Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 22, 2010

I came across this picture at the great Weasel Zippers blog.

It isn’t a particularly earth-shattering photo, as you can see. It certainly won’t win any Pulitzer Prizes (although it may earn President Obama another Nobel Prize for an accomplishment to be named later).

Just a couple of raging libs out for a walk.

However, I am including it here because, at first glance, it struck me as a touch odd.

I assure you, my intention is not poke fun at anyone or hurl unwarranted insults at two amazingly easy targets.

(Is there such a thing as an unwarranted Obama insult?)

I wonder … Am I the only one who thinks Hillary Clinton looks as if she is about to give birth? Or maybe trying to sneak a small ham out of the A&P?

And doesn’t Barack Obama look as if he’s got bad cramps?

Or that he might have been on the receiving end of a steel-top boot to the jewels?

These are the things I notice when Democrats try to destroy my country.

wordpress statistics


Posted in Everything Else | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 31, 2009

PakistanWhen afforded the opportunity – which, granted, is rare – I like to point out when liberals say something that is honest. In the name of intellectual integrity, I cannot, in good faith, maintain a blog comprised primarily of commentaries on some of the day’s events and expect that liberals will never utter any word of truth at any time – although it is tempting to believe it. It is the very least I can do as my quest for clarity trudges forward.

On Thursday, in Pakistan, the wife of former President Bill Clinton, after saying that she found it hard to believe that the Pakistani government couldn’t “get” the Al Qaeda leadership in that country if they really wanted to, went on to say, ” We (the United States) tax everything that moves and doesn’t move, and that’s not what we see in Pakistan.”

Considering the existence of the “death tax,” Clinton is absolutely correct – America really does tax things that don’t move. (A sourec of pride for her, I’m certain).

For her honesty, kudos to Mrs. Bill Clinton.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Foreign Policy | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

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

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

Take a huge “wow” out of petty cash.

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

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

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

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

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

What is there to be impressed about exactly?

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 11, 2009

She channels no one else

She channels no one else

She is Secretary of State, hear her roar – with a husband too famous to ignore.

All of the King’s horses and all of the King’s men could not help keep Hillary Clinton from losing her cool again.

And really, who could legitimately blame her?

How exactly was she supposed to react?

She was asked by a Congolese student, through a translator, what her husband – former President Bill Clinton – thought of a trade deal involving China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The former President, of course, has had his share of the limelight in recent days for coming to the rescue of two American journalists imprisoned in North Korea. Thanks to his heroics, he is a bonafide rock star once again – something that must be a source of great joy to Mrs. Clinton on a multitude of levels. That the Secretary of State, who has been in Africa on a trip she had hoped would raise awareness of much of continent’s plight, would be asked what her famous hubby thinks about anything makes a little fire breathing on her part quite understandible.

How infuriating.

She is the Secretary of State, dammit.

ABC’s Kirit Radia writes:

“You want me to tell you what my husband thinks?” Clinton replied, clearly irked by the thought of being her husband Bill’s spokeswoman.

“My husband is not secretary of state, I am,” she replied. “If you want my opinion I will tell you my opinion. I am not going to be channeling my husband.”


Irritated is a fair, if not understated, word.

But the problem, as Radia writes, was that the question from the student was translated incorrectly.

Apparently the translator made a mistake and the student had wanted to know what President Obama thought of the deal. A State Department official tells ABC News the student went up to Clinton after the event and told her he was misquoted. No immediate word yet how Clinton responded.

Still, imagine what the students thought when her response was translated back and they heard Clinton call President Obama her husband….

Hillary Ridham Clinton Obama?

The logical follow up question: Mrs. Clinton, what does your husband say about his wife being married to the current President?

Annoying as it may have been, Madame Secretary, there are two things to be said.

One, the only reason you are known to any of us outside of your personal sphere of freinds, family and acquaintences is that you are are married to Bill Clinton. He is a former President of the United States. By default, he will always cast a shadow larger than yours.

Two, a little dignity goes a long way.

Nice time, mix in a chuckle or a quip.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 20, 2009

hillary clinton

I’m not sure exactly if it is a prerequisite for all members of Obama’s Transformation Team, nor can I say for sure whether or not special “groveling” seminars were attended by Obamacrats looking to score points, but this getting beyong ridiculous. I, for one, am getting more than a little tired of having to hear high-ranking members of the United States government either apologize, express regret, or otherwise place “blame” on this country for “mistakes” made in the past – and on foreign soil, yet!

It is already well-known the President himself has mastered the art of diplomatic anguish, but now Americans are getting the opportunity to see other Obamacrats in action.

