $300 billion in his stimulus package, bringing the deficit to $1.1 trillion. And falling revenues and other increased welfare spending pushed it up to $1.4 trillion.
So, effectively, Obama came close to doubling the deficit.
It’s interesting to note that while the President continues to claim he inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, he takes full credit for rescuing America’s financial institutions.
I admit to being quite impressed.
Being able to speak so well out of both sides of the mouth is no menial task.
It is the TARP money – $700 billion – that is credited with saving the banks, which is more than half of the deficit Obama says he inherited from Bush. To date, as Morris and McGann point out, $500 billion of that has been paid back.
It takes real talent to do what Obama does. He blames Bush for the deficit created by TARP, but takes credit for the results.
The fact is, President Obama is the proprietor and general manager of the largest deficit and largest budget on record – and no matter how many pins lefties keep sticking their little “W” dolls, it won’t change the fact that Obama owns it now.
It is all his.
Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", $1.3 trillion, $700 billion, deficit, Dick Morris, Eileen McGann, George W. Bush, Obama, TARP | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 3, 2010
Rosie O’Donnell is America’s favorite pinup girl. Al Sharpton really does care about justice for all. Nancy Pelosi is the nation’s most trusted politician. Barack Obama doesn’t believe in big government.
How many times would you have to read those lines before you started believing they were true? Most of you would sooner shove a serrated ice pick into your retina.
Still, there comes a point – for some – when sheer repetition trumps reality. There is a time when repeating something over and over becomes so familiar to those within earshot that it is simply accepted or believed.
Take our President, for example.
Whatever land he is living in must currently be cracking down, because the rational are being detained at the border.
Once again, Bammy is talking up the success of his stimulus bill, going on about how many jobs have been “saved” or “created.” Once again, the President is repeating something that is, at the very least, impossible to substantiate, and at most, a catastrophic fraud.
In his case, reality has already been trumped.
Jake Tapper from ABC News writes:
President Obama veered off script – and away from the facts – when he spoke about the stimulus bill today in Nashua, NH.
“Now, if you hear some of the critics, they’ll say, well, the Recovery Act, I don’t know if that’s really worked, because we still have high unemployment,” the president said. “But what they fail to understand is that every economist, from the left and the right, has said, because of the Recovery Act, what we’ve started to see is at least a couple of million jobs that have either been created or would have been lost. The problem is, 7 million jobs were lost during the course of this recession.”
Um, it’s not true that “every economist” has said the Recovery Act has saved or created two million jobs.
What have some of them said?
The chair of his Council of Economic Advisers Christina Romer wrote last month that “The CEA estimates that as of the fourth quarter of 2009, the ARRA has raised employment relative to what it otherwise would have been by 1½ to 2 million.”
In her blog she wrote “approximately 2 million people are employed who otherwise would not be, because of the Act.”
At the end of November, Congressional Budget office Director Douglas Elmendorf wrote that because of the stimulus bill “in the third quarter of calendar year 2009, an additional 600,000 to 1.6 million people were employed in the United States..”
But clearly other economists are much more skeptical, including Dan Mitchell at the libertarian Cato Institute, and J.D. Foster at The Heritage Foundation.
Some economists say the whole notion of counting “saved or created” jobs is impossible. Harvard University labor economist Lawrence Katz told ProPublica that trying to count how many jobs have been saved or created is “a silly exercise.”
And in fact, in December the Office of Management and Budget director Peter Orszag issued a directive scrapping the whole “saved or created” construct.
So, there are no economists anywhere who have not bought into this hogwash?
Just like there are no scientists who refute the perils of man-made global warming?
The same thinking that has me wondering why anyone would trust the government to handle health care reform when they couldn’t handle already existing government programs like Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, also has me asking why anyone in their right mind would trust anything the administration is saying about jobs being “saved” when they had such a perplexing time making sure that the districts receiving stimulus cash actually existed.
The entire stimulus recovery angle is a myth – much like the “climate change” hoax, or the “most transparent administration in history” garbage.
There are endless stories out there on how the “saved” and “created” criteria were painfully flawed.
Recall that entire zip codes didn’t exist, yet jobs were miraculously created or saved there.
Also keep in mind that the vast majority of these “saved jobs” were government jobs, so the entire premise, even if true, is misleading.
And yet, the President and his chums will keep saying “two million jobs” over and over again until it morphs into conventional wisdom. With bed fellows like the mainstream media, it’s only a matter of time before two million becomes two-and-a-half million. Then, it’ll be rounded up to three million. Before July 4th, the President will have saved or created twenty-eight million new jobs. The only reason there will be any unemployed at that point will be the fault of George W. Bush.
It’ll be repeated so often, it will become “true.”
Well, not here.
It’s all a crock of boiling excrement.
Posted in stimulus bill | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, jobs created, jobs saved, Recovery Act, spedulous bill, stimulus bill, Stimulus Package | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 2, 2010
Hypothetically speaking …
As a small business owner, if the federal government was offering me “stimulus money” for the purpose of keeping an employee or hiring someone new, I’d have no choice – economically or morally – but to give it back. There is simply no way on God’s green earth that I, or any other small business owner, would (or could) actually use so-called stimulus cash to put someone to work or keep someone on the payroll.
It doesn’t even make sense, does it?
I run a business out here in the private sector – or as I refer to it, Obama’s toilet. How am I – or anyone else in the trenches – supposed to benefit from such a moronic, ill-conceived handout program?
To me, the idea of expanding government by hiring people is bad enough. But the thought of having my neighbors relinquish more of their hard-earned money so that I could temporarily “save” an employee’s job in my private sector business, assuming such a dumb thing would ever work, is inconceivable to me.
And if, in some alternate universe, I could retain an employee based on a government handout, how in the world would that be a good thing?
How does taking from the earners make for a healthy economy?
Honestly, listening to liberals speak is sometimes like having someone run a cheese grater along the back of your leg.
Assuming the economy is limping along – which it would have to be to warrant a stimulus money infusion – how does paying someone with other people’s money to keep someone else employed help my business? How does it generate capital? How does it keep me a viable competitor in the market place? In other words, if I am not seeing any real-world increase in business – if the only boost in income is artificial – what happens when the handout dries up? Do I then fire the person whose job I was supposedly “saving?” Do I keep that person on and raise prices during an economic downturn?
Do liberals ever think ahead?
Of course, the vast majority of jobs supposedly “saved” or “created” by President Obama’s stimulus bill were government jobs.
Thus, what President Obama really accomplished was sucking money out of the economy – always a bad move during tough economic times – and redistributing it in the form of paychecks.
Sounds like a winning plan, doesn’t it?
Well, brace yourselves. The future looks very bright ahead … for high-paying, non-private sector jobs, that is.
Susan Adams from Forbes.com, writing for ABC News:
While companies large and small continue to shrink their workforces, the federal government remains on a steady hiring course across the country.
Uncle Sam will hire 600,000 people over the next four years, a 50% increase over the previous four, reports Max Stier of the Washington-based Partnership for Public Service, a group that promotes government jobs.
Six-hundred thousand over four years?
Despite popular notions to the contrary, an increase in the number of public-sector jobs is not something to be tripping the light fantastic over. It is no indicator of recovery. I’m not sure why this concept eludes leftists. It’s unclear to those who tend toward rational thought why such monumental wastes of taxpayer dollars, like the construction of light rail systems where they aren’t needed, are seen as positive, productive endeavors.
In what universe? How exactly?
(Those leftists love their light rail systems, don’t they?)
Next to President Obama’s policies, I don’t know that there is anything quite as empty as the cars in Seattle’s never-used, taxpayer raping trains.
There’s nothing like confiscating money from private citizens to pay the salaries of people who hold jobs that would never exist in the private sector.
Please don’t misunderstand me.
I’m not talking about jobs that almost everyone agrees are best handled by government – military, police, fire protection, etc. Yes, there are legitimate functions of government.
Rather, I’m talking about useless government expansion for the purpose of “putting people to work.”
When the government outpaces the private sector in both job growth and pay – which it has been, and will continue to do under President Obama – the word unsustainable comes to mind.
And with projected record deficits of well over a trillion dollars ahead – that’s just the deficit, not the total debt – it won’t be long before those making over $150,000 … then a $100,000 … then $75,000 … will all become America’s wealthy class – and subject accordingly to Obamacrat tax increases.
Under President Obama, we’ve made it!
Posted in Big Government, Economy, stimulus bill | Tagged: "conservative blog", Big Government, government jobs, public-sector jobs, stimulus bill, Stimulus Package | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on February 1, 2010
All of that “hockey stick” talk turned out to be a load of balderdash, but it hasn’t been enough. The inability of scientists to explain why the world isn’t warming anymore doesn’t seem to matter. The fact that not a single computer model managed to predict the current cooling patterns hasn’t seemed to curb anyone’s hysteria. The reality that global temperatures are trending down is explained away as being “part of the larger climate change problem.” The fact that no one can seem to tell us what the correct temperature should be hasn’t stopped the climate fascists from pushing their agenda. The idea that the world’s leading authorities on global warming were caught in a disgraceful data manipulation scandal has not kept the zealots at bay.
To be clear, the polar bear population is not decreasing, the Arctic will not lose all of its ice inside of five years, coastal cities are not in danger of being submerged beneath ice-cap melting floods, and using multiple squares of toilet paper will not make Sheryl Crowe’s music sound any better.
But it doesn’t matter.
The science is settled. We’re just waiting on the data to catch up.
A couple of weeks ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had to retract a claim that “climate change” would likely melt the Himalayan glaciers by the year 2035. The “warning” was not based on peer-reviewed science, mind you, but on anecdotal observations from a magazine.
The fact is, even with climatic conditions at their ice-melting worst, it would likely take hundreds of years for all of that ice to turn to water.
But wait, it gets better.
This time, the anecdotally-based “science” concerns the Amazon rain forests.
Jonathan Leake at the Times Online writes:
A STARTLING report by the United Nations climate watchdog that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest was based on an unsubstantiated claim by green campaigners who had little scientific expertise.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 benchmark report that even a slight change in rainfall could see swathes of the rainforest rapidly replaced by savanna grassland.
The source for its claim was a report from WWF, an environmental pressure group, which was authored by two green activists. They had based their “research” on a study published in Nature, the science journal, which did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning. This weekend WWF said it was launching an internal inquiry into the study.
So, they heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend who heard it from another …
The latest controversy originates in a report called A Global Review of Forest Fires, which WWF published in 2000. It was commissioned from Andrew Rowell, a freelance journalist and green campaigner who has worked for Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and anti-smoking organisations. The second author was Peter Moore, a campaigner and policy analyst with WWF.
In their report they suggested that “up to 40% of Brazilian rainforest was extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall” but made clear that this was because drier forests were more likely to catch fire.
The IPCC report picked up this reference but expanded it to cover the whole Amazon. It also suggested that a slight reduction in rainfall would kill many trees directly, not just by contributing to more fires.
And where, pray tell, is the media on this one? Where are all the young, fraud-hungry Woodward and Bernsteins out there? How is it that this little masterpiece isn’t making the rounds?
And when will we finally be able to say goodbye to those God-forsaken squiggly light bulbs?
And can I get a great big “hip-hip-hooray” for those engine idling, incandescent bulb burning, over flatulating, anti-environment types?
It’s damn cold here in New York.
Posted in global climate change, Global Warming, Junk Science | Tagged: "conservative blog", Amazon rain forest, bogus report, environmentalism, global cooling, Global Warming, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC, WWF | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 22, 2010
I can sum this up in short order.
Not that anything I say will make any difference to my leftist brethren, mind you. (I don’t expect it to). I’m a conservative, so any policy position I support will confirm in the suspicious minds of the tolerant class that I am motivated by sinister motives.
Because true compassion is not possible from a conservative – only conniving manipulations devised to feed fat cat wallets at the expense of the everyday American – I am to be considered any one (if not all) of the following: homophone, xenophobe, sexist, racist, intolerant and bigoted. (Thank you Dennis Prager for the list).
What else could explain it?
Only embittered, child-eating, puppy punching, gun-wielding, Neanderthal beasts who enjoy putting butterflies in the microwave to watch them explode, or feed Alka Seltzer tablets to baby ducks, can really support conservative positions. It’s simply not possible to support such things as traditional marriage, gun ownership and less-intrusive government without being an intolerant, knuckle-dragging troglodyte.
Well, to the best of my ability, I’ll make this catastrophically simple so even a caveman can understand it … or a liberal.
I am tremendously confident that I speak for the overwhelming vast majority of conservatives when I say that those of us who are proponents of a strong immigration policy (i.e., a strong anti-illegal alien policy) couldn’t care less about the skin tones, ethnicities or ancestral origins of the infiltrators.
Not a damn thing.
Do you hear?
Naturally, I can hear the screeching Leftocrat class call me a liar, pointing their fingers, proclaiming that folks like me would rather see illegal alien babies rotting in the gutters of our American cities than fork out any more tax dollars to feed them, clothe them and give them, at the very least, some old newspapers to wrap up in to stay warm.
Lib perceptions of how Conservatives think can be summed up in what Howard Dean famously said in 2005: “Our moral values, in contradiction to the Republicans’, is we don’t think kids ought to go to bed hungry at night.”
Dean must’ve had someone well-disguised sneak into one of our meetings, because I’m not sure how he found out. It’s only a matter of time before the Dems find out about our “My Little Swastika” line of stuffed animals and snack cakes.
I’ve said this before, and I will say it until I am Massachusetts-blue in the face: There is nothing less relevant to me than one’s race or ethnicity.
But that’s not what some of the big boys on the Left believe.
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, the genius behind the Daily Kos, truly believes, for instance, that because we on the right are for securing our borders and cracking down on illegals, we obviously “hate brown people.”
Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, a Democratic strategist and founder of the left-wing blog “The Daily Kos,” told reporters Thursday that “comprehensive immigration reform” legislation sponsored by Rep. Luiz Gutierrez (D-Ill.) — which would provide a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens — has a good shot at passage this year.
But Moulitsas said that “teabaggers” and Republicans who “hate brown people” would try to push back against it.
“I think the votes want to be there in the Senate — I think the House is fairly solid — I think the votes want to be there,” he said of an immigration bill’s chances, “but you have this growing ‘teabagger’ movement that is going to be pushing very hard from the other side.”
There’s that word again … “teabagger.”
Not that the word is meant in the pejorative sense or anything.
He and Roger Ebert ought to play mahjong.
The fact is, the people who come into America illegally from the country south of the Rio Grande could be pasty, white-skinned, blonde-haired, hazel-eyed English-speakers who look like they just came from summer camp in the North of Ireland, and conservatives like me would still feel the same exact way about them – that they have no business being here, and they need to go about the process of entering (and eventually staying) in the country legally. It has absolutely nothing to do with “hating brown people.”
It’s about national security, economic stability, controlling crime, and making America a better place for her citizens and those who wish to come here the right way.
My Lord, can liberals ever get off the race and ethnicity thing?
Incidentally, there already exists a “pathway to citizenship” … the same one my ancestors followed: the law.
Posted in illegal immigration, Racism, Values | Tagged: "conservative blog", conservative bigotry, Daily Kos, illeagal aliens, illegal immigration, Racism, teabaggers | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010
From the “Fancy That” file …
The religion of peace is wrapping its ever-loving, all-inclusive arms around the dregs of American society and inviting them to blow up infidels. According to a new Senate report, it turns out that a number of ex-convicts who saw the light and converted to Islam while behind bars in American prisons have made the most out of their post-incarceration lives by going to Yemen and trying to become new Al Qaeda team members.
(But don’t think it necessarily has anything to do with Islam).
Richard Sisk of the New York Daily News writes:
The focus on ex-cons was part of an intensified effort by Al Qaeda to involve Americans who could more easily slip through security and pose a “significant threat” to carry out attacks in the U.S., said Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
“These Americans are not necessarily of Arab or South Asian descent” but “include individuals who converted to Islam in prison,” Kerry said in a foreword to the report by his committee.
As many as 36 of the ex-cons, nearly half from New York, were believed to be in Yemen, and U.S. counterterror officials were on “heightened alert because of the potential threat from extremists carrying American passports,” the report said.
The FBI and CIA were also concerned about a separate group of fewer than 10 Americans without criminal records who went to Yemen, converted to Islam and married Yemeni women to be allowed to remain in the country.
The report quoted a U.S. official who described the smaller group as “blond-haired, blue eyed-types” who fit the profile of Americans wanted by Al Qaeda for terror missions.
So Al Qaeda is racially profiling?
Most interesting (and painfully typical of those who live in Leftsville) is this post from a blogger at the Daily News website called hjo4:
When you keep people disenfranchised, placing them in prison, the only (thing) that’s being done is that we’re creating Home grown terrorist. I often wondered what would America’s reaction be when her own citizens became suicide bombers, I guess we’ll find out.
So, according to hjo4, imprisoning people – which disenfranchises them – transforms these individuals into home-grown terrorists.
In short, we are to blame.
We keep people disenfranchised.
By coming down hard on larcenists, thieves and embezzlers, we alienate them. By laying down the law with child abusers, sexual deviants and violent miscreants, we make felons feel terrible about themselves. By throwing murderers and rapists behind bars, we shackle the souls within.
Where has the self-esteem inside our nation’s prisons gone?
This is one reason why the closing of Guantanamo Bay won’t be happening anytime soon, despite President Obama’s waffle-in-the-sky dreams of eradicating everything George W. Bush.
Real life has a way of intruding on the dreams of even the most idealistic water walkers.
But it doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with Islam. What about all of those abortion clinic bombers?
Posted in Foreign Policy, Middle East, national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", al-Qaeda, ex-cons, ex-convicts, terrorism, Yemen | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 20, 2010
The dancing in the streets has subsided, the sun has risen on a brand new day, the reality has sunken in, and the Democrat supermajority is history. The morning after the racist, homophobe from the Bay State snagged the empty Senate seat left behind by a half-century of Teddy, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts – and, indeed, all of America – is poised to move into uncharted, post-Kennedy territory.
It’s a strange new world.
Regardless of what the spinsters on the Left say; despite the tripe that’ll fly from the mouths of Obamacrat and pundit alike; no matter what the apologists and disciples hawk, this most definitely was a referendum on the Obama administration. Indeed, this was a national election. This was an indictment of Obamacrat leftism. This was a huge smackback in the face of the President and his vastly unpopular, radical initiative of health care reform.
Without a heavy diet of hallucinogens, there is simply no other way to spin it.
Scott Brown, a Republican, is Massachusetts’s next Senator – only weeks removed from being down by double-digits in the polls against the contemptible Leftocrat, Martha Coakley – but he is, more importantly, this nation’s symbol of how peaceful revolutions are conducted. (What a difference one year makes). What was, by any stretch of the imagination, an impossibility, is now a shocking reality. The idea that a Republican would replace Ted Kennedy in a state where left is center, center is right, and right is Hitler, is unthinkable.
The fact is, the atrocity that is Barack Obama’s health care reform took a big hit last night.
But don’t worry. That won’t stop Dems from quickly regrouping and trying to figure out other subversive, dishonest and underhanded ways to get health care done, despite the wishes of the American people; despite the glaring message sent to Washington last night with the election of Scott Brown; despite the deposing of Democrat governors in New Jersey and Virginia; despite disastrous poll numbers.
They still know best … and they’ll tell you so.
Dems still have two words up their sleeves: Nuclear Option.
A few hours before Brown was declared the winner, Trish Turner at Fox News wrote:
A top Senate Democrat for the first time Tuesday acknowledged that the party is prepared to deal with health care reform by using a controversial legislative tactic known as the “nuclear option” if Republican Scott Brown wins the Massachusetts Senate election.
Calling the state’s special election “an uphill battle to put it mildly,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said “there are options to still pursue health care” should Democrat Martha Coakley lose to Brown.
Well, Coakley did lose to Brown, and don’t think for a single moment that some donkeys aren’t banging their skulls together trying to figure out a way to go nuclear.
…Durbin said, the Senate could make changes to the bill by using the nuclear option, known formally as “reconciliation,” a tactic that would allow Democrats to adjust parts of health care reform with just a 51-vote majority.
“We could go to something called ‘reconciliation’, which is in the weeds procedurally, but would allow us to modify that health care bill by a different process that doesn’t require 60 votes, only a majority,” Durbin said. “So that is one possibility there.”
But other Democrats are saying it would be political suicide to move forward and not recognize that last night’s victory by Brown was, indeed, a referendum on not only ObamaCare but on how the government operates.
Susan Davis at the Wall Street Journal writes:
Virginia Democratic Sen. Jim Webb is calling for a time-out on the health care overhaul until Republican Sen.-elect Scott Brown is seated following his upset victory in the Massachusetts Senate race.
Calling the race “a referendum not only on health care reform but also on the openness and integrity of our government process” Webb said Democrats need to hold off on further action until Brown is formally sworn in to the chamber.
“It is vital that we restore the respect of the American people in our system of government and in our leaders. To that end, I believe it would only be fair and prudent that we suspend further votes on health care legislation until Senator-elect Brown is seated,” he said.
The chances that the House will simply go along with the Senate version of the bill is on par with wishing for world peace or a Chicago Cubs World Series appearance.
It just isn’t going to happen.
Congressman Stephen Lynch from Massachusetts said it best: “If it comes down to that Senate bill or nothing, I think we are going to end with nothing because I don’t hear a lot of support on our side for that bill.”
Last night’s stunning win for Brown will send enough Dems scrambling to the railings of the good ship ObamaCare to stop the bill in its tracks, despite the bloviations of Madame Speaker. Nancy Pelosi, of course, has pledged to move forward, no matter what – through typhoon, flood and botox – to make sure a health care bill passes as soon as humanly possible.
But even Congressman Barney Frank has caught a whiff from the political coffee pot:
“I have two reactions to the election in Massachusetts. One, I am disappointed. Two, I feel strongly that the Democratic majority in Congress must respect the process and make no effort to bypass the electoral results. If Martha Coakley had won, I believe we could have worked out a reasonable compromise between the House and Senate health care bills. But since Scott Brown has won and the Republicans now have 41 votes in the Senate, that approach is no longer appropriate. I am hopeful that some Republican Senators will be willing to discuss a revised version of health care reform because I do not think that the country would be well-served by the health care status quo. But our respect for democratic procedures must rule out any effort to pass a health care bill as if the Massachusetts election had not happened. “
Sometimes, even Democrats can read the writing on the wall.
Some of them anyway.
It speaks volumes that Democrats consider themselves defeated, even with 59 Seante seats. The Obamacrat agenda is so radical, so out-of-touch with America, they know only a supermajority could ever push it through.
And that says it all.
Posted in Elections, health care, Uncategorized | Tagged: "conservative blog", 41 Republican Senators, health care debate, health care reform, Martha Coakley, Massachusetts Senate seat, Nuclear Option, Obamacare, Scott Brown | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
As Democrats shiver in their political moccasins anticipating what will be a devastating loss in Massachusetts should the Republican, Scott Brown, seize Ted Kennedy’s old Senate seat later today, the real issue of what will happen to health care reform without a donkey supermajority looms large. While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vows that a health care bill will pass no matter what happens, including a Brown victory, others are not so sure – or arrogant.
Democrat congressman Anthony Weiner from New York has been as honest as anyone in understanding how crushing of a defeat it will be for his party – and health care reform – should the detestable Martha Coakley lose to Scott.
On today’s edition of “Morning Joe” on MSNBC, Weiner had the following exchange with one of the panel members:
Panel Guy: Let’s say, for argument’s sake, she loses. Let’s just assume that for a moment. What happens to health care? We’ve heard that, perhaps, the Senate will ask the House to sign the Senate bill as is. What’s the next move if you only have 59 senators?
Weiner: I think you could make a pretty good argument that health care might be dead.
Panel Guy: Really?
Weiner: Yeah … I think it’s going to be very hard to ask us in the House to take the Senate bill when everyone acknowledges it was a worse bill. Everyone said the only reason we were passing the Senate bill was to move the ball forward.
I happen to agree with Weiner on this one – I just don’t think there’s a Hagen Dazs chance in Hades for the Senate version of ObamaCrap to meet with House approval.
Dems may, indeed, attempt to come up with something through reconciliation, but the process is an arduous one. The already rapidly declining shelf life of health care reform may long have run out by then.
H/T to RealClearPolitics.
Posted in health care | Tagged: "conservative blog", "Morning Joe", Anthony Weiner, health care reform, Massachusetts Senate seat, reconciliation, Scott Brown, special Massachusetts election, Ted Kennedy's Senate seat | 1 Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
Actually, Barack Obama is very transparent. There’s really nothing cryptic or mysterious about him – except maybe his college transcripts. He is a floundering leftist without a single intelligible plan (other than punishing achievement and the free market), without a single accomplishment to speak of, and void of any sense of what it means to be Commander-In-Chief.
And those are his strengths.
His first year in office has been a case study in impotence and infirmity. Still, he is driven by an enormously overpowering, yet completely translucent, conceit. He’s grossly misread the American people, taking them for fools, assuming that his mere existence would be more than enough to push through his radical leftist agenda. But other than catapulting America’s deficits to unseen levels, he has nothing to show for his first year other than his flair for downplaying the importance of national security, and a record-setting number of rounds of golf.
President Obama knows that his big and bold plans for transforming America aren’t popular. He sees growing dissatisfaction and anger spreading across the country. But part of him truly cannot believe that his plummeting poll numbers have anything to do with him specifically. He is convinced the American people simply don’t grasp the reality of the situation (as he sees it), namely that he inherited so many catastrophic problems from his predecessor – perhaps the worst any President has ever inherited at anytime in history – that even his messianic skills aren’t sufficient to the task. Thus, he has abandoned his pie-in-the-sky, messianic aspirations (for now) and has fallen back into a posture of predictable, transparent desperation.
When all else fails, pull out the old standby: the anti-capitalist card.
Let’s get populist. Let’s go after greed:
Mike Allen at the Politico writes:
Reflecting his new tone, Obama last week announced a new fee on big banks by vowing, “We want our money back, and we’re going to get it.”. At a House Democratic retreat a few hours later, he said leaders need to be “fighting for the American people with the same sense of urgency that they feel in their own lives.”
In his weekly address on Saturday, he declared: “We’re not going to let Wall Street take the money and run.” Saluting Martin Luther King Jr. in remarks to a Baptist congregation the next day, Obama railed against “an era of greed and irresponsibility that sowed the seeds of its own demise.”
I hate to use a hackneyed phrase, but you cannot make this stuff up. Deficits have never been higher. Unemployment has gotten worse under this President. The President is on a course to spend this nation into near financial oblivion for generations to come – and wants to add to it with his proposed government takeover of health care – and yet, he whines and cries about Wall Street taking the money and running?
What? Is he serious?
Who takes more money out of the pockets of Americans than the federal government?
Yes, Americans want their money back – but not back in the hands of the unaccountable, irresponsible, expansion-happy feds. How dare Barack Obama talk about an era of “greed and irresponsibility” when it is our government, under Bam, spending and spending unheard of amounts of money, putting future generations on the hook.
Can anything be more transparent than big government liberalism and the games leftists play?
Sure, blame Wall Street. It’ll strike an emotional chord with those who have been raised to be class warriors – those weaned on modern liberalism’s teet. After all, it sounds good to go after big executives, CEOs, rich people and other selfish pinchfists. Go ahead and blame corporate America. It sounds so right to slam big companies. They don’t care about the “little guy.” They only care about fattening up their highly-paid cats at the common man’s expense. Why not blame greed itself? It makes perfect sense, doesn’t it? Especially when a bend-over-and-grab-the-ankles-for-the-big-unions President says it.
At the rally for (candidate for Massachusetts Senator, Martha) Coakley, (President Obama) added: “Bankers don’t need another vote in the United States Senate. They’ve got plenty.”
Good God, Mr. President, is that really the best you’ve got?
“Bankers have plenty?”
What is he? In an eighth grade debating class?
Blame money, capitalism, free markets, corporations, Wall Street or George W. Bush all you want, Bammy; you are the reason the Democrats are dissolving like a graham cracker in a bowl of milk … and the reason the next Senator from the State of Massachusetts will be the Republican, Scott Brown.
You’re damn right today’s election in Massachusetts is a referendum on this administration.
Posted in Big Government, Democrats, Dumb Liberals, Economy, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, greed, Obama transparency, Obama's new fee on big banks, Wall Street | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 19, 2010
No, he didn’t say that a totalitarian dictator was among his favorite philosophers, as did his predecessor, Anita Dunn.
He wasn’t quite that colorful.
In fact, he was a bit disappointing, if not unoriginal. At least Anita Dunn, the former White House Communications Director, was interesting. Dan Pfeiffer (her replacement), on the other hand, was a yawn-inspiring, painfully predictable, obedient little Obamacrat. The page he took from the Bam-Bam playbook has been so referenced by now that only lint and frazzled fragments are left in its place.
Yet another shot has been fired by the White House – the post-partisan, unifying, free-speech-loving White House – at the Fox News Channel. Not only did the well-spoken Mr. Pfeiffer say that Fox News was not a traditional news organization, but that it would not be treated as equal to other news networks.
That’s right … a spokesman for the White House (i.e., the President of the United States) has openly declared that they will treat a free-market, free-press news organization differently from others because it doesn’t adhere to this administration’s concept of a “traditional news” outfit.
David A. Patten at NewsMax writes:
The remarks by Dan Pfeiffer, who recently replaced Anita Dunn as the White House communications director, indicate that the administration has no plans to back off its strident anti-Fox News rhetoric.
Pfeiffer told The New York Times: “They have a point of view; that point of view pervades the entire network.”
He added that the Obama administration has no intention of treating Fox News equally.
“We don’t feel the obligation to treat them like we would treat a CNN, or an ABC, or an NBC, or a traditional news organization, but there are times when we believe it makes sense to communicate with them,” Pfeiffer told the Times.
Pfeiffer confirmed that the confrontational approach favored by Dunn, who labeled Fox News a “wing of the Republican Party,” will continue.
In response, a Fox News spokesperson told The Hill.com: “Obviously new to his position, Dan seems to be intent upon repeating the mistakes of his predecessor … and we all remember how well that turned out.”
And if, for instance, Fox News were Obama ankle-grabbers, like MSNBC, would this even be an issue?
Remember, MSNBC is the home of Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann – not exactly right-of-center traditionalists. If Fox News rolled over and played slut for this administration, like the New York Times, would anyone in the White House care how “traditional” the organization was?
It is the height of arrogance, the depths of treachery, the reality of the totalitarian instinct inherent in leftist thought that defines the power-grabbing Obamacrat regime. From their middle-of-the-night, break-neck congressional votes on unread legislation, to their behind-closed-doors, phony “transparency,” Dems are demonstrating why liberalism and liberty don’t mix.
Think about this … this is the White House, and thus the President – the man charged with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States – waging war on an American news organization that does not tow the Leftocrat line.
Imagine a Republican White House pulling the same stunt against the liberal media. Think of the outrage that would ensue.
Of course, they’d be at war with the entirety of the mainstream media news complex at that point.
This anti-Fox News posture has been an ongoing thing since the dawn of the Messianic Age.
Frankly, the White House needs better material.
H/T to Weasel Zippers.
Posted in Media, Media Bias | Tagged: "conservative blog", Anita Dunn, Anota Dunn. Fox News, Dan Pfeiffer, Fox News Channel, White House Communications Director | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010
Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, Liar
Clarification time …
What is with this White House? Is it necessary to be dishonest about everything? Is it just an ideological reflex? Is it a biological preinclination? Do they think that no one has the capability to check these things?
I know Rush Limbaugh is under fire for supposedly suggesting that people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. This disgusting lie was proffered by the greatest White House Press Secretary the human race has ever had the privilege to know, Robert Gibbs. According to him, in every crisis, there are people who will say “really stupid things,” and this time, Limbaugh was one of them.
But it is blatantly, provably untrue.
Rush Limbaugh never said people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. It was never suggested, implied or even hinted. What Limbaugh did say, however, was that people who really want to see help extended to Haiti should send aid through private charities, churches, or any number of non-government entities which, as he pointed out, have always been far more efficient and far more successful in disaster relief efforts than the feds. Don’t count on government aid to do much of anything.
How on Earth can that be denied?
The inability of the federal government to handle finances with any degree of efficiency, accountability and responsibility also cannot be denied. This is an entity that has severely botched Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and has supposedly created or saved two million jobs – the overwhelming vast majority of which are government-based – by sending taxpayer dollars to phantom districts and zip codes.
And they’re to be trusted to handle disaster relief?
RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.
JUSTIN: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to WhiteHouse.gov —
JUSTIN: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the WhiteHouse.gov page and —
RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?
RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.
RUSH: Absolutely right.
JUSTIN: That’s the point.
RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.
JUSTIN: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was going to leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti with our church.
RUSH: That’s another point, too. Churches —
JUSTIN: No government money, Rush.
RUSH: Exactly right. Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it’s our fault. Reverend Wright, it’s our fault, there’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close. There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators and incompetent ones at that.
How is that unclear?
Where did Rush Limbaugh say that people should not give money to Haiti?
If people are genuinely moved to boost relief efforts, would they best be served to see their contributions (i.e., tax dollars) make it to Haiti via the United States federal government on their behalf? Is there anyone who believes that US Government donations wouldn’t be turned over directly to corrupt Haitian politicians and officials? Who will be held accountable for what happens to our tax dollars? Remember that Haiti was a man-made disaster before the earthquake flattened it. How much of the money filtered through the federal government would find its way into hungry politician pockets instead of the millions who really need it?
Despite Obamacrat thinking, Americans are the most generous people in the world. They will always come to the aid of those in need. The government need not siphon its citizens for unaccountable, mismanaged funds.
Recall yesterday, I wrote:
This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.
Note I said it is perfectly alright for the President to ask the people to donate to assist in relief efforts.
I never suggested the government was the right vehicle.
I did, however, say that Robert Gibbs was a liar. (Just reinforcing).
Posted in Natural Disaster, Obama Bonehead, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: "conservative blog", Haiti earthquake, Haitian disaster, relief efforts, Robert Gibba, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | 4 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 13, 2010
On Sunday, I posted a piece in praise of CNN’s Jack Cafferty – commentator, curmudgeon, Bush-hater.
(I know, I know … I double-checked to see if any icicles had been reported as forming in hell).
Cafferty’s staunch opposition to “Bush’s War” is well known. A good portion of his past huffings, puffings and grumblings, you’ll recall, were directed toward the “war criminals” of the previous administration. Donald Rumsfeld, you’ll remember, was an “obnoxious jerk.” When Fox News’s Brit Hume interviewed then-Vice President Dick Cheney, Cafferty commented it was “a little like Bonnie interviewing Clyde.”
To his credit, however, he had the gumption to lambaste the Obama administration for going back on campaign promises to televise debates on health care reform.
How dare they? President Obama and Democratic leaders, have decided to bypass a formal House and Senate Conference Committee in order to reconcile those two health care bills. Instead, White House and Democratic leaders will hold “informal” – that’s another word for secret – negotiations, meant to shut Republicans and the public out of the process.
Good for him.
Well, as unbelievable as this is going to sound – and after checking my vital signs – I have to tip my hat once again to Cafferty for calling it like it is.
This time, according to Mr. Happy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is a “horrible woman.”
Said Mr. C:
Things are tough – very tough – for millions of American in this country, but you’d never know it watching the way Congress spends our tax money on themselves. CBS News has a stunning report on the all-expense paid trip of at least twenty members of Congress to the Copenhagen Climate Summit last month.
The bi-partisan delegation, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was so large, they needed three military jets, two 737s and a Gulfstream V. Some members of Congress brought along their spouses, their kids. There were also Senators and staff members who made the trip to Denmark – most of them, flying over commercial.
Pelosi refused to answer any questions about costs for this, or where they all stayed, even though she was the one who decided who went. Her office says only that it will “comply with disclosure requirements.”
It’s a disgrace.
The national unemployment rate is 10%. Employers cut more jobs than expected just last month. We got the numbers on Friday. People are suffering in this country.
California, Pelosi’s home state, is faced with a twenty-billion dollar budget deficit.
This nation’s hurting, but Nancy Pelosi can use three military jets for a December trip to Copenhagen and then refuse to answer any questions about it.
What a horrible woman she is.
What he said.
Just another delectable slice of the post-partisan “hope and change” pie.
Thus far, without question, the best thing – the only thing – to come out of Obama’s Messianic Age is the ongoing exposure of the fraud of modern liberalism
… oh yeah, and the “Barack the Magic Negro” parody.
I invite Americans to keep watching. It’s only going to get better.
Posted in Nancy Pelosi | Tagged: "conservative blog", "horrible woman", CNN, Jack cafferty, Nancy Pelosi | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010
There are some things in this life that cannot – nay, must not – be allowed, in the name of human decency, to be heard in public. I’m not speaking of profanity or vulgarisms, which is (disgustingly) becoming more and more normalized with each passing year. I’m not talking about something as petrifying as Roseanne Barr singing “We Built This City” over the sound system at new Yankee Stadium. I’m not even referring to handing Yoko Ono a hot microphone within three miles of another human being.
This is something far more disturbing, far more chilling.
Putting aside First Amendment arguments – because this is not a Constitutional issue – I can only beseech the powers-that-be that they never again permit such a thing to be unleashed onto unsuspecting television viewers who may be eating, or innocent channel surfers who unsuspectingly fall victim to fate’s fickle hand by stumbling upon such an unpleasant moment.
Democrat strategist-extraordinaire James Carville – who genuinely scares my wife – is in favor of full body scans at airports. He is tremendously enthusiastic about it, so much so that he is ready to be scanned this very minute … right down to his unmentionables.
He said so.
On yesterday’s The Tony Kornheiser Show, in the name of national security, Carville offered his crotch.
From The Hill:
…Carville laid out, or unzipped, his vision for airport security. But the consummate talker couldn’t help sharing too much information.
“Let me buy a [security] card, then go and measure my penis, and let me get on the airplane,” he said.
Fortunately for travelers, and, one suspects, for T.S.A. agents, the scanners are designed to measure things like radiation and explosive levels — not private parts.
The word “penis” coming out of the mouth of James Carville is a phenomenon that no living human being in any corner of existence should ever, ever, ever, have to endure.
(Another bone-crunching shudder).
Some days, this blogging thing isn’t all sunshine and cupcakes. Some days are definitely tougher than others.
Posted in national security, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", "measure my penis", airport security, James Carville, the Tony Kornheiser Show | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 9, 2010
Conservatism doesn’t suffer from a lack of articulate, eloquent spokespersons. Talk radio is rife with right-sided pundits and raconteurs who espouse the principles of limited government and personal responsibility in remarkably entertaining and informative ways. Some of America’s greatest thinkers are conservative opinion columnists, proffering the greatest and most effective arguments of our time in support of a strong national defense, lower taxes, decreased federal spending, and far less intrusion into our lives.
Meanwhile, the Republican Party (conservatism’s traditional home) is much like water from a faucet in a run down Brooklyn tenement – sometimes hot, sometimes cold; sometimes murky, sometime clear. There are times when someone actually steps up and makes the case for conservative values – like when Senator Lindsey Graham grilled Attorney General Eric Holder on why the 9/11 terror trials are being held in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal, or when Senators Jim DeMint and John Ensign (among others) openly called the constitutionality of ObamaCare into question. (It’s a shame that these are thought of as conservative values, instead of American values).
Then there are those times when even the most mild-mannered among conservatives feel like opening up a giant can of “Shut Your Damn Mouth” and pouring it down the throat of some misguided, wishy-washy, right-leaning yakkity-yakker until the larynx is rendered unusable – like when RNC Chairman, Michael Steele, took a page from the “How To Be Ineffective And Sound Like A Moonbat Songbook,” saying that he didn’t think Republicans could win in this year’s midterm elections.
Way to lead, Michael.
No wonder most Americans view talk radio hosts as the nation’s most influential conservatives, instead of – oh, I don’t know – politicians.
One of my favorite conservatives who “gets it” – and one who is quickly becoming a favorite of conservatives everywhere – is not a politician, if you can believe it. She is, however, the child of one.
These days there is hardly anyone who is as well-informed on the War Against Islamo-fascism (the correct name for the war), or as passionate about this country’s need to fight to win, as Liz Cheney. She has been very outspoken about the incompetency that defines the Obamacrat prosecution of the war.
On Thursday, Cheney spoke out again.
Robert Costa from National Review’s The Corner wrote:
“Over the course of the last year, President Obama has taken his eye off the ball and allowed America’s counterterrorism systems to erode,” says Cheney. “Brennan and Napolitano both said they were surprised to learn from the review released today that al-Qaeda in Yemen was operational. Napolitano went on to say she hadn’t realized previously that al-Qaeda might use an individual to attack us. Yet, in the past year, we’ve had three attacks on America from individuals with Yemeni connections — from the terrorist at the recruiting station in Little Rock to the terrorist at Ford Hood and now the Christmas Day bomber.” Thus, she says, “it is inexplicable that our nation’s top counterterrorism officials would be surprised by a method of attack we’ve repeatedly seen before.”
“The president says he’s using every tool at his disposal but he’s not,” says Cheney. “We can’t prevail against terrorists without intelligence. When President Obama treats terrorists like criminals, reads them their Miranda rights and allows them to lawyer up, he ensures we won’t get the intelligence we need.” In addition, Cheney says, “When the president stopped the enhanced-interrogation programs and revealed our tactics to our enemies, he significantly reduced our ability to successfully interrogate any senior al-Qaeda leaders. Intelligence is key. Let’s be clear: We’re not going to win this war through more intense airport screenings.”
Take a huge bravo out of petty cash.
She’s right, of course.
Something has to be done to get this administration out of Nobel Peace Prize mode and into adulthood.
They need to act like this is a war – a genuine, honest-to-goodness, let’s-destroy-the-enemy-until their carcasses-are-pulverized-into-a-fine-paste kind of war.
They need to act as if the enemy is really out there, plotting terror attacks against America – and not sitting across the aisle trying to keep health insurance “reform” from happening.
Perhaps someone ought to convince President Obama that the Christmas Day terrorist was an avid reader of National Review, listened incessantly to Mark Levin and Rush Limbaugh, was an anti-abortion advocate, believed that public displays of the Ten Commandments were fine, had a Sean Hannity coffee mug, and was wearing “I Love The Second Amendment” underwear when he whipped out his explosives on that plane.
You know … pretend he was a conservative.
That’ll get the old Waffle Man moving again.
Posted in politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: "conservative blog", al-Qaeda, Christmas day terrorist attack, Islamo-fascism, Keep America Safe, Liz Cheney, War on Terror | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Andrew Roman on January 6, 2010
This is taken directly from the great Breitbart.tv website . It is the text of eight – count ‘em eight – different instances where the President of the United States said that negotiations on the health care bill would be televised for the entire nation to see. You recall, it was part of his promise of transparency, a new kind of relationahip and openness between the federal government and the citizens of the United States that would forever transform the presidency.
“..Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-Span, so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.” – CNN Debate, January 2008
“I would put my plan forward, and I would welcome input and say, ‘Here are my goals, reduce costs, increase quality, coverage for everybody. If you have better ideas, please present them.’ But these negotiations will be on C-Span. And so, the public will be part of the conversation and will see the choices that are being made.” – San Francisco Chronicle, January 20, 2008
“I respect what the Clintons tried to do in 1993 in moving health reform forward. But they made one really big mistake, and that is they took all their people, and all their experts into a room and then they closed the door. We will work on this process publicly. It’ll be on C-Span. It will be streaming over the Net. – Google Q and A, November 14, 2007
“We will have the negotiations televised on C-Span , so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies.” – Virginia Town Hall, August 28, 2008
“But here’s the thing … We’re going to do all these negotiations on C-Span, so the American people will be able to watch these negotiations.” – Ohio Town Hall, March 1, 2008
“Drug and insurance companies will have a seat at the table. They just won’t be able to buy every single chair. And we will have a public process for forming this plan. It’ll be televised on C-Span. I can’t guarantee it’ll be exciting, so not everybody’s going to be watching, but it will be transparent and accountable to the American people.” – Keene Sentinel, November 27, 2007
“So, the drug and the insurance companies who are still going to have a lot of power in Washington, and are still going to try and block reforms from taking place … so that’s why I’ve said, for example, I want the negotiations to be taking place on C-Span.” – St. Petersberg Times, May 2008
“So I put forward my plan, but what I’ll say is, look, if you have better ideas, I’m happy to listen to them. But all of this will be done on C-Span, in front of the public.” – Indiana Town Hall, April 25, 2008
You can see the video from which these quotes are transcribed here.
I blame George W. Bush.
One blogger at Breitbat.tv wrote the following:
“… It’s time the government tightens down on all of this “freedom” that you neocons have been screaming about and puts some money and assets in the hands of the less fortunate in this country and around the world. The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country. We need healthcare NOW and if Obama has to use a little secrecy to get us there then that’s okay. He will do what is best for us in the long run. Some may not like it now, but we will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people…”
Take a moment and re-read two of those lines. When you do, you’ll have a handle on modern liberalism:
“We will be better off when the government is running things for the benefit of ALL people.”
“The only way we will ever live in peace with world is when we raise their standard of living, even if we have to lower the living standard of the well-to-do in this country.”
No further comment necessary.
Posted in Democrats, health care, leftism, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: "conservative blog", Barack Obama, C-Span, eight campaign lies, health care debate, health care negotiations, health care reform, Obamacare, PelosiCare, ReidCare | 2 Comments »
Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009
One can predict some of the words and phrases Obamacrats will use: obstructionists, partisans, ideologues, Obama-haters, so on.
No soothsayers needed. Pretty standard stuff.
Defenders of the Constitution will be attacked as corporate marionettes, accused of bending over for insurance companies and pharmaceutical interests. Republicans in general will be (and have been) accused of viciously and callously standing in the way of fundamental human decency by endorsing what will undoubtedly lead to the deaths of billions and billions of Americans. The bodies of the uninsured will litter the streets of the United States as heartless right-wing fat cats step around their rotting corpses, laughing the sinister laugh of the victorious, as they visit their own doctors where all the real medicine is kept.
Left-wing blogs will explode with mendacious outrage and rice-pudding indignation. The words “Nazi,” and “corporate shill” and “desperate” (among others) will soak up enormous amounts of bandwidth as pajama-clad basement-dwelling blogosphere leftocrats rat-a-tat away, condemning the patriots who fight to bury Obamacare by standing up for the Constitution.
It’s what so many of us who have questioned the absurd claims of ObamaCare have been waiting for. It’s what so many of us who have questioned the constitutionality of it all have been hoping would come to fruition.
It’s a very good first step.
As many as thirteen state Attorney Generals – all Republicans – have said that the Nebraska sweetheart deal won by Senator Ben Nelson in exchange for his support of this health-care reform monstrosity is unconstitutional and must be removed from the bill.
From the Associated Press, via Fox News:
Republican attorneys general in 13 states say congressional leaders must remove Nebraska’s political deal from the federal health care reform bill or face legal action, according to a letter provided to The Associated Press Wednesday.
“We believe this provision is constitutionally flawed,” South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster and the 12 other attorneys general wrote in the letter to be sent Wednesday night to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.
“As chief legal officers of our states we are contemplating a legal challenge to this provision and we ask you to take action to render this challenge unnecessary by striking that provision,” they wrote.
There is also a great deal to explore regarding the constitutionality of mandating citizens to purchase a free-market service or good – in this case, health insurance – from a private entity, as presecribed in the bill.
One thing at a time, though.
The letter was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state. All are Republicans, and McMaster and the attorneys general of Florida, Michigan and Pennsylvania are running for governor in their respective states.
Last week, McMaster said he was leading several other attorneys general in an inquiry into the constitutionality of the estimated $100 million deal he has dubbed the “Cornhusker Kickback.”
Republican U.S. Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint of South Carolina raised questions about the legislation, which they said was amended to win Nebraska Sen. Ben Nelson’s support.
“Because this provision has serious implications for the country and the future of our nation’s legislative process, we urge you to take appropriate steps to protect the Constitution and the rights of the citizens of our nation,” the attorneys general wrote.
Here’s the funny part … House Majority Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina called the letter was “a political ploy.”
Damn right it is.
“This threat stinks of partisan politics,” he said in a statement. “If Henry McMaster wants to write federal law he should run for Congress not governor.”
If it stinks, I like the smell. I hope it comes out in a candle.
I can’t even begin to tell you how comical it is to hear a Democrat decry “partisan politics.” What on earth could be more partisan than having a holdout Senator or two vote for a bill not on its own merits, but as a result of party-unifying bribery? (Is anybody in there, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu?)
Surely Mr. Clyburn is aware that all Senate Democrats voted for the bill. By definition, isn’t that partisan politics?
Clyburn needs to think before he speaks. He snidely remarks that South Carolina Attorney General McMaster should run for Congress if he wants to “write federal law.”
Perhaps Clyburn ought to think about actually representing the people – you know,do his job – if he wants to remain in Congress.
At last look, nearly six in ten Americans don’t want this bill passed.
Nice work, Pubs. Don’t let up.
See what happens when they actually set their minds to something?
Posted in Big Government, Constitution, Democrats, Economy, Harry Reid, health care, Nancy Pelosi, Political Corruption | Tagged: "conservative blog", "Cornhusker Kickback", 13 Attorney Generals, Ben Nelson, Harry Reid, health care bill, health care debate, Henry McMaster, Jim Clyburn, Nancy Pelosi, Nebraska sweetheart deal | Leave a Comment »