Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘liberals’


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 27, 2010

The moral deficiency that is pacifism does not apply to all leftists.

Pacifists may live on the left, but not all leftists are pacifists.

It’s not that the left has an aversion to fighting. Indeed, they’ll get down and dirty with almost as much frequency as anyone. However, what makes most liberty-loving, Constitution-revering, rugged individualists snicker at the thought of a leftist standing up for, and defending, what they believe in is the fact that their “enemies” list reads somewhat differently than that of conservatives.

Conservatives see Islamo-fascists as the enemy.

Liberals see global warming as the enemy.

Conservatives fight terrorism.

Liberals fight greenhouse gases.

Conservatives speak out against dictators, tyrannies and totalitarians.

Liberals speak out against Arizona lawmakers, Tea Party protestors and conservatives.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar talks about keeping the government’s boot on the neck of BP until the Gulf oil spill is stopped, but Obamacrats never dare use such language when it comes to the likes of Iran or North Korea. That’s because conservatives fight despotic thugs. Liberals fight American corporations and “excessive” profits.

And where exactly has this Obamacratic “enemies” list left the United States of America? What good has come from the post-partisan, post-racial, post-common-sense messiah-in-chief – the one who was going to pummel through Bush-era barriers and get the entire world cuddling up together by virtue of his mere existence?

How about an all-time-high number of terror attacks against the United States? How about a Messianic Age that has seen more acts of evil perpetrated against America by terrorist punks than at any time in her history?

Richard Esposito and Pierre Thomas of ABC News write:

The pace and number of attempted terror attacks against the U.S. over the past nine months has surpassed the number of attempts during any previous one-year period, according to an internal Department of Homeland Security report issued on Friday, May 21.

The report notes chillingly that while US officials “lack insights” they believe that “operatives are in the country and could advance plotting with little or no warning.”

The DHS “Intelligence Note,” a short, non-classified report, makes concrete the concerns of a number of homeland security experts who have discussed with ABC News the pace and nature of the individual attempts. The report notes that al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and the Pakistani Taliban have “expanded their focus” to include the United States.

Not that this administration is actually using the word “terror.”

Not that high-ranking Obamacrats – like Attorney General Eric Holder, for instance – will admit that Islamic fundamentalism has anything to do with these attacks.

Not that former Presidents – like William Jefferson Clinton, for instance – while addressing students at an Ivy League school actually bothered referring to the Times Square bomber as evil. (Instead, Clinton referred to the terrorist a “poor, tragic man.”)

Not that it is any secret that our Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, is better qualified to fold sweaters at the Big K … maybe.

Not that America’s enemies don’t pay close attention to all of this.

That sound you hear is the chant from caves and terror cells alike, from every corner of the world, of “Four more years! Four more years!”

See? Obama is a unifier.

wordpress statistics


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 8, 2010

You can say it over and over again, but it is irrelevant to liberals. Regardless of the numbers – no matter how lopsided the percentages are – it will never be enough for America’s leftocracy.

They use beguiling words and phrases like “fair share” and “impartiality” but don’t really mean it.

They go on and on about equality – liberalism’s most important value – but in practice, spit upon the concept … or should I say spit upon America’s most successful citizens.

The fact is: the top ten percent of wage earners in the United States pay nearly three-quarters of all income tax.

Unfortunately, that isn’t enough for Obamacrats.

In truth, there is no such thing as “enough” when it comes to leftist confiscation (and redistribution) of the private property of America’s money makers.

The President, and his free-enterprise-pulverizing band of economy-crippling sadists, are hell-bent on creating some sort of sweeping “equality” by knocking down America’s top performers a few pegs (i.e., punishing them), rather than encouraging people to elevate themselves.

Meanwhile, on the other end of the scale, the bottom chunk of wage-earning Americans actually make a profit from the federal government.

That’s right … make a profit.

Stephen Ohlemacher from the Associated Press writes:

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

“We have 50 percent of people who are getting something for nothing,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

This year, nearly half of all Americans will pay no federal income tax.

Not a penny.

About 47 percent will pay no federal income taxes at all for 2009. Either their incomes were too low, or they qualified for enough credits, deductions and exemptions to eliminate their liability. That’s according to projections by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research organization.

In recent years, credits for low- and middle-income families have grown so much that a family of four making as much as $50,000 will owe no federal income tax for 2009, as long as there are two children younger than 17, according to a separate analysis by the consulting firm Deloitte Tax.

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education.

In 2007, about 38 percent of households paid no federal income tax, a figure that jumped to 49 percent in 2008, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center.

There’s fair … and then there’s fair.

The reality that more money in the pockets of Americans is actually a good thing – that people do not respond to having more of their own earnings to spend by stashing it away under the high school yearbook in the upstairs closet – absolutely eludes the left.

Facts can be awfully tenacious.

More revenue finds its way into Uncle Sam’s tax collection box when people have more of their own money available to purchase goods and services.

Even my nine year old nephew gets that.

Of course, he hasn’t been to university yet.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 9, 2009

Along with liberal conceptions of how to suitably defend the country, bolster economic growth and safeguard liberty, Democrats often best exhibit their political ineptness when attempting to create effective analogies and metaphors to help sell their ideas. Invariably, when an untenable lefty policy needs defending, or a boost in public support is required, liberals will customarily attempt to affirm their own positions by inappropriately equating opposing positions to the most unfavorable, distasteful or incongruous things.

Senator Barbara Boxer – don’t ever call her ma’am – in commenting on the possible public funding of abortions in the Senate version of the health care bill, brilliantly compared the limiting or denial of abortion coverage for women to inhibiting men from accessing Viagra. Nothing illustrates someone’s depth of thought more astutely than comparing erection pills to the taking of an unborn human life.

From the

“Why are women being singled out here? It’s so unfair,” Boxer said on the Senate floor Tuesday. “We don’t tell men that if they want to … buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for Viagra that they can’t do it.”

And she came up with that all by herself.

Senator Harry Reid – Senate Majority Leader – in commenting on the health care reform debate, judiciously compared opposition to ObamaCare to those who were against the abolition of slavery. Nothing embodies someone’s sagacity quite like comparing those who question proposed government policies to those who enslaved other human beings.

From Fox News:

“Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, ‘slow down, stop everything, let’s start over.’ If you think you’ve heard these same excuses before, you’re right,” Reid said Monday. “When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said ‘slow down, it’s too early, things aren’t bad enough.'”

It’s hard to believe his approval ratings are in the thirty percent range.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi – swastika connoisseur – in commenting on the growing fervent opposition across the country to a government-run health care plan, skillfully compared the murders of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk in 1978 to this summer’s conservative tea parties and town hall meetings. Nothing epitomizes a person’s ability to clarify a position like comparing the murder of two innocents to concerned citizens exercising their First Amendment rights to free speech and peaceful assembly.

From United Liberty:

Pelosi, responding to a question about anti-Obama sentiment, said that partisans on all sides of an issue have the right to voice their opinion. But after pausing, she added: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used, because I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric was very frightening, and it created a climate in which violence took place.”

The tears on her face, by all accounts, were real … and without a trace of salt.

Congressman Charles Rangel – tax cheat – in commenting on the War on Terror, guilefully compared the War in Iraq to the Holocaust. Nothing demonstrates keen insight like comparing America’s brave fighting men – the very soldiers who liberated the Iraqi people from the murderous reign of Saddam Hussein – to the regime that rounded up and murdered six million Jews.

From NewsMax:

“It’s the biggest fraud ever committed on the people of this country,” Rangel told WWRL Radio’s Steve Malzberg and Karen Hunter. “This is just as bad as six million Jews being killed. The whole world knew it and they were quiet about it, because it wasn’t their ox that was being gored.”

And yet, to this day, conservatives still give this man a hard time. Go figure.

State Senator Barack Obama – still a few years away from becoming the Democrat candidate for President – in commenting on World War II-era race relations in America, articulately compared the United States of America to Nazi Germany. Nothing typifies a mastery of the nuances of American civilization like comparing the United States of the 1940s and 1950s to the murderous, totalitarian Third Reich.

From Moonbattery:

Barack Obama has further established his credentials as a truly unhinged moonbat radical by comparing America to Nazi Germany. LGF quotes from The One’s ruminations on the Supreme Court, which he has chastised for not being sufficiently radical on the subject of “spreading the wealth around”:

“… just to take a, sort of a realist perspective … there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

A triumph of thought! And he couldn’t even balance himself on the surface of the water yet.

These aren’t simple policy disgareements. These aren’t cohesive arguments directed toward the opposition defending a viewpoint. These are, first and foremost, vicious attacks equating opposing opinions with those of genocidal tyrants and slave masters. These are deliberate attempts to marry honest dissent with evil so that conventional wisdom can be reshaped and redefined. These are calculated comments by well rehearsed flame throwers intent on smearing the other side in the worst possible way. After all, once a high profile Democrat tosses a “Nazi Germany” or an “Adolf Hitler” into the arena, it immediately begins inoculating itself into the mainstream of conventional wisdom.

That’s because the news media and entertainment complexes are already in bed with liberalism. No viagra needed.

And speaking of Baraba Boxer’s insipidity, she attempts to do the opposite of the others – that is, equate something that she doesn’t see as detestable (killing an unborn child because of its inconvenience) with something completely and thoroughly unrelated (overcoming male dysfunction). The evil, in this case, is in the opposition not accepting that both of these things fall under the same awning of basic health care. Thus, if guys can have access to impotence medicine, women should certainly be able to coat-hanger the unborn.

Remember, to a liberal, conservatives aren’t just wrong, they’re bad – with ulterior motives. Conservative impulses are sinister.

Liberal impulses, by contrast, are born from warm, fuzzy-bunny hugs and swaying daisies.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Harry Reid, leftism, Liberalism, Nancy Pelosi, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 3, 2009

taking-notesIf, as Vice President Joe Biden asserted during the campaign, paying taxes is a measure of one’s patriotism, then both Tom Daschle and Timothy Geithner are this century’s Sacco and Vanzetti. And if the Obama “tax cut” deception becomes law, then it will – by the grace of messianic engineering – have afforded the federal government the opportunity to create a far more patriotic class of Americans then we have now.

See how clever liberals can be? They’re not only masters at igniting skirmishes in their ongoing class war, but they excel at constructing the definitions that make the whole world sing.

For example, in Democrat-speak, “earmarks” are not earmarks unless they are last-minute add-ons of pet projects shoved into an already existing bill without review. In Dem-land, it isn’t the wasteful spending itself that makes it an earmark – like, for instance, replacing defective air conditioning systems in Buffalo, New York or installing on-site hydrogen dispensers for fork-lift hydrogen battery applications in Columbia, South Carolina – it’s the process by which it gets into the bill.

In Democrat-speak, “tax cuts” for “working Americans” means tax rate increases on the wealthiest Americans. A tax cut, by definition, is lowering a specific tax rate – like an income tax rate, for example – so that more of one’s own money is kept. Thus, a genuine tax cut does not involve taking from someone else. By contrast, the Obama crapulous plan boosts tax rates on those in the upper income tax brackets so that the revenue collected can be redistributed to those who don’t deserve it. Call it welfare. Call it socialism. Call it a lie.

In Democrat-speak, “unity” is defined as falling in line with liberal policies. Terms such as “bi-partisanship” and “post-partisanship” can be used freely as substitutes for the word “unity” at almost any time. Fertilizer by any other name would still roll off the liberal tongue just as effortlessly. Other phrases worthy of honorable mention are “pulling together,” “working together,” “doing what’s right for the American people” and “Obama is our God.”

In Democrat-speak, “playing politics” is defined as wishing to debate the merits of liberal policies, while “attacking the President” means disagreeing with Barack Obama. Thus, if a Senator speaks up and says that the “Recovery Bill” doesn’t seem to have a whole lot of “recovery” attached to it and calls for open debate to talk about possible revisions or addendums, he or she will be looked at by core Dems as “playing politics.” If, however, a Senator speaks up and says the bill is a bad idea and should be defeated, he or she is “attacking the President.”

In Democrat-speak, “mainstream America” is defined as the consensus of like-minded liberal media folks and political insiders who attend Upper West Side cocktail parties, Georgetown dinner parties and Hollywood galas.

In Democrat-speak, “change” means astronomically larger government, an over-regulated free-market, tolerance of tax cheats in Cabinet positions, a gay-friendly fighting force, a deficit larger than Paul Begala’s forehead, a war against the Second Amendment, rights for enemy combatants, and free Rush Limbaugh dartboards for anyone who sends in a self-addressed stamped envelope.

In Democrat-speak, “Rush Limbaugh” means conservatism.

In Democrat-speak, the term “since the Great Depression” means since the end of Jimmy Carter’s term in office. (“This is the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression!”) For hardcore liberals, Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980 – and subsequent landslide in 1984 – was as depressing to them as it was great to us.

In Democrat-speak, a “mandate” is anything over 50% when they win – like the just-under 53% of the country who elected Barack Obama the 44th President of the United States (52.7%). (“Obama’s election is a mandate from the American people for change!” )”Diversity,” on the other hand, is measured as any tally under 50% when they lose – like the just-under 53% of people who voted for Proposition 8 in California (52.2%). (“Prop 8 barely passed. Just look at the diversity of thought here.”)

In Democrat-speak, “undocumented worker” means a potential vote.

In Democrat-speak, any word tagged with either a “phobe” or “ist” suffix – as in homophobe, xenophobe, racist, nativist, sexist, et al – applies to anyone and everyone who doesn’t subscribe to the ideas of expanding the welfare state, giving government control of private industry, changing the traditional definition of marriage, affording benefits to illegal aliens and giving preferential treatment based on skin color.

Please keep this cheat sheet handy for the next time you read any mainstream media news story, watch any mainstream media newscast, involve or immerse yourself in any way in pop culture or are simply walking in Manhattan.

It may help.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 20, 2008

Unhappy leftists.

Is that redundant?

Not even three weeks since Barack Obama won the White House, some of the leftocracy in America – particularly the annoying pacifist faction and their spineless peacenik cousins – aren’t very happy with the way “The One’s” cabinet is shaping up.

Too many hawks may be spoiling the soup.

Paul Richter of the Los Angeles Times writes:

the best of the left

the best of the left

Antiwar groups and other liberal activists are increasingly concerned at signs that Barack Obama’s national security team will be dominated by appointees who favored the Iraq invasion and hold hawkish views on other important foreign policy issues.

The activists are uneasy not only about signs that both Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates could be in the Obama Cabinet, but at reports suggesting that several other short-list candidates for top security posts backed the decision to go to war.

“Obama ran his campaign around the idea the war was not legitimate, but it sends a very different message when you bring in people who supported the war from the beginning,” said Kelly Dougherty, executive director of the 54-chapter Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Aside from Clinton and Gates, the roster of possible Cabinet secretaries has included Sens. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), who both voted in 2002 for the resolution authorizing President Bush to invade Iraq, though Lugar has since said he regretted it.

“It’s astonishing that not one of the 23 senators or 133 House members who voted against the war is in the mix,” said Sam Husseini of the liberal group Institute for Public Accuracy.

The group he is assembling wouldn’t be my team by any stretch. Team Clinton, the Director’s Cut, does nothing for me. (So much for “change?”) But anytime lefties get pissed off, it’s worth the ticket – especially when it’s by other lefties.

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