It’s Hillary’s turn.

Being an imperialist, war-hungry state hell-bent on imposing values on other nations is one thing. But contributing to the ruination of the planet due to the crippling effects of man-made Global Warming is another entirely.

Robert Burns of the Associated Press writes:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton opened a three-day visit to India on Saturday by urging India not to repeat American mistakes in contributing to global pollution, and she passionately defended U.S. demands for help in fighting terrorism.

“We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change,” she said. “We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes.”

She was referring to Obama’s statement in Italy earlier this month that the U.S. had “sometimes fallen short” of its responsibilities in controlling its carbon emissions.

Sources have confirmed that that the solar-powered, enviro-friendly wind barge she was to take to India last week was still undergoing repairs.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009


Liberals always feel better about themselves – like they’ve righted some dastardly wrong – when they spare the offended among us any more undue hurt by changing the names of things they deem objectionable and unseemly. After all, the societal goal of today’s Leftocrat is to make sure that no one – outside of conservatives – is ever offended at any time for any reason. On the liberal hit parade of bugbears and pariahs, “Do Not Offend” is a perennial top-five smash.

In the curious mind of today’s liberal (or should I say progressive) there is hardly anything worse, outside of putting a Wal-Mart in New York City, than being offended. Long-used terminology that is not meant to be in any way pejorative is now offensive. Thus, in the ongoing Age of Political Correctness, “crippled” has become “physically challenged” and “retarded” has morphed into “mentally handicapped.” This is the same mindset that will have us calling the dead “living impaired,” and liars “ethically discombobulated” before too long. Of course, these adorable little non-abrasive labels don’t change the fact that an individual who is crippled is still crippled, or that someone who is mentally retarded is still retarded.

We just don’t call it that.

The word “retarded” is ugly – or should I say “cosmetically distinctive.”

“Crippled” sounds judgmental somehow, and liberals despise judgments – unless it is against a conservative and his dazzling array of archaic, bigoted, multi-phobic positions.

Remember, liberal bigotry fosters unity.

This word-swapping makes libs feel better – and that is precisely what sits at the heart of all liberal policy, feelings. Truth is, at best, secondary, and problem-solving almost always translates into increased funding and/or decreased freedoms. Equality trumps liberty. Indeed, if “Thou Shalt Not Offend” were one of God’s commandment, then some of that judgmental religious stuff so “offensive” to progressives might be more palatable. If it were in the Bill of Rights – Congress Shall Make No Law That Offends Any Portion of the Electorate – the slave-owning Founding Fathers might be less abhorrent to today’s campus cacklers and multi-cultural warriors.

It is this metastasizing idiocy that has prompted the Obamacrats to stop using the phrase “Global War On Terror,” adopted by the Bush Administration after the attacks of September 11, 2001, and instead use the ever-loving, less-offensive, not-so-war-sounding “Overseas Contingency Operation.”

It almost sounds like a good will operation or a free cheese drive.

Last week, Fox News reported:

Critics have pleaded with the Obama administration to abandon the use of “Global War on Terror” because they say it mischaracterizes the nature of the enemy and its abilities.

The fact that enemy has attacked and murdered innocents all over the world hasn’t clouded Obamacrat thinking. Only a leftist can “mischaracterize” thousands and thousands of dead innocents at the hands of murderous terrorists across the globe.

In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirms the change.

From Reuters:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said on Monday the Obama administration had dropped “war on terror” from its lexicon, rhetoric former President George W. Bush used to justify many of his actions.

“The (Obama) administration has stopped using the phrase and I think that speaks for itself. Obviously,” Clinton told reporters traveling with her to The Hague for a conference on Afghanistan, which Bush called part of his “global war on terror.”

The phrase was strongly criticized by human rights groups who said it was used to justify many actions, such as the opening of the Guantanamo Bay prison for detainees held without trial at the U.S. Naval base in Cuba.

Internationally, the phrase was seen by critics as a “with-us-or-against-us” philosophy, overly dependent on military force and what many Muslims decried as an attack on Islam.

A red flag should reflexively unfurl when the words “human rights groups” are used. In the same way “peace activists” really don’t advocate peace, human rights groups don’t give a damn about genuine human rights.

To these folks, the greatest war-mongers, perpetrators of evil and offenders of human rights in the world is the United States of America.

Perhaps the next foreign policy initiative of the Obama administration will be to request detailed reports from leaders around the world enumerating not only those things that America currently does that are offensive, but of things not to do in the future, lest our actions antagonize and disoblige anyone else.

In other news, God help us.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Liberalism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »