Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 15, 2010

To be sure, the numbers aren’t good. The latest Gallup poll shows that the American middle class is turning its back on President Obama. In fact, in every income group, save for one, Barack Obama’s approval numbers are less than 48%. Only the under-$24,000 income bracket still has a majority approval rating of 52% – but even there, that number is the lowest of Obama’s presidency.

Terrence P. Jeffrey of writes:

During the week of June 7-13, only 46 percent of Americans overall told Gallup they approved of the job Obama is doing as president, tying for the worst week of Obama’s presidency. Two weeks ago, forty-six percent also said they approved of the job Obama is doing, and last week 47 percent said they approved.

But when the president’s approval is separated by incomes groups, it is only the lowest income bracket recorded by Gallup—those who earn less than $2,000 per month—that gives Obama a majority approval rating, with 52 percent saying they approved of the job he is doing as president.

Among those earning $2,000 to $4,999 per month (or $24,000 to $59,988 per year), 46 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing. Among those earning $5,000 to $7,499 per month ($60,000 to $89,988 per year), 44 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing. And among those earning $7,500 or more per month ($90,000 per year or more), the highest income bracket recorded by Gallup, 47 percent said they approved of the job Obama is doing.

That’s all well and good, but am I the only one on the surface of God’s green Earth who is altogether befuddled as to how this man’s approval numbers are still so high? Even with my liberal-English dictionary in hand I have to admit, I am mystified.

This is a man whose picture fills out the “clueless” entry in the Encyclopedia Incompetentia. Former Carter administration officials are high-fiving each other as Obama continues to do the impossible – namely, challenge Jimmy Carter for the top spot on the Worst Presidents Countdown.

He bungles, fumbles, stumbles, bumbles, mismanages and mishandles everything in his scope. He is detached, disconnected, aloof and unable to speak publicly without his rolling electronic cue cards just off-shoulder.

And he is about to use the oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to promote yet another expansion of federal government.

How is it that Barack Obama still gets a thumbs-up from 46% of the American people? What am I missing? Or better yet, what are they missing?

Shouldn’t that number more realistically be around 35%? Or 4%?

Are they counting the dead? Life-sized cardboard cutouts? Obama’s extended family? Hamsters?

And I would love to have just two minutes to try and pick apart the brains of the 8% of self-identified “conservative republicans” who said they approve of the job President Obama is doing.

What an adventure that would be.

Perhaps I should take comfort in knowing that there still more people who believe Elvis is alive than there are “conservative Republicans” who approve of Bammy.


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 14, 2010

I suppose all it takes is a direct comparison to the worst terrorist attack in United States history to convince the rest of us that the President really is in touch with the American people, that he gets it, that perceptions of his being aloof and detached are wholly misconstrued – a construct of his political enemies.

The disastrous oil spill in the Gulf – according to the President – echoes the murder of nearly three-thousand innocents at the hands of terrorists on September 11, 2001. It is, according to the Community-Organizer-In-Chief, on par with the most dastardly act of evil ever perpetrated on American soil.

Not that it’s surprising he would think that way.

It’s inherent in the liberal blood stream; and I don’t mean the propensity to draw comparisons, which we all do. Rather, I’m talking about making embarrassingly erroneous corrolations. The way the left can carelessly compare health insurance coverage to the Holocaust or equate dissent to Nazi Germany is well-documented. Setting the Gulf oil spill on the same scale with the attacks of September 11, 2001 and hoping to find some kind of balance is yet another example of Barack Obama’s disconnect.

But it isn’t the latest and greatest example.

Barack Obama, to his credit, keeps topping himself.

If, for the sake of argument, one is to accept Barack Obama’s premise that the oil spill in the Gulf echoes the 9/11 attacks (i.e., the deaths of 3,000), what then can be said about the four hours the President spent on the golf course yesterday?

If the environmental and economic disaster on America’s Gulf Coast is to be equated with the murderous attack that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, what are the American people to think about a President who hits the links while such a catastrophe is taking place?

What if, for example, on September 21, 2001, one day after his magnificent speech before a joint session of Congress – ten days after the 9/11 attacks – President Bush took some cronies out for a round of golf while the rubble in lower Manhattan still smoked? Would there be any backlash from the media? Or the American people?

What if Bush went golfing, say, thirty days after the attacks? Or fifty? Would it seem appropriate to do so while this nation was formulating a retaliation strategy for the attacks? While battle plans were being put together, would it have been proper for the President to squeeze in a quick nine holes?

From The Hill:

President Barack Obama spent four hours on the golf course Sunday in temperatures that peaked in the low 90s. The White House pool reported that they left Andrews Air Force Base as it started to rain after 4 p.m.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood was among the group golfing with Obama.

Also reportedly in the golfing group were White House Trip Director Marvin Nicholson and photographer David Katz.

The president leaves Monday for his fourth trip to the Gulf Coast since the BP oil spill began nearly two months ago. On the trip, the President will visit Gulfport, Miss., Theodore, Ala., and Pensacola, Fla., to survey the response efforts, visit with Gulf residents impacted by the spill and meet with area officials.

Golf before Gulf, I always say.

And for those who would argue that is unfair and intellectually dishonest to compare preparing for war to trying to get a handle on the Gulf oil spill, I would say, “Exactly.”

Appreciating how serious the situation in the Gulf is, for all of its destructiveness, we can only Thank God it was not another 9/11 type of attack on American soil that took place with Barack Obama at the helm. Given the ineptitude of this administration on all fronts, one shudders at the thought.
wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


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 May 10, 2010

Elena Kagan

From the “Are You Surprised?” file …

Indeed, there won’t be much need for me – or anyone else for that matter – to spend a whole lot of time on Barack Obama’s latest Supreme Court nomination, Solicitor General Elena Kagan.

Why bother?

She doesn’t have nearly the ideological baggage that President Obama’s previous nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, had, yet recall how easily Sotomayor was confirmed by the Senate. Recall that despite saying she hoped to make better decisions as a Latina than a white man, Sotomayor sailed through.  Despite asserting that the Constitution of the United States does not protect the right to keep and bear arms against infringement by state and local governments, Sotomayor passed muster. Despite admitting that racial statistics are more important to her than merit, Sotomayor got the gig.

Kagan is a shoo-in.

But for the record – for those who came in after the opening credits – let me be clear: Elena Kagan is a liberal

Shocked, are you?

Oh sure, she’s a charmer. She’s endeared herself to many right-of-center. But make no mistake, she’s got her tootsies formly planted on the left.

True, Kagan’s never been a judge – which conveniently means there will be no judicial paper trail to dissect – but seeing as she pushed to keep military recruiters off of the Harvard Law School campus when she was the dean pretty much says everything you need to know about where she’s coming from.  To her, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” was – and still is – a moral injustice of the first order. I think she used the word “repugnant.”

Fox News reports: “Democrats … may like that Kagan is known for her ability to coalesce opposing sides and the fact that when she worked for President Clinton, she successfully negotiated with Republican Senator John McCain (AZ) for federal authority to control the sale of cigarettes.”

This will afford the mainstream media the opportunity to portray Kagan as a moderate, middle-of-the-road, seeing-all-sides, open-minded breath of fresh air. The phrase “consensus builder” will be a big one over the next several weeks.

Of course, getting John McCain to successfully “negotiate” with Democrats is like getting a child to eat cookies for supper.

There will be much said about Kagan over the ensuing days and weeks. Her name will be all over the news for a while … and, unfortunately, unless it is discovered that she regularly used non-biodegradable paper bags at the supermarket instead of reusable green-friendly carry sacks, she will be become Barack Obama’s second Supreme Court nominee to hit the bench.

Besides, Kagan adores barack Obama. She is enamored with all of the “rock star qualities he has.” She is mezmerized by “the eloquence, the magnitism, the great looks, the brilliance” of Barack Obama.

And Barack Obama loves being adored.

It’s a match made in heaven … or at the Waffle House.

The lesson?

Elections matter.

If President McCain was the one making the nomination today, you can rest assured that the Leftocrat blogosphere would be in red-alert conniption mode . 

If only it were so.

There is no legacy for a President of the United States as critical – or far reaching – as who he or she nominates to the Supreme Court.

Elections really matter.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Supreme Court | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2010

If you find yourself anywhere near the Hillegas Road overpass on Interstate 69 in Fort Wayne, Indiana, you might consider taking a moment or two to take in a billboard that is causing quite a stir in and around the Summit City.

It’s difficult to miss.

Its bright yellow background is almost enough to require UV blocking protective eye gear for motorists.

Its message is even more conspicuous.

Let’s say that whoever is renting the space isn’t going to be attending any Barack Obama fan club functions any time soon.

The “trickle-up poverty” line is good, but the “hoax and chains” pun is priceless.

Well done.

Someone needs to take an “attaboy” out of petty cash.

And no, I don’t think Barack Obama looks like he’s raising his arm in a Nazi salute.

Come on . . .stop that.


There was also some talk that a display featuring a motorized replica of Barack Obama walking across the Maumee River, only to eventually collapse into the water (symbolizing the continuing downward spiral of the Democrat Party) was to be erected sometime before June in Headwaters Park.

The idea was scrapped when it was realized that such a thing could only be done once.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Taking Our Country Back | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 26, 2010

Jan Brewer, Arizona Governor

I promise you, as God is my witness, that if I had the ability to do so, I would extract liberals from deep within the cerebral prisons they currently dwell and facilitate a kind of out of body experience for them. I truly believe that if afforded the opportunity to see and hear themselves as the rest of us do, they could – I say, could – actually come to realize how absurd they sound on relevant matters.

Arizona is the busiest portal into this country for narcotics and illegals. Residents there have had it up to their nipples watching their state become overrun with unwanted intruders and drug-peddling vermin.

Yet, none of this seems to concern liberals very much – at least not enough to actually do something other than fashion some clever commentary chuck full of buzz words and phrases like “fairness” and “civil rights” and “comprehensive.”

Well, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer actually did something about it.

When she signed what has become this country’s latest raging controversy into law on Friday – namely an actual immigration enforcement bill – you’d have thought she issued an edict calling for the murder of the state’s first born … or appointed Meghan McCain as Lieutenant Governor.

Brewer essentially removed the shackles from her state’s law enforcement officials so that immigration laws that are already on the books can actually be enforced.

It’s a novel concept.

It’s an inevitable – and commendable – reaction to a situation that has been festering for a long time.

Like any law in any state, there will be time for adjustments and modifications. Parameters will have to be solidified, and any abuses that may arise – as there would be with any piece of legislation – will be tended to. There is no perfect law.

But make no mistake, this law needed to be passed – to protect all American citizens, regardless of their race, creed, ethnicity or color. (Yes, libs, that includes Americans of Hispanic ancestry … like me).

This is about stopping illegals. Nothing more.

True to form, the first thing out of President Obama’s waffle hole was that the law is “misguided.” Cries from across the land that the new law would open the door to civil rights abuses could be heard from coast to coast, echoed by whiny leftists, out-of-work infomercial watching liberals, government-teat feeders and John Lennon “Imagine-there’s-no-countries” leftists.

The words “racial profiling” once again have hit the front burners of America’s consciousness.

Said our heralded Commander-In-Chief:

Our failure to act responsibly at the federal level will only open the door to irresponsibility by others. That includes, for example, the recent efforts in Arizona which threaten to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans, as well as the trust between police and our communities that is so crucial to keeping us safe.

So, am I to understand, in attempting to decipher The One’s words, that the “basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans” translates into allowing illegal aliens – non-Americans – to break our laws? That it “undermines fairness” to enforce those laws meant to protect law-abiding, tax-paying citizens? How about Arizona rancher, Robert Krentz, recently shot to death on his own property by an illegal? What about his basic notion of fairness?

What on earth is Barack Obama talking about?

This is what I mean by sounding “absurd.” This is the brilliantly teleprompted, Harvard Constitutional scholar in action? This is the best he’s got?

If I may, allow me to briefly help Barack Obama understand what Americans really cherish.

Americans cherish a leader who will abide by the Constitutional charges of the office: to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Americans cherish a government actually doing what it is supposed to do. Americans cherish liberty.


In that sense, Obama is right. Protecting America is the federal government’s job. The Constitution says so. But trusting Barack Obama with national security is like leaving the key to the meat locker to Michael Moore.

Governor Brewer of Arizona decided that if the feds weren’t going to do something about rampant illegal immigration, she had to.

It’s called leadership.

Seventy percent of Arizona’s citizens – including fifty-one percent of Arizona Democrats – support this law.

That’s right, support this law.

Yet, Bammy the Heavy Handed-One – the man who never met any kind of liberty he didn’t dislike – has “instructed” the administration to “examine the civil rights and other implications of the legislation.”

So, then what?

Does that mean those elected officials in Arizona who are trying to protect their citizens – precisely because the federal government won’t – could feel the hot breath of Eric Holder’s Justice Department on their necks while illegals gun down innocent Americans? Will liberty-loving patriots in Arizona be subject to the totalitarian boot of Washington Obamacrats because enforcing existing immigration laws may, indeed, “offend” certain segments of the population?

See what fifteen months can do?

But the best part of all this is the fact that the Overlord of All Race Baiters himself – the slick-haired, riot-inciting, arbiter of all that is decent and fair – Al Sharpton is set to travel to Arizona to protest.

Who didn’t see that coming?

From the Washington Post:

The Rev. Al Sharpton says he’s ready to travel to Arizona and march in the streets to protest the state’s new immigration law.

Sharpton joined Lillian Rodriguez Lopez from the Hispanic Federation in New York City on Sunday to speak out against the law. They say activists are prepared to commit civil disobedience to fight it.

Feel free to take a “yippee!” out of petty cash.

As one caller to the Laura Ingraham show pointed out this morning, the biggest difference between illegal aliens and Al Sharpton is that illegals do all they can to remain unseen. Al Sharpton, on the other hand, does all he can to make sure the world is looking right at him.

Let’s be clear here: This is not about the police pulling over people who look Latino, demanding to see proof of citizenship. That is not what this is about, and the Governor of Arizona has explicitly said so. This is about law enforcement officials being able to enforce immigration laws when there is reasonable suspicion that people are here illegally. Despite what up-in-arms activists and loud-mouth reactionaries say, simply pulling someone over for “looking Latino” won’t cut it. Something like that would get thrown out of court in about four nanoseconds.   

But, for argument’s sake, let’s say that there was some degree of racial profiling being employed in enforcing the new law (even though “Hispanic” is an ethnicity, not a race). Why is singling out and offering special preferences to certain races and ethnicities perfectly acceptable when it comes to things such as college admissions, but not for protecting citizens of all colors and creeds?

If using a person’s race is not an acceptable criterion on one hand, why does the other hand get a pass?

Incidentally, look for this legislation to be duplicated in other states.

Thank God.

wordpress statistics

Posted in illegal immigration, national security, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on April 2, 2010

The news today is that the President of the United States is set to “rewrite” America’s policy on nuclear weapons sometime next week. What that really means is the President has decided a weaker America is a more lovable America.

The immediate objective is to reduce America’s nuclear arsenal while refraining from developing new systems. The ultimate objective is to do away with nuclear weapons altogether.

From the Times of London, via Fox News:

After a review of the nation’s nuclear weapons arsenal that has involved, among others, the Pentagon, the Department of Energy and the intelligence services, as well as the White House, Obama is expected to reject the doctrine on nuclear weapons — the “nuclear posture” — adopted by George W. Bush, which included the possibility of the United States launching an attack on a non-nuclear state.

In January, I commented on this painfully asinine, immeasurably naïve and potentially catastrophic approach to national security.

Because this is such an important issue – and because the commentary is timely – it is definitely worth revisiting:

The screeching unclean masses say that war is not the answer, but sometimes it is the only answer. The socially conscious (and perpetually stoned) regale the world with chants of “give peace a chance,” but peace without victory only means the side of goodness has acquiesced for the time being. The President once said that the United States will extend its hand if the enemy is willing to unclench its fist – bend-overism at its best.

But such a gesture is not, and never can be, proffered from a position of strength, and the enemy knows it. The enemy exploits it.

Can there be anyone quite as naïve as a man – the most powerful man in the world, let’s say – thinking that a nuclear weapon-free world is not only something to aspire to, but something that is realistically attainable?

Liberals are almost adorable when they try to be serious. Unfortunately, the stakes are way too high for fun and games.

Why, first of all, is it at all desirable to do away with nuclear weapons given the realities of human existence? What, exactly, would such a feat accomplish? If the world is rid of them – which really means, if the West is rid of them – what then? Does the technology suddenly not exist?

That must be it.

Just like the “War on Terror” doesn’t seem so “George Bushy” if we simply call it an “Overseas Contingency Operation,” or Islamo-fascist terrorism don’t seem so pervasive if we call terrorists “isolated extremists,” the world will seem like a far better place if those nasty bombs are dismantled and filed away next to the aging surplus of pet rocks and mood rings.

Out of sight, out of mind wins the liberal day.

Regardless of the reasons, or the projected effects, or the feasibility, one of President Obama’s stated goals is to do away with all nuclear weapons. To children, dope smokers, tenured professors and MSNBC anchors, it all sounds so stone-cold groovy. No more nukes, baby! Whether or not the President will dispatch disciples to shove flowers into the rifle barrels of military personnel is unclear, but one thing is for certain: there are lots of fists that need unclenching, and lots of hugs just waiting to be shared.

And Obama is the man to make it happen.

To Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, this isn’t a values issue. It’s about the technology. Rather than focus on the ideologies and religious fanaticism that make these weapons a genuine threat to countries like the United States and Israel, the weapons themselves – along with the fact that the United States possesses so many of them – is really the problem.

Shall we all just pretend that such capabilities are make-believe? Will the world magically be safer when those blasted mushroom cloud making boom-booms go away? Is it reasonable to assume that the bad guys will then rethink what they’re doing when they see nations like the United States and Israel disarming?

The naivety and silliness of wishing to make the world a “nuclear weapon-free zone” cannot accurately be charted. Technology has not advanced that far. Childish wish-lists and theoretical gobbledygook contrived in the halls of academia have little to do with the real world.

Perhaps the better question is: why is it so desirable for the “good guys” to do away with them? What example are we trying to set? That the powerful shall not defend themselves? That only rogues, terrorists and despots shall have such weapons? This is akin to arguing with an anti-Second Amendment zealot who can never explain why weapons in the hands of law abiding citizens are a bad thing.

The fact is, nuclear weapons exist because they must exist.

(“What?” ask libs, confused, confounded.)

Deadbolts and car alarms must exist because some people steal. Pepper spray and mace must exist because some people assault the innocent. Police must exist because some people do bad things.

It’s really quite simple.

And if countries that wish to “lead by example” do away with the most powerful weapons in their arsenals, knowing that evil does exist, they are as stupid and careless as someone who leaves the door to his or her home swinging wide open when they go out.

The world is in no danger with free nations in possession of these – or any – weapons.

If, for example, in a Barack Obama world of fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies, the United States and her allies were nuclear-weapon free, and a nuclear attack should take place in a city like New York or London or Tel-Aviv, then what? We should feel good that, at least, we stood by our principles?

In the real world, such cartoonish objectives aren’t rational, as Bammy is finding out.

Paul Richer of the Los Angeles Times writes:

President Obama’s ambitious plan to begin phasing out nuclear weapons has run up against powerful resistance from officials in the Pentagon and other U.S. agencies, posing a threat to one of his most important foreign policy initiatives.

Obama laid out his vision of a nuclear-free world in a speech in Prague, Czech Republic, last April, pledging that the U.S. would take dramatic steps to lead the way. Nine months later, the administration is locked in internal debate over a top-secret policy blueprint for shrinking the U.S. nuclear arsenal and reducing the role of such weapons in America’s military strategy and foreign policy.

The Pentagon has stressed the importance of continued U.S. deterrence, an objective Obama has said he agrees with. But a senior Defense official acknowledged in an interview that some officials are concerned that the administration may be going too far. He described the debate as “spirited. . . . I think we have every possible point of view in the world represented.”

What kind of deterrence is the President in favor of in a nuclear weapon-free world? Name calling? A threat not to have Obama’s hand extended to them? God forbid, sanctions?

The world shivers and shakes.

The government maintains an estimated 9,400 nuclear weapons, about 1,000 fewer than in 2002. But Obama believes that stepping up efforts to reduce the stockpile will give U.S. officials added credibility in their quest to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the cornerstone international arms-control pact.

The timing of the administration debate on the nuclear review is crucial, because a key international meeting on the treaty is planned for May in New York.

Also looming this year are other elements of Obama’s nuclear agenda, including renewal of an arms-reduction treaty with Russia and a push for Senate ratification of a global ban on nuclear testing.

The nonproliferation treaty has been weakened in recent years by the spread of nuclear technologies to countries such as North Korea, Pakistan and Iran. But nonnuclear countries are wary of intrusive new rules, arguing that though the United States preaches nuclear arms control to others, it has failed to live up to its own promises to disarm.

For Obama, the stakes are high. The difficulties posed by challenges in Afghanistan, Pakistan, North Korea and the Middle East underscore the need for progress on arms control.

Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in part because of expectations that he would make good on his pledge to reduce the nuclear threat.

Indeed, the threat in a world with nuclear weapons is in who has them – which means it isn’t about the weapons at all, but rather the values of those who seek to possess them. That means the United States (i.e., the President) must be able to summon, with crystal-clear clarity, the courage to make judgments and, without equivocation, openly name the evils that threaten us.

For those who came in after the credits, I’ll repeat … there is no threat whatsoever when the good guys – yes, we are the good guys – possess nuclear weapons.


It’s all about values, values, values.

In other news, liberals still cannot be trusted with national security.

wordpress statistics

Posted in leftism, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Nuclear Weapons, Obama Bonehead, Values, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 1, 2010

George Soros

I don’t doubt for a moment that billionaire George Soros is feeling a touch unsatisfied with the first thirteen months of the Messianic Age.

It hasn’t exactly been fuzzy bunnies and swaying daisies.

For Soros – and other lefties – it’s been more like intestinal polyps and impacted molars.

For one, the banks were never nationalized. Soros desperately wanted it to happen.

Second, America never “unified” under the new boy Socialist king the way many had envisioned. Despite Bam’s wish to be the “great uniter,” it never materialized.

That’s because the “rest of us” – the thinking class – never bought into it.

And thank God for that.

The word “unity,” in a political context, is only a gimmick.

It is the most disingenuous word in politics.

What Soros really means is that more people didn’t fall in line with Obama’s liberal agenda. That’s really what “unity” means when a candidate says it, no matter which side of the aisle it comes from – getting everyone to think like he or she.

Personally, I couldn’t care less about “unity.” I’m a “clarity” guy.

Of course, America’s “disunity” is not really the fault of President Obama or his widely unpopular agenda, accoring to Soros. Yes, it take two to play pinochle, but it’s really the rest of us that are to blame.

Said Soros:

“He wanted to be the great uniter and he wanted to carry the country, sort of bring it together. But the other side has absolutely no incentive to do it. So it takes two to tango. So that approach has failed.”

He’s right.

I have more of an incentive to lick my fingers after manually cleaning out the bathtub drain than “unite” in the lobby of Club Marxist.

It is no secret that most of the country – a significant majority – does not buy into the Obamacratic vision of nanny-statism and intrusive government.

But, like Howard Dean, he’s making the barren-brained mistake of thinking that what has happened in places like New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts – namely the ass-kicking of failed big-government liberals – is a sign from the electorate that those in power are not being liberal enough.

But Obama “got the message” when Massachusetts elected Scott Brown, a Republican, as Ted Kennedy’s successor, Soros said.

“I hope that, actually, now, he’s [Obama’s] taking the health care back to Congress and overcoming the filibuster — the 60 percent vote requirement,” Soros said. “I think that’s the right reaction. So he’s sort of taking a tough stance. And that may be the turning point. It depends on how he follows it up.”

It makes perfect sense.

The people of bluer-than-blue Massachusetts – liberalism’s uterus – were so behind the proposed government take over of 17% of the American economy that they elected someone who ran almost exclusively on being the “41st Republican,” namely Scott Brown.


Maybe the electorate was angry – furious, even – that Obama hadn’t proposed more of the economy being sucked up by the government.

Maybe this entire trend of toppling Democrats is America’s way of saying that they are sick of the free market, and if liberals can’t get the job done, they’re willing to punish America with a little infusion of liberty from the right.

At least Obama saved America from a deep recession or depression.

Seven billion jobs saved or created, I think the count is up to, as of this morning.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Dumb Liberals, Economy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, Obamacrats, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 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:

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

“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.”

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!

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 5, 2010

The English language can be flummoxing.

Some of its letters in certain situations can present significant challenges.

For instance, many of us are familiar with “silent e” (as in cape, vane and globe),  but there are others that can be more perplexing, more troublesome.

One such example is the harrowing and sinister “silent p.”

They’re very tricky.

If your psychic has pneumonia, you know what I’m talking about.

I learned early in life how problematic they were watching everyone’s favorite Cuban band leader, Ricky Ricardo, stumble over the word “psychiatrist.”

I never forgot that. 

Of course, the dreaded “silent p” is even more of a nuisance when it appears in the middle of a word.

Just ask the President of the United States.

The Harvard Law School alum, world-renowned orator, community organizer and civil rights attorney, must have been in the canteen the day they went over the “silent p” portion of his Language Arts workbook.

During yesterday’s National Prayer Breakfast, the President was lauding the efforts of relief workers in Haiti, and offered specific high praise for a Navy Corpsman. The silent “p” proved too much for the magne cum laude as he twice pronounced the word corpsman with the “p”.

As in “corpse, man.”

Messiahs are capable of many things, but to expect grammatical perfection is probably a bit much.

It’s that anti-Capitalist, anti-free market, pro-Marixst streak in him that is probably behind this gaffe. The word “corpsman” looks a lot like “corporation.”

We know he knows how to pronounce that word.  Besides, teleprompters can’t whisper back.

Putting all in context, it’s not like he mispronounced the word “nuclear” or anything.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 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, 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.

Too clever.

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.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama Bonehead | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 18, 2009

Terrorists are coming to Illinois – yet one more shining example of why national security needs to be left to the grown-ups.

I’ve yet to hear an explanation as to how the United States is better off having these murderous thugs on American soil instead of in an off-shore detention facility. I’ve yet to hear a coherent argument as to how creating government jobs to man the Thomson Correctional Center (i.e., taking money out of the economy through taxation just to redistribute it back to others in the form of paychecks) is a plus for Illinois. How does granting Constitutional rights to terrorists help America? How is this country more secure with these examples of human excrement under lock and key in the American Midwest?

The American electorate knew (or certainly should have known) exactly what they were getting when they voted President Obama into office last year. The preponderance of evidence indicating that Obama was, indeed, a hard-core leftist was hard to miss. And yet, 52.7% of us elected a man ill-equipped to run a bingo game, let alone prosecute the ongoing war against Islamo-facist terrorists.

Now, eleven months later, poll numbers are showing a whole lot of people suffering from good old fashioned buyer’s remorse.

The fact is, if the President of the United States hasn’t the courage to unambiguously identify that which is evil, and then stand up to it, the White House is without an adult at the helm.

As Eric at the great Vocal Minority blog often says, “Welcome to the future, suckers.”

An insight into the President’s “maturity” level in dealing with evil can be found by going back to the campaign (among other instances). In one of his most critical responses from the famed Saddleback Presidential Forum in August, 2008, when asked directly if he believed in the existence of evil, Obama responded that evil did exist and that it had to be confronted. (Notice his choice of words then – to confront evil rather than defeat it).

Obama said:

We see evil in Darfur. We see evil, sadly, on the streets of our cities. We see evil in parents who viciously abuse their children.

Whereas his opponent, Senator John McCain, unmistakably identified the evil of Islamo-facist terrorism as the “transcendant challenge of the twenty-first century,” and said that it needed to be defeated rather than confronted, then-Senator Obama went on to say that evil had to be met with humility.


This is precisely why Democrats cannot be trusted or taken seriously on so many of the critical issues of our time – particularly the War on Terror (or whatever they call it now). They reflexively respond to critical realities with quixotic, romantic, feel-good, college-campus adolescent poppycock. They advocate childish solutions to adult real-world situations. Their perceptions are dangerously awry. To Obama, inner-city violence exists on the same plane as terrorism. This thinking, tragically, is common in liberal-land … and it’s infuriating.

It’s manifested itself in having five terrorists – including the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks – stand trial in a civilian court in New York City.

In a now infamous article penned by John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed in the Los Angeles Times last year, this thinking was taken a step further:

If most Muslims truly reject terrorism, why does it continue to flourish in Muslim lands? What these results indicate is that terrorism is much like other violent crime. Violent crimes occur throughout U.S. cities, but that is no indication of Americans’ general acceptance of murder or assault. Likewise, continued terrorist violence is not proof that Muslims tolerate it. Indeed, they are its primary victims.

Intellectual dishonesty and out-of-context assertions are aggravating.

Terrorism is much like other violent crime?”


Is Mother Teresa much like Adolf Hitler because they breathed air, required water to live and were both homo sapiens? Yes, a rapist in St. Louis, for example, is an abysmal excuse for a human being. A murderer of innocents in Louisville is a horrible person and should be put to death (if applicable) … but neither of these pieces of human debris is a national security risk, are they?


The fact is, people in this country get up and rally openly against violent crime in the form of neighborhood watches all the time. Folks commonly gather in public places in America and openly take positions against what they perceive as injustices. If anyone can show me the last Muslim rally anywhere openly denouncing those who use Islam to justify terrorism and ghastly violence, I’d like to be directed to the article or video that reported on it.

Equally, police all over this country fight the good fight to keep streets on a daily basis, precisely because crime is something that must be kept under control as much as humanly possible. Does anyone claim the “threat” of violence in our cities is overrated?

We keep hearing from the left that only a small percentage of people in the Muslim world are sympathetic to the likes of Osama Bin Ladin.

So what? What does that mean exactly?

If the percentage were, say, two points higher, then the threat should be taken more seriously? How about six points higher? How about that big hole in Manhattan to illustrate what a small percentage of killers can sccomplish? That “small percentage” of people ultimately make up a huge grand total, don’t they? It’s certainly a number that eclipses the amount of violent criminals in the entire Western World.

And just think … 9/11 conspirators (i.e., enemy combatants) get to hide under the protections of our Constitution as they stand trial in civilian court not too far from that big hole in the ground.

Another thank you to President Obama.

If you believe the greatest threats to mankind include the liquefying icecaps of the northlands, gluttonous phramecutical companies, and national bankruptcy unless America spends an additional two trillion dollars (as Obama suggested), then saddle up the donkey, slap an “Obama is Love” bumper sticker on its backside and head for 2010.

I’ll stick with the grown-ups, thank you.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Dumb Liberals, Liberalism, Moral Clarity, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, terrorism, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 28, 2009

Aside from those who may enjoy a hint of sadomasochism in their private lives, getting spanked from two directions is probably not something most people aspire to – not even the President of the United States (unless he is from Arkansas or Massachusetts).

Any president, obviously, expects to weather his share of open handed political slaps from the other team. It’s what politics are all about. But when a president’s own side starts promising a smack back in response to a policy decision, and it is in addition to the searing heat already coming from the opposition on the same issue, things are definitely getting hairy.

With President Obama already establishing brand new standards for lackadaisical wartime leadership, he is apparently ready to tell the world how the United States will proceed in Afghanistan. The scuttlebutt is he will announce that he is sending as many as 35,000 troops there early next year – less than the 40,000 General Stanley McChrystal requested.

And while Obama’s many months of glittering indecision has disgusted and angered conservatives (and others), the idea that he will send anyone else to Afghanistan is angering some liberals.

Stephen Clark of Fox News writes:

President Obama is days away from announcing a new Afghan strategy, but his immediate battle could come from liberals within his own party who are vowing to “spank” the president for committing tens of thousands of more troops to the eight-year conflict.

“I think there will be some disillusionment within his base,” said Paul Kawika Martin, political director for Peace Action, a grassroots organization, who added that thousands of activists are planning to protest following the president’s announcement.

“We’re going to spank him for sending more troops,” he told, adding that they may also “thank him” if he announces a quick exit strategy.

The White House has said that the U.S. won’t be in Afghanistan for another eight or nine years. But that won’t satisfy liberals, Martin said.

Indeed, conservatives have criticized the President for his world-class dithering on this issue. They have hit Obama hard on his disinclination to use the word “victory.” They have excoriated him for failing to give the impression to his own troops – and the world at large – that he is determined to do what it takes to win. He has helped build an image of a weakened America throughout the world.

However, there can be little doubt that if the President asks for Republican support for this 35,000 troop surge, he will wind up getting it. They may question – with good reason – why Obama feels he has the expertise to second guess his own generals by sending in less troops than requested, but Republicans will have to support the move.

Couple those Republicans with the Dems who actually would be willing to support the measure, and the President will be left having to contend with the anti-war left who are promising to “spank” him for his decision.

I’d love someone to define that for me. (No illustrations needed).

Even though Obama’s announcement is sure to reawaken the anti-war movement, Martin said, the protests won’t be as intense as they were in the Bush era because the movement has been weakened by the economic recession — some organizations have shed up to 40 percent of staff in the past year, he said — and is distracted by the national health care debate. He also said many members of the movement voted for Obama and trust him more than the Bush administration.

“So you don’t have that same type of anger,” he said.

But without the support of congressional Democrats, Obama will find himself in the awkward position of relying on the support of Republicans who largely oppose his domestic agenda. And he may have to explain how he supports a troop surge in Afghanistan when he opposed one in Iraq two years ago.

The word “irony” comes to mind.

Remember, this is the “necessary war,” according to President Obama. It is so “necessary,” in fact, that Obama has decided to go McChrystal-light.

Bammy knows best.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 25, 2009

235 British troops have been killed in Afghanistan to date – 98 this year alone. Support for the war in Afghanistan continues to drop among Brits, and according to British Defense Secretary Bob Ainsworth, the reason can be summed up in two words: Barack Obama.

In ten-plus months of stunning, history-book rewriting governance, it has become clear that unless one is a tyrant, a totalitarian or a terrorist, President Obama really isn’t all that interested in diplomacy. In fact, it’s quite unlikely that even an Obama patented classic groveling bow before Gordon Brown (or Sir Paul McCartney) could make things better between the two long-time allies.

While President Obama continued, even this week, to valiantly blame every thing wrong with America – including the war in Afghanistan – on eight years of George W. Bush, Ainsworth pointed his finger at Obama.

James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden of the UK Telegraph write: 

Bob Ainsworth

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.

Some who have lauded Obama’s thoughtfulness and deliberateness in coming up with a plan of action for Afghanistan claim that those who criticize his “dithering” are ill-informed partisans hell-bent on finding fault with anything he does. Bammy supporters argue that additional troops would not have been available for deployment until January anyway (according to a “senior US defense official”) so the “dithering” issue is largely irrelevant and intellectually dishonest.

But it’s a silly argument.

Whether or not troops are ready to deploy today has nothing to do with whether or not a course of action can be devised. Troop availability today has no bearing on whether or not the Commander-in-Chief of the United States armed forces can formulate a war strategy.

The argument isn’t even logical.

For example, people regularly make plans and devise strategies for their futures by setting goals (buying a house, a car, saving for a child’s education, etc.), and almost always when the funds to make those goals a reality are not in hand.

Considering the speed with which the President embarked on his multi-trillion dollar spending sprees, it’s difficult to lend legitimacy to the “Obama is just being contemplative” argument. After all, the President is obviously more than willing to increase government spending to unprecedented levels without having the funds “in hand” to do so.

So, if troops were ready to deploy today, President Obama would have already come up with a plan?

Anyone who believes that, stand on his head.

All deployments take time to organize. All battle plans need preparation. Military commanders have already hinted that it could take several months to get new troops in the pipeline. But the plan must first exist.

There is nothing in waiting months and months to announce a strategy that bodes well for Obama on this score.


And if, for the sake of argument, Obama’s dithering actually was based on the fact that additional troops would not be available until January, wouldn’t he – or any of his dancing Obamacrats – have cited it endlessly it as a reason for the prolonged delay? Wouldn’t the mainstream media, ever quick to give the President the benefit of any doubt, have beaten that excuse to death by now?

Ten months in, and everything is still George W. Bush’s fault.

It isn’t as if Obama is averse to passing the buck … or bowing to it.

Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.

Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committe in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.

He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.

“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.

“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”

The President is having a difficult time convincing anybody that he takes the war in Afghanistan seriously.

Ainsworth – the first British minister to publicly speak up against Obama’s turtle-paced approach to prosecuting the war – is clearly not happy.

A set of holiday DVDs presented in a festive gift case ought to put him straight.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Afghanistan, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, national security, Obama Bonehead, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 21, 2009

Someone ought to get MSNBC’S Chris Matthews a towel … or a cigarette. His incessant gushing over everything the President does and says is going to leave a nasty stain on the carpet. Perhaps a sedative, or one of Keith Olbermann’s famous back rubs, would help. That Matthews’ legs have not been rendered lame from all of the thrills running up them is, in a word, miraculous. If he hasn’t already had an accident on the set, it’s only a matter of time.

Indeed, his viewership may be the only thing dropping quicker than the President’s poll numbers – or the New York Jets’ season – but every once in a while, Matthews can offer a unique touch of insight.

And so it was that on his show Hardball – yes, it is still on the air – Chris Matthews offered an actual criticism of Barack Obama.

Sort of.

With the President’s poll numbers falling off the table, Matthews asked his viewer(s) to consider the possibility that President Obama is just too smart for his own good.

President Obama has his chin out there on just about every hot issue out there: health care, terror trials, job losses, even the breast cancer report. He’s exposed and vulnerable. His poll numbers are dropping. Is he just too darned intellectual? Too much the egghead? Why did he bow to that Japanese Emperor? Why did he pick Tim Geithner to be his economic front man? Why all this dithering over Afghanistan? Who thought it was a wonderful idea to bring the killers of 9/11 to New York City?

Yes, of course.

It should have been obvious, but I chose not to see it. My ideological blinders have kept me from weighing the possibility that the rest of us are simply not cerebral enough to keep up with him.

He is that He is.

Barack Obama is too much of an intellectual. It is his “eggheadedness” that has caused his numbers to slip. You can hardly blame him for not being able to mingle academically with the non-water walkers of America.

Matthews, again, leads the way.


Incidentally, the answers to Matthews’ questions are, in order:

– Not in your wildest dreams.

– Only if he dips his face into a quiche.

– Because, as a liberal, his goal is to present America as weak and vulnerable.

– Because his ability to pick friends, mentors and associates of character is on par with his ability speak coherently free of teleprompters.

– Because once he does, he owns it, and he can’t use George W. Bush as an excuse any longer – although, he will.

– Only those people who can never, ever, ever, ever, ever be trusted with national security – liberals.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Media, Media Bias, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 19, 2009

For sheer incoherence, this may very well be on par with “I was for it before I was against it,” although not nearly as quotable. However, for the unrivaled capacity to redefine things at will, the award has to go to Barack H. Obama, Chief Executive.

No one else is even in his league.

He may certainly be the best sounding fertilizer peddler since Barney Frank on peanut butter, but there isn’t a soul – not even William Jefferson Clinton himself – with the hypnotizing ability to change the rules of the game on a dime as Barack Obama can.

The purpose of Obama’s Stimulus Bill, you recall, was to revitalize the economy and put Americans to work. It all sounded so divinely FDR. It is all anyone heard from clucking Obamacrats leading up to the bill’s who-did-it-and-ran passage in February – that the $787 billion dollar spending spectacular would create somewhere around 4 million jobs, and the unemployment rate would top off at around 8%, and America would finally live up to its promise because only government can save.

Blah, blah, blah.

The reality is the unemployment rate has been steadily rising and currently stands at over 10%. The confidence of the American people is plummeting. And although the President continues to sing the praises of his illusory “job recovery,” there aren’t too many people buying it.

Job recoveries are hard to wrap your arms around when less people are working.

Besides, if there are any jobs being “created” or “saved” by Obama’s Spendulous Bill, the bulk of them are government sector jobs, which means taxpayer dollars are being sucked out of the economy so that they can be redistributed to others as salary.

FDR, indeed.

To top it off, the government’s assessment of the Stimulus Bill’s success has been embarrassingly incorrect. There has been job creation in non-existent districts; there have been more “jobs saved” than actually exist at given places of employment; and no one seems to be sure what the criteria is for any of it.

This is where Obama’s sheer incoherence will score him some “ah-ha” points with the mainstream media (who have been a bit worried that their savior is losing some credibility even among hardcore Obamacrats).

It turns out that all along, according to Obama, the number of jobs created wasn’t particularly relevant – a mere “side issue,” as he calls it.  Rather, job growth was his real number one priority.

See? Problem solved.

From Fox News

“I think this is an inexact science. We’re talking about a multitrillion-dollar economy that went through the worst economic crisis since 1933. The first measure of success of the economic recovery is, did we pull ourselves back from the brink? We did,” Obama said. “The question now is, can we make sure we’re accelerating job growth? That’s my No. 1 job. Nobody’s been more disappointed than I have to see how high the unemployment rate has gotten. And I spend every waking hour, when I’m talking to my economic team, about how we are going to put people back to work.”

How exactly does one track job growth without counting jobs?

Recall that last week Obama credited the Stimulus Bill for putting a million people back to work. Or for keeping them at work. Or whatever it was supposed to do. Why would the President make it a point to mention how many jobs the Stimulus Bill was responsible for if it was only a “side issue?”

What about the “multi-trillion” dollar debt poised to be left as an “Obama Was Here” calling card for countless future generations?

And I love the line about accounting being “an inexact science.”

How bleeping convenient.

Is projecting how “cost effective” and “efficient” government-run healthcare will be an inexact science too?

wordpress statistics

Posted in Big Government, Economy, stimulus bill | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 14, 2009

Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in reacting to the pathetic and irresponsible decision taken by the Obama administration to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four other terrorists to civilian court, reminded us all, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, what the 9/11 attacks really were:

This was an act of war. One of things I thought we learned from September 11th is that we were in a state of denial before September 11th. We went through this once before in 1993. We had terrorists attack the World Trade Center. We did not recognize it as an act of war. We tried them in the Southern District in New York. It did no good.

President Barack Obama is following through on his promise to undo everything Bush by gradually emptying out the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

What better way to do it than to yank terrorists from the security of Gitmo and send them to an American city to face a jury not comprised of their peers? And what better place to bestow rights onto those who are not entitled to them than in New York City?

As disgusting as this is – and, I assure you, it doesn’t get more reprehensible than conferring Constitutional rights on terrorists – it should come as no surprise to anyone.

52.7% of your fellow countrymen voted for this.

While he was still a candidate, then-Senator Barack Obama was talking constitutionality – which in itself was (and still is) enough to send the short hairs on the back of my neck to attention. He launched an attack against then-Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin and her position on the so-called rights of terrorist suspects, referencing Palin’s comments in her acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention last summer.

She said (referring to then-Senator Obama):

Terrorist states are seeking new-clear weapons without delay … he wants to meet them without preconditions. Al Qaeda terrorists still plot to inflict catastrophic harm on America … he’s worried that someone won’t read them their rights?

Obama’s response:

First of all, you don’t even get to read them their rights until you catch ’em. They (the Republicans) should spend more time trying to catch Osama bin Laden and we can worry about the next steps later. My position has always been clear: If you’ve got a terrorist, take him out. Anybody who was involved in 9/11, take ’em out.”

Obama saw himself as defending the Constitution (in some sick, twisted way) as he went after Governor Palin, supporting the issuance of rights to terrorist suspects because, as he put is, “we don’t always have the right person.”

If this wasn’t the atomic alarm of all alarms, then nothing ever could have been.

How was Obama able to reach the conclusion that Osama bin Ladin was a terrorist without affording him access to the legal protections outlined in the Constitution? What criteria was he using to make that determination? How could Obama want to “take out” bin Ladin without granting him his Constitutional rights?

And if I am being obtuse here, then allow to me ask the question the other way. Wasn’t Sadam Hussein a terrorist? Or, at the very least, the leader of a state that sponsored terrorists? Didn’t we “take him out?”

Of course, it would have been interesting for someone at the time to point out that Obama supported the Washington, D.C. handgun ban, which is unconstitutional.

Kettle meet pot.

And now, more than a year later, the circus of all circuses – one that will needlessly cost the American taxpayer tens of millions of dollars – will begin only blocks from where the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center stood. The Attorney General, Eric Holder, will seek the death penalty against the five men who have already said – repeatedly –  they want to die. (At least they’re on the same page). The courtroom will serve as a stage from which these reprehensible terrorists – war criminals – will be given the opportunity to spew their hate, justify the murders of nearly three-thousand innocents, and hide behind the Constitutional protections afforded them by the Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

Absolutely disgraceful.

If undoing the endless malignancies of the Bush era means putting American lives in danger, so be it.

It isn’t Obama’s fault he inherited such a mess.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 21, 2009

obama wee weeI’ve never claimed to be among the “hip” of American society, nor am I in tune with what is fashionable and chic. To be perfectly honest, I stopped caring about such things when the real world came a-knocking and the time had come to embark on life’s journey in earnest, i.e., I got married, had kids, and had to figure out how to replace the flapper in the toilet tank.

While I fully acknowledge that having a keen understanding and grasp of American culture – particularly the unquestioned and far-reaching influence of popular culture on America’s young – is critically important, I long ago gave up the desire to be connected to what is trendy.

Perhaps that’s why I never quite understood the Barack Obama phenomenon as anything other than in-vogue, pop culture poppycock (and hatred for George W. Bush). 

President Obama can turn magic marker on a cue card into golden magniloquence (which the media lap up like so much water), but as an out-of-the-box grassroots whistle-stopper, he cannot hold a candle to Bill Clinton. Indeed, he’s not nearly the orator he is billed to be, evidenced by the fact that when his teleprompter has the day off, he is a hem-hawing, sometimes incoherent, often unimpressive blatherer of platitudes and vacuity. Other times, he can make George W. Bush’s mispronunciation of the word “nuclear” sound Shakespearian.

Take, for instance, a comment Barack Obama made yesterday while levelling counter attacks at his critics who cite his falling poll numbers as evidence of a less-than-successful first seven months.

Again, I admit to being as unstylish and disconnected to “what’s hot” as they come, but I couldn’t help but scratch my head at the President’s now infamous “wee weed” remark (where he uses the phrase “wee wee” as a past-tense). I honestly spent a few moments trying to figure out if my “unhipness” contributed to my confusion at the phrase, or if the President was simply at a loss of something better – more Presidential – to say.

Was this some sort of slang?

Is it something the young kids say these days?

Am I missing something?

For those who may not be familiar with what I’m talking about, the great website explains:

US President Barack Obama launched a mocking counter-attack Thursday at pundits who believe the euphoric early promise of his presidency is evaporating amid bitter political warfare.

“We have been through this before, in Iowa,” Obama said, referring to the first state to hold a 2008 Democratic nominating contest, which saw him capture a come-from-behind win.

“All Washington said ‘Oh, it’s over,’ hand-wringing angst …”

Then Obama drew parallels to the media frenzy that greeted the nomination of firebrand Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin in 2008.

“The media was obsessed with it, cable was 24 hours a day,” Obama told a friendly audience of grass-roots Democratic activists at a Washington forum broadcast live over the web.

“‘Obama’s lost his mojo,’ you remember all that?

“There is something about August going into September where everybody in Washington gets all wee weed up!”

You read that correctly. President Obama actually said, “Everybody in Washington gets all wee-weed up.”

The first image that came to mind was that of a three year old boy standing on the beach, dripping wet, naked and crying, while his mom searched through the carry bag for a towel and dry clothes.

The second was of a nagging urinary infection.

If you think about it, getting “wee-weed up” does sound a little distrubing – like some penecillin may be needed, doesn’t it?

One e-mail I received yesterday read, “Tell me the leader of the free world did not just say that Washington gets all ‘wee-weed up’ in August. Tell me he didn’t say that. Please.”

Another one said, “Maybe it’s a Kenyan phrase from his childhood.”

Yet another one quoted a blogger at who summed it up nicely: “He’s a joker, he’s a smoker, he’s a midnight toker.”

I’ll just leave it at that.

Posted in Obama Bonehead, politics, Polls | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 19, 2009

america will bow downAs I sit here collecting my thoughts, sipping at my iced coffee, doing my best to frame my arguments coherently, I am angry.

Damn angry.

My approach on this blog has been to try and infuse humor, sarcasm, biting satire, occasional abrasiveness and well reasoned arguments into a collection of blog entries I hope are as entertaining as they are insightful.

Sometimes, I forego the humorous approach and write what could be accurately called straight “essays,” like the companion pieces I posted last week about the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment –  First Amendment Musings and More First Amendment Musings (A Follow Up).

And while it is tempting to do so here, I’d like to veer away from a straight-forward First Amendment colloquy and inoculate some values into the discussion.

Recall that during his lackluster inauguration speech, President Barack Obama said, “Our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus—and nonbelievers. We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”

While partially correct in one area, he was flat out dead wrong in another.

He is correct in the sense that we are a nation of comprsied of Christians, Jews, Muslims and even nonbelievers. America’s people come from every corner of the globe. And indeed there are cultures that have had varying degrees of influence on different areas of American life. All of that is undeniable.

But as nifty as all of that may sound to multiculturaliststhis, this country was not shaped by every language and culture on Earth.

The Mongolian influence on American life, for example, is nonexistent; the Malaysian culture’s impact on America would remain negligible even if it were multiplied by a thousand billion; and although the Tunisians may very well be wonderful people, they had no influence on the shaping of America. Moreover, as difficult as it may be for some to believe, the United States was not – repeat not – built on an Islamic value system, nor did Islam have any influence on the nation’s development, its founding document, or its Constitution.

America was shaped by the English language, the Anglo-Protestant culture and the Judeo-Christian value system.

Liberty, equality of opportunity, individualism, and the freedom to go as far as one’s abilities, passions and desires take them is what America has always been about.

(E Pluribus Unum has a meaning).

Thus, understanding that the vast majority of those who subscribe to the modern misinterpretation of the “separation of church and state” tend to be on the left, I would like to pose these hypotheticals to separationists:

Let’s say the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) – part of the Department of State – implemented several outreach programs and publications for the upcoming Christmas season designed to bring people together and cultivate understanding between those who may not be Christian and those who are.

And let’s say the State Department issued a publication tracing the ancestry of American-Christians to more than eighty countries with an emphasis on discovering the diversity of those cultures as seen through the celebrations of Christ’s birth. The content of such a publication would include essays by young Christians talking about their faith. Such a thing would be used to create a bridge of tolerance and acceptance of Christianity among nonbelievers.

And let’s go on to say that the following articles were being published by the State Department just in time for Christmas 2009: “The Concept of a Christian in America ‘Brand'”; “Advocacy (Civic and Political) of the Christian-American Community”; and “Community Innovation/Community Building.” The writer or writers would contact Christian American experts in each of these fields.

And, finally, picture a publication put out by the State Department called “Being Christian In America” It is the IIP’s crown jewel, full of stories and insights on the “varied experiences” on America’s Christians, complete with illustrations.

Let that sink in for a moment.

Allow the words – and the spirit – of the First Amendment to bounce around in your mind as you contemplate such a hypothetical situation.

Would the ACLU be sending in the big guns?

Would conspiracy theorists be chirping about an all-powerful Christian-right steering America into the pits of a theocracy?

Now, just to make it interesting, go back to each of those aforementioned IIP scenarios and substitute every reference to Christianity with Islam. Make it so that the IIP’s outreach programs are geared toward the Muslim holy month of Ramadan instead of Christmas.

Does it change anything?

What if I told you that this was no longer a hypothetical situation, but an honest-to-goodness initiative of the Obama administration underway right now?

Would that change anything?

Pamela Geller at the great American Thinker website writes about a “cable” that has been sent from Hillary Clinton’s State Department to all American embassies and consulates around the world:

Here is but the latest act of submission to Islam by your State Department. A State Department cable has just been sent out with this announcement :

The Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) has assembled a range of innovative and traditional tools to support Posts’ outreach activities during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

Can you imagine every Embassy and consulate putting up a Menorah and having some Rabbis as speakers via a webcast?

Can you imagine if we had the Stations of the Cross put on the walls of all of our embassies, consulates, and other posts, as well as the many Department of State buildings across the country, including C Street?

Why aren’t priests, pastors, etc. invited during Christmas to give blessings or talk about Christianity in the United States?

Can you imagine if the Buddha were revered and we had some monks coming to do a meditation session with all of the officers of each embassy, consulate, etc.?

Can we get printed and distributed Hare Krishna posters for all of our posts, so as to reach massive audiences?

I mean, put it in reverse and see how crazy it is. Absolutely nuts.

She’s right, of course.

Since we have successfully crossed over from the presumptive world to the real one, I wonder if we can we now expect to see the cape-wearers of the American Civil Liberties Union spring into action against the federal government. Can we anticipate the Bureau of International Information Programs (IIP) to start assembling “innovative and traditional tools” for every other faith? Where exactly are the outreach initiatives for Jews and Hindus? Or Satanists and Atheists?

Again, leaving the First Amendment issue aside, allow the magnitude of this reality to sink in.

Let it get you angry, as it does me.

This is not what the federal government is there to do.

freedom-of-expression-go-to-hellFrom all across the world, stories of Ramadan violence being perpetrated by practitioners of Islam are coming out daily. Any reasonable person would only have to take a rudimentary look around the world to notice that the overwhelming percentage of the world’s violence and brutality is being undertaken by Islamists – and that during the holy month of Ramadan, these occurrences increase.

The idea that the United States of America would actively bend over in this way for the “religion of peace” – the ideology that creates the murderous terrorists that want to destroy us – while Muslims across the globe continue to persecute non-Muslims in nations they control is both disgusting and unforgivable. By conservative estimates, one tenth of all Muslims on Earth support fellow adherants of Islam who target innocents, deprive others of basic human rights, and strive to subject the entire population of the world to Sharia law – that’s a mere one hundred million people.

Does the President forget what religion spawned those who brought down the Twin Towers on September 11th?

Is the President blind to the fact that at least one tenth of the Muslim world celebrate September 11th as a triumph?

Does it not register in the deep recesses of his messianic brain that we are still at war with Islamo-Facist terrorists?

Is it really the right thing to do to spend taxpayer dollars on “reach out” programs on the religion that produced (and continues to produce) such vermin?

Honestly, what the hell goes on in a liberal mind?

How on Earth does President Obama have the audacity to launch a taxpayer funded, State Department-sponsored, “Love a Muslim” campaign after the horrific slaughter of innocents by the Iranian government? Or the continued atrocities being undertaken in Sharia-run nations and terrorist strongholds, like tortuous clitorectomies performed on young women, the slow sadistic beheadings of dissenters and infidels, and the denial of even the most basic human rights?

And the irony?

As much as liberals wince and whine when religion is brought into the public sphere, note how easily they genuflect at the feet of those who adhere to a faith that promotes the blowing up innocents, the flying of planes into buildings, and the launching of rockets into civilian neighborhoods in the name of their religion.

Such strength.

What the hell is this President thinking?

Was his multi-city overseas American apology tour not enough to add to the weakness and vulnerability being put forth by this administration?

Why is he hell-bent on sparing the feelings of terrorist thugs and other human debris while the memory of three-thousand of his own murdered countrymen at the hands of those who would do it again without blinking an eye – those who subscribe to the “religion of peace” – still burns vividly?

It is mystifying.

This is not to say that the United States is at war with Islam. It simply isn’t true. Indeed, the majority of the world’s Muslims are not terrorists. Millions of Muslims live peacefully in this country.

But Muslim extremists are at war with us; and in a 21st Century World, the overwhelming vast majority of terrorism – and the greatest threat to national security – comes from practitioners of Islam. No other group, religion, cult or organization comes remotely close to posing the threat that radical Islamists pose.

And just think, my tax dollars are paying for “Muslims Are Okay” reach-out programs.

You’re damn right I’m angry.


Posted in First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 15, 2009

Obama, Transformer

Obama, Transformer

In speaking of President Obama and his ongoing bid to transform the nation he says he loves (because, naturally, if one loves his country, the customary instinct is to want to transform it), I admit to some perplexity when conservative friends make curious comments like, “I can’t believe what Obama is doing to my country,” or pose questions like “Can you believe what this President is doing to America now?”

Some I’ve spoken with shake their heads not at the President’s liberalism, but at how far left his worldview actually is.

“I knew he was a liberal, but not like this.”

While exasperation and resentment understandably exist among limited-government, Constitution-loving, free-market types (like myself) – as well as some head scratching Democrats who are now looking at each other with puzzled expressions, asking themselves, “Is this what we asked for?” – the Obama Transformation Plan is not at all unbelievable.

Throughout the eon-long presidential campaign season, the writing on the wall was unmistakenly bold and legible. His resume, associations, public comments and policy positions prior to becoming a candidate for the presidency revealed a man with leftism in his blood and Marxist sympathies. Once Obama officially threw his hat into the presidential ring – and details of his leftist past were brought to light by industrious alternative news sources – the mainstream news outlets routinely brushed aside much of the concern coming from conservatives about Obama’s hard left leanings, dismissing them as fear-mongering and shameless demagoguery.

That’s not to say these stories did not make the news.

They certainly did.

The alphabet channels, for example, did explore Obama’s associations with people like the racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the reprehensible Bill Ayers; but ultimately, their desire to be a part of history and jump on the Bam-a-licious bandwagon trumped any real interest in getting at the heart of these stories or Obama’s radical leftism. Obama’s “past” was deemed largely irrelevant to the task of saving America from George W. Bush.

The media were so enamoured with him – so consumed with everything Obama – it didn’t seem to matter that only days before the election, some of the biggest names in America media admittedly still had no idea who Barack Obama was.

Take this famous exchange between PBS’s Charlie Rose and former NBC anchor Tom Brokaw:

ROSE: I don’t know what Barack Obama’s worldview is.

BROKAW: No, I don’t, either.

ROSE: I don’t know how he really sees where China is.

BROKAW: We don’t know a lot about Barack Obama and the universe of his thinking about foreign policy.

ROSE: I don’t really know. And do we know anything about the people who are advising him?

BROKAW: Yeah, it’s an interesting question.

ROSE: He is principally known through his autobiography and through very aspirational (sic) speeches.

BROKAW: Two of them! I don’t know what books he’s read.

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There’s a lot about him we don’t know. 

But how on earth can that be true? Especially for professionals like Rose and Brokaw?

Obama Back In The DayIn the real world, the man who admitted to choosing his friends carefully while in college – namely, “the more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists” – couldn’t exactly be confused for a political centrist. The man who, while in New York, would visit the East Village for “the socialist conferences (he) sometimes attended at Cooper Union” could never be mistaken for a middle-of-the-road independent.

His support of late-term abortion was perfectly clear. His desire to see the American health care system transformed into a single-payer model was unquestionable. His belief that wealth should be distributed was incontrovertible. His two-decade long membership in a church led by a man who promulgated racism and hatred of America was indisputable. His affiliation with terrorists like Bill Ayers was undeniable. His adherence to the teachings of hyper-radical Saul Alinsky was unmistakable.

Yes, Virginia, these are among the tell-tale signs of leftism.

This once again brings me to ask my conservative friends … What exactly is there to be surprised about? What exactly is “unbelievable” about the Obama vision for America?

In October of last year, at the great American Thinker website, Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote:

Obama was raised on the mother’s milk of socialism. Both his parents were fellow travelers, who met at the height of the Cold War in a Russian language class at the University of Hawaii. Obama’s grandfather was a close friend of Communist Party member Frank Marshall Davis, sending young Barry (as he was then known) to him for mentoring, despite (or in ignorance of ) Davis being a pedophile. From the time he returned from 4 years in Indonesia and rejoined his grandparents in Hawaii at the age of 10, he was taken often to be with Frank Marshall Davis.

In Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, there is a strange revelation, perhaps intended as a signal of Davis’ stamp on Obama’s socialist creds. Obama makes this odd observation:

“The visits to his (Davis’) house always left me feeling vaguely uncomfortable, though, as if I were witnessing some complicated, unspoken transaction between the two men, a transaction I couldn’t fully understand.”

Dedicating the young Obama to the elder socialist mentor for the collective cause, perhaps? One hopes there were conditions protecting the ten year old from worse than indoctrination, in this “transaction.”

Obama did everything Alinsky prescribed. He went to Chicago, home of Alinsky and the place where Davis had worked for the communist revolution. Obama trained at the Industrial Areas Foundation, an Alinsky training institute. He organized in Chicago and did voter registration and training for ACORN. He went to law school. He built political alliances. He kept a tight lock on his records and his past.

You may recall that the official blogger for the Obama Campaign was a man by the name of Sam Graham-Felsen. He was a writer for the leftist magazine The Nation before he joined the Big Bam ranks.

As reported in April, 2008 at World Net Daily:

In 2003, Graham-Felsen participated in a labor march in France that Associated Press reported ended in violent riots – a characterization he disputed in The Nation. His coverage of the 2003 French protests against a new employment law again appeared in 2006 in Socialist Viewpoint, a journal that proudly proclaims its Marxist point of view:

The Socialist Workers Organization was formed to advance the revolutionary Marxist political program in the United States. Our members are long time active participants in the socialist and labor movements. We agree with Karl Marx that society is divided into social classes whose interests are irreconcilable. …

Socialism, the ownership and democratic control of the means of production by the working class, and the removal of profit from the system of production, is the aim of Socialist Viewpoint, which reflects the political views of the Socialist Workers Organization. Socialism is the prerequisite for the next stage in human development that will end class oppression and exploitation for all time.

The President’s catapulting deficit totals; his attempt at destroying private sector health care delivery; his unabashed declarations that the “rich” should have to pay more taxes to help those who are not (which they already do in gross disproportion); his transparent contempt for the free market system; none of this should be surprising to anyone.

In a 2006 opinion piece, Benjamin Shapiro writes:

Obama cites as his economic guru Warren Buffett and quotes him as stating, “[Billionaires] have this idea that it’s ‘their money’ and they deserve to keep every penny of it. What they don’t factor in is all the public investment that lets us live the way we do.”

This is Marxist trash.

“Capital is therefore not a personal, it is a social power,” Marx wrote in “The Communist Manifesto.”

Viewing private property as social property is a mandate to tyranny. Yet that’s precisely how Obama views private property: “I simply believe that those of us who have benefited most from this new economy can best afford to shoulder the obligation of ensuring every American child has a chance for that same success.”

Let us also not forget that Barack Obama was named the most liberal Senator on Capitol Hill prior to becoming the Democratic nominee for President .

Quoting Barack Obama himself:

Senator Obama-What I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

-This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably

-We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.

-I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.

-If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples, so that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order, and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay. But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent, as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted – and the Warren Court interpreted it in the same way – that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

That pretty much sums it up.

I’m not sure what else anyone could have been expected from electing someone with such a pedigree.

Posted in Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 10, 2009

As promised

As promised

From the “Who Would Have Guessed?” file …

It isn’t neuro-surgery – although one may be able to make a compelling case that Democrats are in desperate need of some group synapse therapy. (That’s a separate issue).

It’s really quite basic.

Government bailouts for car companies and banks actually cost money. Liberal nation-saving initiatives such as the stimulus bill and Tarp  – not to mention the looming health care overhaul – will take a tremendous financial toll. The President has decided that the current generation of Americans is incapable of dealing with tough times and can only survive by making future generations carry the load. President Obama is not only transforming the country (as he promised), he is setting records.

Ladies and gentlemen, glance up at the Big Board, if you will; the deficit, as of the end of last month, has hit $1.3 trillion.

And there’s more where that came from.

Walter Alarkon from The Hill writes:

Bailouts for financial firms and billions in tax revenue lost because of the recession drove the deficit to a record $1.3 trillion in July, according to the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO).

Tax receipts that have fallen due to the poor economy and increased spending to save car companies, banks and mortgage firms were major contributors to the federal deficit, according to CBO, which provides official budget numbers for Congress. The federal deficit grew by another $181 billion in July.

Falling tax receipts and increased spending on bailouts for auto companies and the financial sector and for the economic stimulus package added to the deficit, according to CBO, which provides official budget numbers for Congress.

Spending through July of 2009 has increased by $530 billion, which is 21 percent over the same period in 2008. The bailout money for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae accounted for almost half of the spending increase. Unemployment benefits have more than doubled, Medicaid spending has grown by a quarter and Medicare spending has increased by 11 percent.

Keep in mind that Nancy Pelosi – America’s official swastika spotter, and third in line for the Presidency of the United States – recently assured Colorado town hall attendees that the proposed health care bill will not increase the deficit.

How about that?

The cost of destroying the greatest health care delivery system on earth and transforming it into a government-run entreprise of rationed mediocrity (at minimum) is projected to total a trillion dollars over ten years, but it will not have any effect whatsoever on the exploding deficit.

That’s what Nancy says.

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the top Republican on the Budget Committee, said that Democrats in Congress aren’t doing anything to address the record deficit and are instead pushing ahead with “wildly expensive” healthcare legislation.

“To allow the deficit to hit these previously unthinkable levels – while still planning to implement massive new spending programs – shows an incredible lack of fiscal responsibility, especially toward the future generations who will be saddled with the consequences of today’s actions,” Gregg said.

Unthinkable levels by unthinking politicians.

Who would have guessed?

Posted in Economy, Obama Bonehead, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on July 13, 2009

obama messiah

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mabuse: Indeed, Don

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

A shame, really.

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

It seems to me a golden opportunity was missed here.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 25, 2009

Obama Appeasement UniversityIt isn’t often that an opportunity as golden as this presents itself so readily. The only question is whether or not President Barack Obama will step up to the plate and seize the moment. Sure, Bam is sufficiently well-versed in apologizing for his own country on foreign soil, but he hasn’t done it so much from home – certainly to the shagrin of the Blame America First contingency of a Bam-A-Lang-A-Ding-Dong Brigade. And seeing as he probably isn’t inclined to spontaneously hop on his big old jet and fly to some country with a horrible human rights record to grovel and express his shame of America (unless the teleprompter advises him to do so), chances are quite good that the world might be treated to a good old fashioned slice of humble pie – or waffle – from deep within the friendly confines of the U.S.A.

It’s sure to soften the hearts of our murderous enemies everywhere.

The Politico is reporting that the recent winner of the Iranian elections, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, isn’t happy with our President. He’s even going so far as to compare Obama to his predecessor, George W. Bush.

Short of drilling machine screws into Obama’s toe nails, is there anything Ahmadinejad could have done that would have been worse?

Talk about brutality.

From the Politico:

Reacting to Obama’s comment Tuesday that he is “appalled and outraged” by crackdowns in Iran, Ahmadinejad said, “Mr Obama made a mistake to say those things … our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say.”

“Do you want to speak with this tone? If that is your stance then what is left to talk about… I hope you avoid interfering in Iran’s affairs and express your regret in a way that the Iranian nation is informed of it,” he added, according to Reuters.

And from the screeching throats of liberals all across the star-spangled map will come the admonitions that the President should have said nothing – that a statement of condemnation from the White House was nothing more than an ill-advised bone thrown to the war-mongering American right-wing.

See what happens when you appease the God-happy, gun-toting, Dick Cheney lap dogs?

You piss off Ahmadinejad.

How dare Obama agitate the Iranian whack-job when everything was just starting to get better, and world peace was just around the bend.

Bam had better find out what Ahmedinejad’s favorite movies are.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Iran, Liberalism, Obama Bonehead, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 21, 2009

iranian protestor beatenIt’s being called a change in approach.

Allow me a moment or two to set this straight in my mind.

He was against imposing values before he was for it, even though he was adamant about imposing at least some ideas before he said he was in favor of staying out of things altogether. All of this, of course, came before he finally crawled out from behind his ice cream cone to say something about the violence and upheaval in Iran, despite his inclination not to perturb the murderers and thugs of the world, or throw a monkey wrench into his policy of appeasement and paddy cake.

If ever there was a leader with less of a clue about foreign policy than President Barack Obama – without having to backtrack all the way to Neville Chamberlain – it isn’t readily apparent.

Willing to throw the nation of Israel (one of our closest allies) under the bus, making demands of them, i.e. imposing values, while attempting to make nice-nice with those who would think nothing of slitting the throats of his own children is frustrating enough. Having his Secretary of State say that if North Korea doesn’t watch out, the United States may put them back on a “bad guy’s list” of terrorist nations is, indeed, embarrassing. But to come to the conclusion that it was strategically (and politically) expedient to say nothing and play “neutral” towards the horrendous acts of brutality being perpetrated by the Iranian government on its citizenry in the streets of that country until now – when it was clear that the heat of the political winds were calling him to do so – is downright bad leadership.

It was up to the President of the United States to take an open and unequivocal stand, without mincing words and without concern for his image, against the violence and cruelty taking place in Iran right away. It was up to the leader of the free world to say “to hell with worrying about how sour my relationship with Iran might get if I say something,” and act like a President – someone who gives a damn about something other than his popularity and legacy. It was time to show resolve by pulling a page from the Reagan and Thatcher handbook and engage Iran directly with immediate condemnations.

One would think that the images and reports of innocents being slaughtered in the streets by a despotic government ought to raise the ire of a man so shaped and influenced by the graduates of the protest culture. One would assume that the fist-pimping, community-organizing, radical leftist that burns deep within the President would summon the spirits that moved his mentors to work to overthrow the “tyranny” of the United States back in the day and at least act like the violence in Iran matters to him.

Maybe the President left his outrage at customs counter in Egypt.

It’s absolutely stunning.

On one hand, without an inkling of hesitation, the President is willing to publicly announce battle strategies while still at war, overhaul and socialize the greatest health care system the world has ever known, grow the national debt to unsustainable levels, apologize for the actions of his own country overseas, demand that Israel roll over yet again for those who want to see her destroyed, and generally blame everything that is wrong with the world on the previous administration. Yet, on the other hand, as the innocent in Iran are butchered by the government in some of the most remarkable and shocking pictures many have seen in a long time, Obama decides that the best thing to do is take a “wait and see” approach … until now, that is. He has realized, to his great dismay, that the whole Iranian “upheaval thing” isn’t just going to fade into news archives and back pages.

He actually had to say something about it.

And so he did.

He has called on Iran to “stop all the violent and unjust actions” … and only a week or so late!

(That sound you hear are members of The Guardian Council shaking in their shoes).

Said the President:

obama and iranThe Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said – “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

The words themselves are fine, but its impact – a week overdue and seemingly forced –  has the effect of a paraplegic threatening to kick the ass of a professional wrestler.

Remember, the United States is to lead by example, according to the President.

Another speech or two in Cairo ought to crack that nut.

Naturally, saliva gushing Obamacrats have hailed the President’s silence and sudden change in course as brilliant strategy.

A blogger called Anna at Ben Smith’s blog at the Politico website echoes the sentiments of many Obamacrats, writing:

Had (Obama) come out in support of the idea that the election had been rigged, he’d have given the ruling elites a lot of ammunition: the great Satan is trying to influence Iranian affairs again, beware the Westerners, etc. But this way, he’s only saying things that are incontestable: free speech must be protected and governments cannot kill citizens with impunity.

This is yet another brazen example of why liberals – while quite good at making music and designing websites – cannot be trusted with matters of national security.

Blame America first.

To Anna, and other leftocrats, it is the United States that would have exaserbated the situation in Iran by openly and swiftly castigating the actions of the government there. It is America that would have fuelled anger in Iranian’s ruling elites had Obama said anything deemed disparaging and critical (because Lord knows the Ayatollah Khamenei and friends were all waving their American flags and looking toward us for moral guidance right up until the Iranian elections). In other words – in Anna’s world – if Obama can keep quiet in the wake of some of the ugliest violence against innocents seen in quite a while, America won’t be as great a Satan as it most certainly would have been otherwise.

Beacuse, after all, it matters what Iran thinks of us.

Of course, I’m wondering what Obama will do if the Iranian government flat-out refuses to be led by American example?

What if the Iranian government dosen’t stop all the “violent and just actions against its own people?”

Will Obama break out the “whooping stick” and put them on a new list?

Or maybe (dare I say it) threaten them with some United Nations fist pumping?

Can sanctions be right around the corner?

Another poster at Smith’s blog at Politico makes this important point:

Obama seems to forget that “universal rights to free speech” aren’t guaranteed in Islamic society. The protesters have no right to be doing what they are doing and they will be cleared from the streets and punished by Islamic law.


Liberals routinely speak of how close-mined, non-nuanced, and “black and white” conservatives are. It’s as interesting a theory as it is false because it requires no thought. Liberals are overwhelmingly the ones who see things in “black and white.” There are no “shades of grey” in the lefty rainbow.

For example, to be against same-sex marriage is to be a homophobe. In the mind of a liberal, there’s simply no chance that a conservative may simply wish to keep the definition of marriage as it has always been and still not hate gays.

To liberals, the war against islamo-Facism (if they even consider it a war anymore) is all about Osama Bin Ladin … and that’s it. That there are a multitude of terrorist groups with the same objectives as Al Qaeda is irrelevant to them.

Only platitudes (and probably warfare itself) carry any weight with liberals. For Obama to implacably condemn what the Iranian government has been doing to its own people, would have been a waste of time, according to libs. Iran wouldn’t be influenced or compelled to change their ways based on a Presidential condemnation, they’d explain. For Obama to demand a stop to the violence would have been pointless, they’d argue – and it’d be meddling in other people’s affairs. Conservatives are fooling themselves to think it really matters if the President of the United States stands up for so-called “freedom” and “democracy.”

Who are we to demand anything?

What right we do we have?

(Perhaps Israel is asking the same question of Obama who has demanded that Israel remove settlements from the “occupied territories.”)

Keep in mind that these criticisms of conservatives come from the people who lap up and suck on Obama’s empty bumper-sticker platitudes like a liberal on a working man’s paycheck. Recall how they cried, sighed and shuddered at the “brilliance” of his poster-board, slogan-happy rhetoric when he spoke in Cairo. Remember how they fawned and fainted when he gabbed in Germany, speaking in flowery, pointless, uncourageous, cleverly crafted news-bite fodder (proven even more hollow by his week of “neutrality”).

appeasementObama regularly uses words like “peace” and “unity” and liberals wet themselves. Yet, when the bell rings, and the time comes to actually stand up and defend those principals that foster basic human rights, Obama shuts up. He knows liberty is offensive to some people.

But that is precisely what the President of the United States should have been doing from the moment it became apparent what was happening in Iran – boldly speaking out against the government-led violence, condemning the actions of the Iranian government, sending a crucial message that America not only supports those who fight for the basic human rights, but is never afraid to say so.

Liberals, of course, find no importance in doing this, unless no one is offended in the process – that is, except American conservatives. Being openly critical of the Iranian government would have gotten a whole bunch of Mullah panties in a twist, and that just couldn’t be allowed to happen.

The fact is, while liberals continue to applaud what they see as a brilliantly tempered strategy on the part of Barack Obama to “stay out of it,” those of us who actually are cognizant of the real world understand that such “neutrality” makes America look weak and disinterested … and our enemies know it.

America cannot be disinterested and neutral when such obvious examples of brutality are on display for the world to see.

Yes, this President is a veritable platitude-machine, careful not to offend anyone, speaking in vague generalities, throwing out meaningless phrases like “working together,” “common ground” and “striving toward peace,” all the while never exuding the courage to define and condemn that which is evil – unless you consider corporate profits and being without health care insurance evil.

That is a huge problem.

When the President of the United States cannot denounce the likes of the Iranian government, it is bad for the world.

Sure, it was a nice touch for Obama to quote Martin Luther King Jr. in his comments, but I doubt there are too many of the Iranian elite doing a double-take saying, “Damn, he’s right, you know.”

We’d be the Great Satan no matter how many times we puckered up to kiss their backsides.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 1, 2009

bam-a-lang-a-ding-dong bam fans

bam-a-lang-a-ding-dong bam fans

From the “If This Were A Republican” file …

As hard as this may be to believe, I was  not in Manhattan on Saturday to become one of the fawning, adoring, saliva-dripping periphery going ga-ga over Obama’s big “date night” in New York. I did not grab my digital camera and home-made “You Barrack My World” sign, head into the city and stand behind a barricade for hours so that I might catch a glimpse of his  right ear as he passed into a restaurant.

It is hard to believe, I know.

Alas, I admit to being a stick in the mud – completely unimpressed, quick-to-yawn and bored to tears when it comes to the mania that surrounds Big Bam.

I find yogurt more culturally enticing – and easier to stomach.

Indeed, I was in the city on Saturday, but not because I hoped to become one of the fortunate ones afforded the opportunity to share the same oxygen stream with him. My wife and I actually had a wonderful lunch with some friends of ours at Carmine’s on 44th Street, several hours before the royal family arrived for dinner and a show. To be perfectly honest, I was unaware that Mr. and Mrs. Messiah would be in town – although the sound of air force jets and presidential helicopters should have alerted me to his arrival, along with the thuds of fainting Manhattanites.

For the record, I’d like to say that I couldn’t give a squirrel’s nostril if the President comes to New York to see a show. He’s entitled. It isn’t as if he can just pop into his Subaru with the Missus and head up to New York for supper and a Broadway play. At the first rest stop on the New Jersey Turnpike, he’d be crushed by frenzied, orgasmic Obama-maniacs looking for a piece of his clothing or a bite of his waffle. A President with torn threads, covered in spit-dripping kisses is probably not a good thing.

What fascinates me more is trying to imagine the coverage of a Presidential New York City “date night” had the Commander-In-Chief been a Republican.

Depending on which day you catch Obama and his dancing Obamacrats, the economy is either the worst it has been since the Great Depression (or worse), or it is finally coming around thanks to his astronomical spending sprees, debt creation and overall Marxist tweaking.

Either way, Obama has himself covered.

Recall last week when Obama told a group of self-gratifying Hollywood lefties at a big bucks fundraiser that conditions are starting to improve economically across the country. His spendulous bill, he insisted, is starting to show some returns – and coincidentally enough, just before his big date in the Big Apple.

Far be it from me to deny anyone a night out on the town – especially the leader of the almost-free world.

Go ahead, take a break, Mr. President. You deserve it. A relaxing getaway to New York is more than reasonable. After all, infusing Marxism into a free market system can be taxing.

Picture Republican George W. Bush hand-in-hand with Laura Bush, emerging from a limo in the heart of Manhattan’s Greenwich Village for dinner before zooming uptown to catch a Broadway show, while news stories circulate on how the unemployment rate is approaching double-digits. Can you imagine the brutal beating he would take in the press had he gone on a Big Apple “date night” on the taxpayer’s dime while Katie Kouric and company tell us all about the endless number of Americans being hammered by what was not too long ago “the worst economy ever?”

People are losing their homes in this economy, and Bush is eating out?”

“How could that out-of-touch, insensitive, bible-thumping, oil company-loving, fascist, baby-killing Bush flaunt his power and prestige by seeing a Broadway play at the taxpayer’s expense when billions and billions of Americans are homeless and starving?”

Thanks to the coming of the new Messianic Age, we need not bother with such conjecture.

Posted in American culture, New York City, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 25, 2009

Our Commander-In-Chief

Our Commander-In-Chief

Let’s say, for instance, a man – I’ll call him “Bip” – is suffering from a severe headache at work. Bip tries various things to try and ease the pain, but nothing has proven successful. Finally, after trying a host of new age medications and techniques to no avail, Bip decides to try some good old fashioned headache powder. He is no fan of headache powder – never has been – but killing the pain is his priority.

Twenty minutes after taking it, the pain has subsided and he is able to function “normally” again.

Now, let’s say another person  – I’ll call him “Pain” – comes along who is adamantly anti-headache powder, for whatever reason. Pain has a passionate dislike for the stuff. You might sat he is ideologically wired to hate it. In fact, for the sake of this argument, let’s pretend that Pain is so opposed to the use of headache powder that he has actually led crusades to do away with it in the workplace.

Pain finds out through the grapevine that Bip had the audacity to use the dreaded powder to beat back his horrible headache. Pain learns that others have done the same. He obviously isn’t happy. In fact, he is livid. Headache powder should never be used at work, he says with a raised fist.

Pain runs directly to the boss to protest:

The decisions that were made over the last several years to allow headache powder in the work place, when there are so many other methods to combat headaches, has established an ad hoc approach for fighting headaches that is neither effective nor sustainable.”

The boss nods.

Pain is smooth, articulate and always sounds like he knows what he is talking about. (You’d have to be to lead workplace crusades against headache powder, wouldn’t you?)

Despite the fact that the headache powder did take care of Bip’s headache, the assertion has been made by Pain that headache powder is ineffective. Despite the preponderance of evidence that shows how successful headache powder has been at combating painful craniums, Pain continues to stand firm. The fact that Bip is now walking around, functioning in the workplace, free of hurt thanks to the headache powder seems to be irrelevant to Pain. The use of headache powder, according to Pain, is “neither effective nor sustainable.”

Pain is not backing down even though the realities that contradict his claims keep smacking him in the puss.

Absurdity at its best, yes.

With this analogy in mind, let’s now move from the pretend world of a contrived headache powder controversy to the real world of adults and liberals. Let’s substitute Pain – the anti-headache powder crusader – with the President of the United States. I’ll call him Barack Obama. And instead of headache powder, let’s use former President Bush’s methods of prosecuting the War on Terror as the target of Obama’s criticism.

Said President Obama on Thursday morning:

“The decisions that were made over the last eight years established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable.”

Understanding that cold hard reality can be a tough thing to wrap one’s mind around – especially when that reality rains down on the childlike worldviews and fairy-tale parades that drive liberal thought – this goes far beyond making the case for “two-plus-two equals six.”

This is sheer denial.

This reflex on the part of Obama and his dancing Obamacrats to continually trash the previous administration at every turn is beyond tedious. To do so while asserting complete falsehoods is equally embarrassing. President Obama is not entitled to his own set of facts.

Mr. Obama, how many terrorist attacks on America have there been over the past eight years?

This matters.

That this point even has to be made is both tragic and laughable, but at the risk of stating the glaringly obvious, the lack of a terrorist attack in nearly eight years is a good thing Yet, this reality is something regularly dismissed by Leftocrats across the board as too simplistic to mean anything, grossly irrelevant in the grand scheme, and hardly the result of anything undertaken by President Bush. Obamacrats view the absence of a terrorist attack as being attributable to anything and everything but the initiatives undertaken by President Bush. 

It’s osmosis, or luck, or a Muslim awakening, or climate change, or something.

The fact of the matter is, the absence of a terrorist attack on this country since 9/11 is the primary indcator in measuring the effectiveness of the policies employed by President Bush in defending the American people.

bam and bushWith the same verve that President Obama has thus far used to redefine terms like “earmarks” and “tax cuts,” he is reconstructing – without challenge – the word “effective.” Thus, according to the fluidly opaque President of the United States, his predecessor was ineffective in the way he prosecuted the War on Terror – despite the conspicuous void of a single terrorist attack against the United States.

If one does not measure the level of effectiveness in the way the United States has defended herself since 9/11 by the lack of attacks against her, then how?

By how many people overseas say they love us?

How many attacks have been thwarted thanks to Bush administration initiatives like The Patriot Act? The answer is several – including a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City.

How much information was obtained through the very selective use of waterboarding of three – yes, only three – individuals? The answer is plenty – including information that led to the apprehension of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind the September 11th attacks.

If eight years of George Bush were “ineffective” in fighting Islamo-facist terrorism, what can be said for the previous eight years under President Bill Clinton, where American interests were attacked time and time again, including the USS Cole, the Khobar Towers, embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, and the first World Trade Center attack?

President Bush’s ability to draw unrelenting blame and ridicule for keeping the country free from further attack during the last seven-and-a-half years of his Presidency should be astounding to those of us who think, but it isn’t. His actions, which kept the country safe in the aftermath of 9/11, should be the object of universal high praise and gratitude, but they aren’t. While London and Madrid suffered devastating terrorist attacks, attempted strikes against America – including a comprehensive plot that included an attack against JFK Airport in New York – were snuffed out.

As talk show host Dennis Prager regularly says, “First tell the truth, then state your opinion.”  To deny the effectiveness of Bush administration policies in the ongoing War on Terror is to deny reality.

Of course, this is the modern liberal motif – to wish something was so, pass it off as reality, and then hope for the best.

In that context, I suppose an argument can be made that if one says it long enough, two and two may eventually equal six.

Posted in Liberalism, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 20, 2009

It’s interesting.

I’ve received a ton of e-mails this morning asking me if I plan on commenting on Barack Obama’s tasteless “Special Olympics” crack on last night’s edition of The Tonight Show with Jay Leno. Apparently, while speaking with Jay about his bowling prowess (or lack thereof), the President remarked that he wasn’t particularly happy with his score of 129. Said the President, “It was like the Special Olympics or something.”

I say “apparently,” because I haven’t seen it. All of the information I am receiving about this appearance with Leno is coming through e-mails. I don’t watch The Tonight Show, so I wasn’t familiar with the incident.

I say “apparently” also because I don’t know that it actually happened. I can’t just arbitrarily comment on something being conveyed through e-mails without proof of some kind. I need corroboration before I start opining.

How could this have really happened when none of the major news outlets seem to be reporting on this?

The New York Times and the Washington Post are silent on the matter.

(Someone tell those crickets to pipe down!)


I’m actually flipping through web pages right now looking to see if …

Oh wait … Here’s one!

I see “Obama Makes a Late-Night Gaffe” on the CNN website, off to the right under “Latest News,” buried in a long list of links.

How adorable.


Nothing about denigrating the handicapped, just a cute little link that says “Gaffe.”


I see the same thing on MSNBC. It says “Video:Gaffe” underneath the headline “Obama Stunned By AIG bonuses,” which is underneath an even bigger headline “Obama offers Iran ‘new beginnings.

Haystack, meet needle.

I guess it really did happen.

If this were President Bush, how many stories of outraged advocates for the handicapped demanding an apology would we have seen by now? How many stories of little Peggy Jones from Bootlick, New Jersey who has been in a wheelchair since the age of three, wondering why her President is making fun of her and everyone like her, would we have had to stomach on CNN and MSNBC?

In all candor, while the remark was entirely inappropriate – and yet another attestation of how lost this man is without his electronic cue cards – the point is not to crucify the President for a foolish remark, which it was. Rather, the point is to continue to touch upon the egregious media bias and protectionism that still surrounds the President.

As I wrote yesterday, given the President’s boo-boo-filled, less-than-impressive first two-months in office, it’s not difficult to imagine how he would be treated were he a Republican.

Picture George W. Bush making the same remark about the “Special Olympics” on a late-night talk show. Beside the fact that he would have been skewered for the cheap political ploy of going on The Tonight Show while the worst “financial crisis since the Great Depression” continued to grip the nation, the feeding frenzy that would have followed the “Special Olympics” quip would have made a gang of starving sharks look like nap-time at the retirement home.

Really, could Mr. Obama’s appearance on The Tonight Show been any less presidential if it had to be?

Maybe Leno should have booked the teleprompter.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 16, 2009


Yet more proof that when it comes to stem cell research, the American Left – and thus, President Barack Obama – is uninterested in science.

As I have asserted over the past week, President Obama’s reversal of the Bush administration’s ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research is motivated primarily by ideology – the almost involuntary need to undo anything and everything Bush.

It’s a fixation of Obamacrats and other leftist-like entities.

To be fair, I am willing to concede a fair amount of ignorance still exists on the matter with the general public. For instance, as has been noted extensively by conservative pundit and commentator alike, many in this nation continue to believe that President Bush actually banned the research of embryonic stem cells, not just taxpayer funding for them (and then only for new embryonic stem cell lines created after 2001). The perception is that the archaic, God-happy Texan who preceded The Chose One was so Jesus-obsessed, that he was more than willing to sacrifice innocent lives to preserve petry-dish cell clumps.

Those clumps can’t vote yet, so why would they be worth anything?

I have contended that if science were the true motivation behind this purely anti-W/pro-abortion maneuver, Obama and crew would have no need to shove taxpayer dollars into what is a tremendously unethical area of research, especially knowing that the very same research can be done – ethically – without destroying a single human embryo.

In 2007, scientists discovered that they could, in effect, create embryonic stem cells (actually, the biological equivalent to them) by manipulating what we know as “adult” stem cells – injecting them with specific genes to transform them into a more primitive state. This was a huge breakthrough that, theoretically, solved the problem on all fronts. Stem cell research could continue and the profound ethical issues surrounding the destruction of human embryos would be avoided altogether.

With the advent of this exciting technology, President Bush signed Executive Order 13435 in June, 2007. It allowed for federal taxpayer dollars to be used in the continued research of these new embryonic stem cell copies – known as pluripotent cells. In other words, once the ethical dilemma of destroying human embryos was no longer an issue, President Bush said federal funds were on the way.

Onward science!

That is, until last Monday.

Not only did President Obama re-fund embryonic stem cell research with taxpayer dollars, he overturned Executive Order 13435.

Overturned it!

The actual text from the Executive Order Obama signed last week reads:

“(b) Executive Order 13435 of June 20, 2007, which supplements the August 9, 2001, statement on human embryonic stem cell research, is revoked.”

Those who accused President Bush of being ideologically tainted had best step back and consider the unqualified foolishness of what Obama has done.

For what reason would the President Obama find it necessary to revoke President Bush’s funding of pluripotent cell research if not for purely political reasons? Even as a fervent advocate of embryonic stem cell research – which he is – is it nothing but childish vindictivness that motivates him to needlessly rescind Bush’s Executive Order? If, indeed, this is only about science, than hasn’t President Obama served to obstruct it, at least as much as he claimed Bush was?

Think about this for a moment.

President Bush signed an Executive Order providing federal funds for the research of cells that can be created by scientists to be the same as embryonic stem cells, thus rendering the crux of the debate moot. President Obama, on the other hand, upon taking office, thumbed his nose at this and not only poured his ideological excrement onto a highly volatile issue by making taxpayers who value human life pay for its destruction, but did so when it didn’t have to be done – not if science were truly the consideration. On top of that, he cut off funds for the science that made the destruction of human embryos inessential.

Disgusting, Mr. President.

I thought about throwing in a “Shame On You, Bam,” but it’s starting to lose its meaning at this point.

Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Science | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 14, 2009

From the “Does Anyone in Washington Know What The Hell They’re Doing File?”…

He apparently approved it before he banned it.

Two days after signing an Executive Order that gave the “okie dokie” to the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research (overturning a ban set in place by the Bush administration), the President has banned the federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.

No, really.

Stuffed deep into the bowels of the Obama omnibus earmark spending bill passed this week, on page 280 of the 465 page bundle of pigmeat, located in Section 509 of Title V, is this little passage:

stem-cellsSEC. 509. (a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used for—(1) the creation of a human embryo or embryos for research purposes; or (2) research in which a human embryo or embryos are destroyed, discarded, or knowingly subjected to risk of injury or death greater than that allowed for research on fetuses in utero under 45 CFR 46.204(b) and section 498(b) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 289g(b)). (b) For purposes of this section, the term ‘‘human embryo or embryos’’ includes any organism, not protected as a human subject under 45 CFR 46 as of the date of the enactment of this Act, that is derived by fertilization, parthenogenesis, cloning, or any other means from one or more human gametes or human diploid cells.

It is known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment, and it is something that has been part of the annual Department of Health and Human Services appropriations bill every year since 1996.

But don’t start jumping for joy just yet.

It is highly unlikely that President Obama had a forty-eight hour change of heart. It is also unlikely that he was ignorant to the amendment’s inclusion in the bill. Even for this administration – setting new standards for cluelessness and incompetence on a daily basis – that’s almost too ridiculous to actually believe.

Terrence Jeffery, Editor-In-Chief of CNS News writes:

Close observers on both sides of the embryonic stem cell issue were well aware of the Dickey-Wicker amendment, and understood that it would pose a legal obstacle to federal funding of embryo-killing research even if President Obama issued an executive order reversing President Bush’s administrative policy denying federal funding to that research.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D.-Colo.) sponsored the House version of a bill–vetoed by President Bush–that would have legalized federal funding of stem cell research that destroys so-called “spare” human embryos taken from in vitro fertilization clinics. On Monday, she told The New York Times she had already approached what she called “several pro-life Democrats” about the possibility of repealing Dickey-Wicker.

“Dickey-Wicker is 13 years old now, and I think we need to review these policies,” The Times quoted DeGette as saying. “I’ve already talked to several pro-life Democrats about Dickey-Wicker, and they seemed open to the concept of reversing the policy if we could show that it was necessary to foster this research.”

Rep. Mike Castle (R.-Del.), who co-sponsored Rep. DeGette’s bill, similarly stated this week that Dickey-Wicker should be revisited.

“Certainly, the Dickey-Wicker amendment . . . is something we need to look at,” Castle told Congressional Quarterly Today on Monday. “That was passed in 1996, before we realized the full potential of embryonic stem cell research. Some researchers are telling us now that that needs to be reversed.”

In the remarks he made Monday when announcing the executive order, President Obama said he wanted to close the door to “the use” of cloning for human reproduction but not for other purposes.

But there is so much disingenuousness in Obama’s so-called “anti-cloning” stance, it almost makes Bill Clinton’s Lewisnki denial seem credible.

From the great Moral Accountablity blog:

“Obama supported legislation that would allow human cloning for the purpose of creating embryos for research so long as those nascent human beings were then destroyed or discarded and not implanted. In his executive order on stem-cell research policy, President Obama has gone even farther by authorizing the use of federal taxpayer dollars for research involving the destruction of human embryos created by cloning. This is an unprecedented and truly radical step.”

While it would be nice to believe that President Obama was (figuratively) smacked in the skull with the reality of how unnecessary it is to have to resort to destroying human embryos to further the research in the field, it just isn’t the case. For Leftists, this debate is not about the science. It never has been. It is – and always has been – about abortion. (Please see my article Embryonic Stem Call Follow Up – Who’s Earth Is Really Flat?)

Dizzying advances have been made over the past two to three years that would ultimately afford scientists the same level of research they have with embryonic stem cells without having to destroy any human embryos. That almost no one is talking about this reality or using this fact to further the debate is, frankly, embarrassing – and revealing of how much this debate is not about science.

(Please see Obama’s Leftism, Ethical Science and Tasty Facts). 

Yuval Levin, at National Review Online writes:

Over the last three years in particular, a technique that transforms normal adult cells (like skin cells) into what appears to be the functional equivalent of embryonic stem cells has been sweeping the field, holding out the promise of not only a way around the ethical dilemmas but a source of genetically matched cells almost without end. Cells left over from fertility treatment have thus grown far less compelling on scientific grounds than they were when Bush made his decision, but no less problematic on moral grounds. Today, the case for funding them is weaker than ever.

Don’t look for any of these scientific realities to affect Obama’s ideological myopia on this particular topic. He will vigorously persue a way to kick out Dickey-Wicker.

Book it.

Posted in Ethics, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Science | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 13, 2009

“A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future.”           -Barack Obama, February 4, 2009

“I’ve never bought into these Malthusian, woe, Chicken Little, the earth is falling. I tend to be pretty optimistic … I don’t think things are ever as good as they say, or ever as bad as they say. Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They’re not as bad as we think they are now.”        -Barack Obama, March 12, 2009


Three quick points …

First, didn’t the President also say that a failure to act on passing the stimulus bill could mean the economy might never recover?

Second, didn’t Chicken Little say the sky was falling?

Third, if the economy turns around on the Obama watch, will he then acknowledge things just aren’t as good as they seem?



From the Liberal/English Dictionary entry catastrophe: 

Main Entry:







Greek katastrophē, from katastrephein to overturn, from kata- + strephein to turn – confiscated by American Democrat Party for political scare mongering


1540 original, February 2009 Democrat redefine

1: no biggie <failure to act will be a catastrophe>

2: false scare <this crisis will turn into a catastrophe if left alone>

3: as expected <my Presidency is a catastrophe>


cat·a·stroph·ic \ˌka-tə-ˈsträ-fik\ adjective

cat·a·stroph·i·cal·ly \-fi-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Obama's first 100 days, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 8, 2009

it's okay, bubula

it's okay, bubula

This metrosexualized edition of the Chief Executive is tiresome.

The President has already admitted that he’s been a bit overwhelmed since taking office – precisely the thing every American wants to hear from the Chief Executive of the world’s most powerful and influential nation. What with the recession, all of that budget stuff and the war crap to contend with, it’s little wonder the poor guy is feeling a bit inundated. It’s one thing to insult the Prime Minister of your closest ally (and thus, the nation) by throwing a bunch of DVDs his way while being presented with three memorable and breathtaking gifts, but to admit openly to an angry British press corp – and the world at large – that the job has just been too much in the early going is akin to saying, “Dear World, I am incompetent, I’m in over my head, but I do speak well. Love us again, please.”

How presidential.

Just imagine George W. Bush handing Prime Minister Tony Blair a stack of movies as his country’s offering for the traditional exchange of gifts between the two nations. The likes of Letterman and Leno would be lambasting Bush for forgetting the beer and chips.

But as long as we’re pulling things from the “In Over His Head” file …

The President is considering the idea of extending a warm, friendly hand to some of the more moderate members of the Taliban, presumably because they are teetering between the ideologies of blowing up innocents and extending liberty to all. The notion of coming up with a decent gift for the Prime Minister of Great Britain may have been a troubling one, but making nice with some of the less-murderous element of the Taliban is probably a lot less “overwhelming” than just wiping them from the map.

That kind of stuff annoys people.

From Reuters:

In an interview with the newspaper published on its website, Obama said that some of the U.S. success in Iraq involved reaching out to Islamic fundamentalists who had been alienated by the tactics of al Qaeda in Iraq.

Mr. President, are you admitting that there has been success in Iraq?

“There may be some comparable opportunities in Afghanistan and the Pakistani region,” he said. “But the situation in Afghanistan is, if anything, more complex.”

The Times said that in the interview, Obama also left open the option for American operatives to capture terrorism suspects abroad even without the cooperation of a country where they were found.

“There could be situations — and I emphasize ‘could be’ because we haven’t made a determination yet — where, let’s say that we have a well-known al Qaeda operative that doesn’t surface very often, appears in a third country with whom we don’t have an extradition relationship or would not be willing to prosecute, but we think is a very dangerous person,” he said.

“I think we will have to think about how do we deal with that scenario in a way that comports with international law and abides by my very clear edict that we don’t torture.”

Surely, these user-friendly Taliban would be entitled to, at least, 10 DVDs apiece – but Obama shouldn’t tell them that at the beginning.

Leverage, baby.

Posted in Foreign Policy, Obama's first 100 days, politics, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 7, 2009


Just imagine how busy the sketch writers at Saturday Night Live would be had a story been published about President George W. Bush and his army of traveling teleprompters. The mind boggles trying to comprehend how much would be made on the late-night talk show circuit of Bush needing to have his electronic cue cards at almost every public venue that required him to speak. From Jon Stewart to Bill Maher – and all stops in between – America would never hear the end of it.

However, if one were to take the name George W. Bush and replace it with Barack H. Obama, the question is whether America would ever hear the beginning of it. (Insert your educated guess here).

While there is no correlation between one’s competence as an orator and one’s ability to speak publicly without a script or without prompting, the idea that a man who is touted for being such a dynamic speaker can only be so when he has something to read from is, to say the least, worth noting, don’t you think?

Carol E. Lee from The Politico writes:

President Barack Obama doesn’t go anywhere without his TelePrompter.

The textbook-sized panes of glass holding the president’s prepared remarks follow him wherever he speaks.

Resting on top of a tall, narrow pole, they flank his podium during speeches in the White House’s stately parlors. They stood next to him on the floor of a manufacturing plant in Indiana as he pitched his economic stimulus plan. They traveled to the Department of Transportation this week and were in the Capitol Rotunda last month when he paid tribute to Abraham Lincoln in six-minute prepared remarks.

Obama’s reliance on the teleprompter is unusual — not only because he is famous for his oratory, but because no other president has used one so consistently and at so many events, large and small.

Those who have remarked (conservative commentators almost exclusively) that president Obama often times seems to be searching for words when he is off-script have been ridiculed and accused of seeking retaliation for all of the attacks on the less-than-dynamic speaking skills of George W. Bush.

However, what is becoming clear is that President Obama, while often dynamite with a script, isn’t particular good “out of the box” – like, say, Kennedy, Reagan and Clinton were.

After the teleprompter malfunctioned a few times last summer and Obama delivered some less-than-soaring speeches, reports surfaced that he was training to wean himself off of the device while on vacation in Hawaii. But no such luck.

His use of the teleprompter makes work tricky for the television crews and photographers trying to capture an image of the president announcing a new Cabinet secretary or housing plan without a pane of glass blocking his face. And it is a startling sight to see such sleek, modern technology set against the mahogany doors and Bohemian crystal chandeliers in the East Room or the marble columns of the Grand Foyer.

Obama has relied on a teleprompter through even the shortest announcements and when repeating the same lines on his economic stimulus plan that he’s been saying for months — whereas past presidents have mostly worked off of notes on the podium except during major speeches, such as the State of the Union.

Interesting to point out is the contrast between President Obama and former President Bush.

By most accounts – from both sides of the aisle, mind you – President Bush spoke wonderfully off-script and off-camera. When he was unrehearsed, speaking from the heart, discussing matters he was not only passionate about but well-read on, he was a more-than-competent speaker. However, when he spoke from teleprompters or was rigidly scripted, he wasn’t quite as good.

The opposite seems to hold true for President Obama. When following the teleprompter, he is very good – some would say great. When he is left to fend for himself, however, he often seems to be thumbing through his mental rolodex trying to find the right number.

The point?

The cocooning of President Obama continues from all prcatically all sectors of the mainstream media.  This story would have been an Anderson Cooper three-part expose by now had this been a Republican needing to suckle at the teet of technology in order to communicate.

In other news, a new college drinking game could be on the horizon – fashioned after the old “Hi Bob” contest, in which people would watch the old Bob Newhart Show and down a shot everytime one of the characters said “Hi Bob.”

This new excursion into campus idiocy might be called the “Uh-bama” drinking game.

The premise is simple.

Record an Obama event that is not a fully scripted speech (if you can find one), and have the particpants in the game take a shot everytime the President says “uh.”

The game would be over in about seven minutes.

The net effect?

More hangovers means less leftist indoctrination at our universities.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania | Tagged: , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 5, 2009

yes_we_can_3You thought the analogue-to-digital conversion box fiasco had people confused?

Just wait.

This is something I can guarantee the overwhelming vast majority of Americans are not aware of – and come next April 15th, there are going to be a whole lot of irate people frantically screaming at their payroll departments demanding to know what the hell happened.

And meanwhile, not one official from the Obama Administration – the folks who care so much about America’s working families – is bothering to inform anyone about it.

If you are married, and both you and your spouse are entitled to President Obama’s economy-saving blockbuster “tax cuts” – which would yield approximately $13 a week in your paycheck through the end of the year, followed by approximately $8 a week until the $800 total is reached – you had better pay your payroll department a little visit and change your status to “married, filing separately” (if you haven’t already) or adjust your withholding allowances, because it is entirely possible you’re going to owe the government money by next April 15th.

Why?  How?

First, let’s go back to a press release from IRS commissioner Doug Shulman, issued at the end of February, regarding the implementation of Obama’s “tax cuts”:

For most taxpayers, the additional credit will automatically start showing up in their paychecks this spring. Since employers and payroll companies will handle this change, people typically won’t need to take any additional action.

That is, unless you are married and filing jointly.

As most Americans understand the Obama plan, if your payroll department lists your status as “married, filing jointly,” and you fall within the income guidelines, you qualify for the Obamarific $800 “tax cut” and your paychecks will be adjusted accordingly. But if your spouse files the same way at his or her job, he or she will also qualify for the same “tax cut.” Thus, by the time tax time rolls around next year, your “cut” could be twice and big as it was supposed to be, and you will owe that money back.

There is no cross-checking here between employers.

In a story that hasn’t gotten much play, Andrea Coombes, from Fox Business News writes:

But if you file a joint return with your spouse, and you both work, you should carefully review your withholding, because it’s highly likely both employers, without knowledge of what the other is doing, will adjust withholding such that both spouses receive up to $800, for a total credit of $1,600.

“It’s conceivable that if both are married-filing-joint and their income is not otherwise going to cause a phase-out [of the credit], they could get the double benefit,” said Frank Keith, chief of communications for the IRS. “When they file their return, the actual credit they’re entitled to is $800.”

That means paying back up to $800 with your return, though Keith said the money paid out this year, and thus any tax bill later, likely would be slightly lower — since the withholding adjustment starts close to midyear, the full credit won’t be paid out in paychecks.

For some, what’s effectively a loan from the government might be welcome. But others will find the big bill next year unwelcome. One way to prevent it: Adjust your withholding this year.

Note, too, that taxpayers who normally get a refund might simply see a reduced refund, rather than a bill, come April 2010. “A lot of people get refunds. If you’re in that situation, it likely would just mean that your refund is lower,” said Bob Scharin, senior tax analyst at Thomson Reuters’ tax and accounting business. “But if you normally do not get a refund, you could find you owe more tax than you anticipated.”

My wife is the controller of a large entity here in New York and knows the tax code in and out. Over the past week or so the finer details of the Obama plan are slowly becoming understood and the reality of married couples potentially being undertaxed by doing precisely what IRS commissioner Shulman suggested – that is, nothing – is hitting home, not only in my wife’s office, but in payroll departments everywhere.

At an APA (American Payroll Association) discussion group my wife has aceess to, moderated by CPP certified payroll professionals, one confused visitor posted:

“I am trying to figure out how the new tables work for a Married Couple, both working. In my little mind, if the new Percentage Method Withholding tables reduce the amount of tax withheld from someone claiming Married up to $800.00, then is it reasonable to think that if both spouses are claiming Married the amount of tax their withholding could be reduced as much as $1600.00? … So if both of the spouses fall into that bracket, they could in fact have a reduction of approx. $1,600.00. Which means that they might in fact have a tax liability at the end of the year. I called the IRS about this and after 5 transfers, all I got was, “well if they are both working then maybe they need to have additional tax withheld on their checks each pay period to make up for the short fall”. WOW, give us a stimulus then make us have extra tax withheld each pay period. I am probably just not seeing the big picture and I hope someone can show me where my error is.”

The response:

You are correct. If both spouses work, their total withholding will be reduced by more than they are entitled to at the end of the year and they will owe the difference. The IRS has published the new Publication 15-T. In that publication, they have included a “Notice to Employees”. This notice doesn’t really state that married employees in lower brackets will be underwithheld, but I think this is the IRS’s attempt at addressing the withholding issue.

I’m sure someone was going to get around to filling the American people in on it eventually.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 27, 2009


Fielding e-mails about the Obama plan to reduce troop levels in Iraq by the end of August, 2010 to anywhere from 35,000 to 50,000 troops, I am getting roundly attacked on the supposed naivety – or knee-jerk reaction – of my position in the piece I posted earlier today called “QUICK THOUGHTS ON THE BAM PLAN TO SCRAM.”

One close friend wrote: “What do you mean this one is ‘hard to take’? Are you aware that Obama is actually following the Bush plan here?”

I’m missing some of the finer nuances, I’m being told. This really isn’t a withdrawal, I’m being reminded. This is only a political move to make nice with the radical lefties who are starting to gripe a bit about Messianic campaign promises. Obama can’t really get out of Iraq completely, they’re saying to me, because he can’t let that country descend into chaos. If I’d just stop reacting from my ideological perch here on the right, and actually put some thought into these things, I’d be able to understand that.

Fox News even has a story about how some libs are feeling “Left Out” because of Bam’s war strategy.

(Left out? Have they paid any attention to anything Obama has done since taking office? Guanatnamo Bay? $787 billion in Pork? Funding overseas abortions? Trillions in spending?)

First off, the fact that people on the far left are probably going to be upset by The One consenting to leave troops in Iraq after combat operations have been declared over means what? That Obama is now suddenly doing the right thing? That people like me are overreacting and missing the bigger picture? That I should reconsider my contempt for the President’s decision to announce to the entire world the date the United States will stop fighting in a place that terrorist thugs are just chomping at the bit to infiltrate? The idea that wacky Leftocrats are going to be annoyed doesn’t make the President any less liberal or any less wrong for announcing his exit strategy to the world as he did.

Never in the history of this country has the date for the cessation of hostilities been announced by the President while combat with the enemy was ongoing and without unconditional surrender.

Second, if it had been left to Obama in the first place, who adamantly said “The Surge” would never work, Iraq would be a terrorist’s nirvana right about now. Frankly, Obama’s judgment leaves a lot to be desired (from his choice of pastor and associates to his concept of a “spread-the-wealth” society). Forgive me for not jumping up and down with glee at anything he may say regarding national security. Seeing as the man has already turned this nation decidedly toward Marxism, is spending astronomical amounts of money that doesn’t even exist, and has promised the closing of Guantanamo Bay, thus affording incarcerated terrorists the opportunity to go elsewhere – including back to being terrorists – it is not entirely unreasonable to be “down” on Obama after this announcement.

I ask the question again, as I did in my original article, how is America any safer for this?

Whether or not the right thing to do strategically is draw down American troop levels by August of 2010 isn’t the issue. If the “withdrawal” date for the majority of American troops in Iraq were set for next Tuesday, so be it. The decision to publicize it is where the President has shown radically poor judgment – again.

And note the President’s inability (or hard-wired unwillingness) to use the word “victory” today when addressing the U.S. Marines at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina in describing what the men and women of the United States armed forces have accomplished in Iraq. Quite telling. Democrats and “victories” only apply, I suppose, to pushing spending bills through Congress and paving the way for as many abortions as possible. “Getting the job done” certainly sounds nice, but “victory” is what the American military is really all about.

Remember, the only reason to send American troops into harm’s way is to make the United States safer. Period. I am, admittedly, one of those who believed that removing Saddam Hussein from the helm of a nation that openly supported terrorism – one that violated numerous UN resolutions while firing upon our military aircraft – and helping to secure an America-friendly country in the heart of a despotic region of the world would do just that. The war in Iraq – and our impending victory there – has made the United States safer.

Indeed, I supported the measure from jump street.

The majority of those on Capitol Hill did as well. Barack Obama did not.

And while that is no criterion in and of itself as to whether or not one can support victory once troops are deployed, recall Obama’s words on Inauguration Day: “Our security emanates from the justness of our cause.”

This is what the Commander-In-Chief of America’s fighting forces believes.

What do you think would have happened had he made that statement today in front of a gathering of United States Marines?

Mr. President, the security of the United States emanates from a strong military.

It is a shame you don’t believe that, nor understand that.

I wonder if Al Qaeda (and assorted vermin) will believe that Iraq’s security emanates from the justness of their cause beginning September 1, 2010.

Posted in Obama's first 100 days, War on Terror | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 24, 2009

i'm sorry ... so sorry

i'm sorry ... so sorry

Earlier this morning, CNN had a link to this blog – specifically to an article I “penned” called “Race Baiter On The Attack.” It was part of CNN’s “From The Blogs” section, underneath the headlining story of Rupert Murdoch’s apology for publishing a cartoon deemed “offensive” by old-school racists and victimized societal dinosaurs.

My “inbox” and I may never be on speaking terms again.

After all the ruckus of what should’ve been less than a non-story, it occured to me that it may, indeed, be time to resurrect and redefine the term “yellow journalism” for the twenty-first century. Fear, intimidation, apology and appeasement are becoming the cornerstones of today’s free press. The mainstream media exists almost entirely to reinforce the protective cocoon that surrounds Barack Obama. The Messiah is, for now, untouchable, and any reference to anything that could even appear critical is roundly disposed with.

Let’s be truthful … if anyone other than Barack Obama – and I mean anyone – got up in front of the media and said that federal spending was out of control and needed to be tamed after signing a nearly one trillion dollar porkfest into law, they’d be skewered (and rightly so) by every journalist, pundit, blogger, talk-show host, cab driver and columnist in creation.

The “objective” American press is a disgrace.

I was disappointed – but not surprised – to see that Robert Murdoch, owner of the New York Post (NewsCorp), felt it necessary to issue yet another apology for the now infamous dead-chimp cartoon published last week that some took as a racial attack on the President. Never have so many been so outraged over so little. It is both disturbing and embarrassing.

The paper already apologized for this, you may recall, immediately after the cartoon was originally published.

But like the less-than-relevant sniveling radio speck Don Imus did a couple of years ago, Murdoch caved.

Does Mr. Murdoch truly believe that this latest apology will finally be the end of this saga? Does anyone honestly believe that these disgraceful race merchants will go away now? Sharpton and Crew have been empowered. There’s blood in the water. They won’t stop.

When do liberals ever stop?

The haters have already called for the firing of the editor-in-chief of the Post as well as the cartoonist. What next? Will they be satisfied to see those who did the actual printing of the paper canned as well? Or the folks who supplied the ink?

As expected, many happy readers of CNN are in line with Reverend Al:

-Sharpton was right on about this one. The Post has a history of using monkeys to portray black people. Because of this I hesitate to only call it thoughtless.     –Matt

-Another neocon speaks. I thought you people died off like the dodo bird. Yes Sharpton is extreme and can be a race baiter however even a klansman would have seen the NYP’s cartoon to be racist. Rupert gave a half assed apology by saying he was sorry if anyone was upset by the cartoon; which is the equivalent of apologising for your emotions rather than his racist content … Thanks for writing your blog, you have reminded me why I left the Republican party. It was once a party of intelligent people, real conservatives (not neocons) who had complex solutions to complex problems. Now it is populated and supported by monosyllabic idiots who see everything in either black or white and hate anything different.     –Andy H

-If you’re so offended by Al sharpton then i would have to assume the sight and sound of the prejudice, racist and all out black race hating commentaries of Sean Hannity, Rush limbaugh and the rest of the ”white race is superior posse” makes u want to puke. It amazes me how people such as yourself get so upset abt sharpton but dont say or condeem any of the bigotry and racist comments tht come out of their mouths. The cartoon was racist and offensive and sharpton had every right to complain.     –Tammy

Another Neocon, says the other Andy. Too funny.

And isn’t it interesting, as demonstrated by Tammy, that all roads (naturally) lead to Rush Limbaugh?

Speaking of Rush, a blogger by the name of Ben Sprouse said he actually agreed with my assessments of Al Sharpton as a racist. However, being an a confused moral relativist, Ben attempted to paint Rush Limbaugh with an equally unflattering racist brush, going so far as offering a series of “direct quotes” from Limbaugh that supposedly illustrated his hatred of non-whites. These quotes included:

-I mean, let’s face it, we didn’t have slavery in this country for over 100 years because it was a bad thing. Quite the opposite: slavery built the South. I’m not saying we should bring it back; I’m just saying it had its merits. For one thing, the streets were safer after dark.

-You know who deserves a posthumous Medal of Honor? James Earl Ray [the confessed assassin of Martin Luther King]. We miss you, James. Godspeed.

-The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies.

-They’re 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?

-Take that bone out of your nose and call me back (to an African American female caller).

Valiant effort, Ben, but no dice.

First off, most of these so-called direct quotes are not even correct. Second, they are taken completely out of context – to such a degree that Ben ought to be embarrassed for attempting to use these as a point of argument. These “quotes” were used either to illustrate the absurdity of others who regularly attributed comments like these to Limbaugh (without proof) or they were used in demonstrating the ugliness of racism itself.

These things are verifiable with minimal effort.

There is no one in all of conservative talk radio to whom race matters least than Rush Limbaugh.

To those on the right, overwhelmingly race is a non-issue. Not so on the Left.

Are there conservatives who are racist? Of course.

But no one group finds more ways to interject matters of race into more different issues in more different ways than the modern American liberal.


Posted in American culture, Liberalism, Media Bias, Pop Culture, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 21, 2009

obama-jesusTwenty-first Century America … where a man who associated with a known-terrorist can land the top spot in Washington; where an unaccomplished community organizer who was mentored by a racist anti-American reverend can become the Big Cheese; where a man who lied to the American people on numerous occasions about “earmarks” in the largest wasteful spending bill in all of human history can lead the free world; where a man who has done nothing but fear-monger Americans with falsehoods on the state of the economy can be called “leader;” where a man who has suspended ongoing trials of known terrorists at Guantanamo Bay can be called Commander-In-Chief; where a man who has been President for a little less than five lousy weeks is polled as being more of a hero than Jesus, Ghandi, Ronald Reagan, Martin Luther King and Abraham Lincoln – that according to a new Harris Interactive Poll.

Ladies and Gentleman … Meet President Barack Obama – the greatest human being that has ever existed.

Allow me to summon some of that “courage” and dispel any misgivings about any “cowardice” I may be perceived as having, at least according to an intellectual relic, Attorney General Eric Holder (who called America a nation of cowards when it comes to matters of race).

How’s this for being brave – and let’s see how much honesty liberals are willing to face …

Three words … because he’s black.

If this poll of “heroes” had anything to do with substance, President Obama would be among those tallying the poll, not topping it.

One thing that was somewhat surprising in this poll of over 2,600 Americans … George W. Bush (hated and ridiculed in story and song) apparently made the top ten – and ahead of God, who ranked 11th.

And one absolute travesty of note in this poll … George Washington, arguably the greatest American of them all, ranked 16th – tied with (grab your air sick bags) Bill Clinton and Colin Powell.

According to Fox News:

Of the multiple reasons participants gave to explain their choices of heroes, the ones most cited is, “Doing what’s right regardless of personal consequences” with 89 percent, “Not giving up until the goal is accomplished” with 83 percent and “Doing more than what other people expect of them,” with 82 percent. Also popular were “Overcoming adversity” and “Staying level-headed in a crisis.”

In the first Harris Poll asking this question in 2001, Jesus came in first, followed by the Rev. King, Powell, John F. Kennedy and Mother Teresea.

Seeing as Obama’s pig-meat spending bill has only just been signed into law, the excuse of “not giving up until the goal is accomplished” is meaningless – unless simply passing the damn thing, regardless of what was in it, counts as accomplishment. (See my article BAM’S BILL HAS (SLIM) MAJORITY SUPPORT … 37% SUFFER FROM DO-SOMETHING DISEASE).

And what’s this nonsense about “overcoming adversity?”

Are they serious?

Exactly what adversity did Bam have to contend with in his run for the Presidency? Faulty teleprompters? The inability to eat his waffles in peace? This man was The Chose One from jump street. He was elevated, protected, anointed and coronated by America’s free and objective press. Even longtime Democrat bed buddies like Hillary Clinton didn’t stand a chance against the Messianic tide. The maverick, John McCain – once the darling of the New York Times – was tossed back to our side of the yard like so much moldy bread. Before Obama even took the oath of office, streets and schools were being renamed for him. Holidays were even created in his honor.


Number 11 help us.

Update: February 21, 2009 – 5:05 PM

A blogger at Free called mcjordansc commented:

Read the article. There was no list of names from which to choose. When asked who your hero is, most people, of the top of their head, would say their father or mother. If naming famous person, the sitting President always has an advantage. Take the same poll and offer names – Jesus, Obama, Reagan, Lincoln, Washing, etc. from which you have to choose and I doubt Obama places in the top three. This is a non-story.

Respectfully, the idea of whether it is a “story” or not is certainly in the eye of the beholder, and I admit to seeing it as such – and an interesting one at that.

It’s true that a list of names was not provided to those who were polled, but it is interesting to note that when those who were polled were asked who they admired enough to be a hero, only 8% said “father” (down 5% from 2001), and only 6% said “mother” (down 3% from 2001).

(To be fair, the percentage of those who chose a “public figure” as a hero did also go down in this poll from the 2001 poll – by 8%.)
To the best of my knowledge, this poll was an “off the top their head” poll.

It’s sad that so few thought to choose “father” or “mother” off the top of their heads when asked to pick a hero without the benefit of a list.

See the report here.

Posted in American culture, Obama's first 100 days, Obama-Mania, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 19, 2009

pork_steaksIn a Fox News poll released today, a slim majority of Americans – 51% – support Barack Obama’s $787 billion pig meat bonanza, signed into law on Tuesday (four days after it had to be passed by Congress, lest the nation disintegrate into oblivion). The poll also says that 40% of Americans oppose it.

But here’s the kicker.

As Dana Blanton writes:

For those supporting the stimulus bill, the top reason is because it was seen as the best option and we “have to do something” (37 percent). Other main reasons include the spending included in the bill (17 percent), belief in Barack Obama and the Democrats (14 percent), and simple belief the plan will work (11 percent).

That should be astonishing to me, but it isn’t. (After watching the salivation and bootlicking adulation at Obama’s Fort Myers townhall meeting last week, nothing surprises me). 37% of Americans say that Obama’s craptacular spending bill was the best option because something – anything – had to be done. It didn’t matter what it was, apparently, just as long as something got done. The Obamacrats could have allocated billions of dollars to the study of Appalachian toe jam, or the nasal mucus eating habits of Berkeley, California city council members, and it wouldn’t have mattered, as long as something was done.

Yes, the dreaded “do something” virus, fabled in story and song.

Please note this actual e-mail exchange between myself and a liberal friend whom I will call “Dexter,” (because he doesn’t want me to use his real name, Len). My assertion in the e-mail is untrue, by the way. I was only having some fun.

Me: Have you read this thing at all? Be honest. You haven’t. Look on Page 822, Dexter. There is almost $700 million dollars being directed toward the study of “Pityriasis capitis prevention” – dandruff! Are you kidding?

Dexter: You’re a one-trick pony, my friend. Gripe, gripe. Deal with it. It’s the law. And when the economy comes around, it’ll be interesting to hear your complaints then.


The idea that nearly a billion was being spent on dandruff seemed not to phase him. Only after four or five more exchanges did he realize that I was making it up, to which he wrote, “But do you disagree that medical research is a good thing at least?”


Note that, according to the poll, less than one-fifth of Americans cited actually having any faith in the Obamacrats as their main reason for supporting the bill, while just over ten percent said they supported the measure because they actually believe it will work.

Lord, help us.

Also interesting to note is that while 58% of Americans believe some sort of legislation was necessary, almost one-fourth of them were against the plan that Obama signed into law. And better than one-half of Americans say the bill is best characterized as a “spending bill” instead of a “stimulus” bill.

Blanton also writes:

Another word about pork — or specifically “porky amendments” as New York Sen. Chuck Schumer called them when he said recently Americans “really don’t care” if the stimulus bill included earmarks and pork spending. The poll finds Americans disagree with Schumer, as a large 79 percent majority says they do care, including most Democrats (76 percent), Republicans (84 percent) and independents (78 percent).

Charles Schumer misspoke?

You don’t say.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 17, 2009

how can New Yorkers not be proud?

how can New Yorkers not be proud?

Spread it out, and they will spend … that’s what Democrats say.

Okay then.

I’m ready to do my part by giving this economy a good swift kick in the pants.

Let’s see … Eight dollars will almost get me a pack of cigarettes in New York City – and at some places in town, a full one. Eight bucks, however, will not be enough to get me across the Verrazano Bridge into Staten Island by car (that’s $10.00), but I would be able to take four subway rides. It’ll also score me a McDonalds double quarter-pounder value meal in Manhattan, or a week-and-a-half of New York Times home delivery at fifty percent off the regular subscription rate. For that kind of money, I can take home about a third of a pot roast, or just under two jars of Manischewitz Premium Gold Gefilte Fish.

In other words, I’d better start reworking my budget now … the Obama “tax cut” is coming to town.

To be fair, the Obama “tax cut” plan – similar to George W. Bush’s “stimulus rebate” check dispersal in 2008 (but only spread out over time) – is slated to afford taxpayers about $13 a week in extra spending cash beginning in June, but then fall back to about $8 at the beginning of next year. That means for the second half of this year, people like me will be able to afford an extra box of Bubba Burgers and a roll of Viva paper towels … or three heads of lettuce and a couple of gallons of diesel fuel … or almost fifteen boxes of chicklets.

Look out, economy … here we come.

And how do we know this will work? 

Because the illustrious and never-interesting Charles Schumer, Senator from New York, gave his ringing endorsement to the plan. Drawing eloquently from his bag of crippled cognition, he said, “Instead of giving one paycheck at once…” (as opposed to giving one paycheck twice, I suppose) “… which George Bush did, and it really didn’t stimulate the economy, the economists said ‘stretch it out and people are more likely to put it into economy and get our economy going.’ ”

Whether or not America’s retailers are bracing for a stampede of eight-dollar power shoppers is unclear.

What is clear is that Democrats simply don’t get it.

Schumer is right in that George Bush’s ridiculous stimulus debacle did nothing to jumpstart the economy … but being a Democrat, Schumer lives and operates by the credo “If something fails, do it again!”

While it is true that people will tend to spend more if they see more money in their paychecks on a regular basis, insignificant rebates such as these over a limited stretch of time is hardly the way to get people digging into their wallets. Remember, the entirety of each Obama “cut” is a mere $400 for each individual and $800 for each couple.

I hate to be the one to sneeze on someone’s Pop Tart, but this is sheer idiocy. The impact of such “cuts” will be barely perceptible, if at all.

Not only is this $13 a week nonsense not a “tax cut,” but the fact that these “cuts” are not permanent will dissuade people from the kind of purchases needed to get the economy rolling again.

From Fox News:

Some worry the cut is not enough to encourage consumers to go out and spend. And since two-thirds of the economy is consumer spending, the effectiveness of the tax cut in spurring workers to open their wallets is key to an economic revival.

“The average person will get $8 per week in their paycheck and they will pass on to their grandkids $1.1 trillion in debt,” said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, S.C. “We created more new government than we did jobs and the substance and process cannot repeat itself.”

Moody’s economist Mark Zandi also says the nature of the tax cut could reduce the number of jobs created by the $787 billion stimulus package.

“With regard to how much of the tax cut’s going to spent for individuals, the White House, I think, is assuming that people are going to behave as if that tax cut is permanent, and I doubt that will be the case,” he said.


The ability of people to buy an extra box of Swiffers on a weekly basis thanks to distributed rebates that will total far less to each working person than what George Bush offered in his failed attempt at stimulus will do positively nothing for the economy.

Compare someone who is given a genuine tax cut – that is, an actual reduction in the percentage of the tax being paid resulting in the ability to keep (and spend) more of one’s own money – with someone getting miniscule rebates for a limited period of time. People are less likely to spend when they know the boost in take home money – in this case, a whopping $13 a week through the end of the year – is temporary.  However, if a genuine cut in taxes is made permanent, then people can more reliably count on that extra money being there and budget accordingly. People are more likely to spend when they have more of their own money.

I’m wondering if Chuck Schumer is openly advocating for struggling taxpayers to take on additional monthly payments for items such as washing machines and big screen televisions using “stimulus money” knowing that it will run out long before the items have been paid off.

Then what?

More outstanding debt on top of growing debt?

I guess if it’s okay for the government, it’s okay for Johnny Lunch Bucket.


Update: February 17, 2009 – 5:35 PM

A blogger at FREE REPUBLIC.COM called theDentist commented on my observation that the $8.00 a week “tax cut” wouldn’t even be enough money to get across the Verrazano Bridge, from Brooklyn to Staten Island, seeing as the toll is $10.00.

He wrote:  “Well, that’ll get you 80% across. From there, you jump like the rest of us.”

Too funny.


the fact that it costs $10.00 to cross the Verrazano Bridge from Brooklyn into Staten island

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 16, 2009


What do John Lennon and Barack Obama have in common, you may ask? (There isn’t enough bandwidth in the Western Hemisphere to sufficiently respond).

The answer … they both rejected Winston Churchill.

Lennon did so when he publicly renounced his birth name of John Winston Lennon in favor of John Ono Lennon, although never legally. (His mother named him Winston after being overcome with an irresistible wave of patriotism as the Battle of Britain waged in 1940).

Obama rejected Churchill by returning a prized bronze bust of the great statesman and wartime leader (created by Sir Jacob Epstein) that was loaned to the White House by Great Britain after the 9/11 attacks.

It was displayed proudly and prominently in the Oval Office through all of President Bush’s two terms, but when the Brits graciously offered the new President the opportunity to keep it for another four years, Barack Obama opted to send it back.

A bust of Abraham Lincoln now sits where Churchill did in the Oval Office.

And why, pray tell, was President Obama so quick to give the heave-ho to Churchill’s head?

The answer may be very personal.

Tim Shipman from the UK Telegraph writes:

Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill’s second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya’s Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President’s grandfather.

The rejection of the bust has left some British officials nervously reading the runes to see how much influence the UK can wield with the new regime in Washington.

The President is certainly entitled to feel as he wants. For all I care, he can keep a head of lettuce carved to look like Keanu Reeves on his night stand.

I simply find the liberal mind fascinating – like I do a derailed subway car, or the lives of dung beetles.

The article makes reference to President Obama’s affinity and high regard for Abraham Lincoln. Indeed, as Shipman writes: “Mr Obama … prefers to cite the words and works of his hero Abraham Lincoln,” while many American politicians are wont to quote Churchill.

Again, he is certainly entitled to do so, and I have no qualms about it. Lincoln is very quotable, obviously.

But it fascinates me to try and pinpoint reasons behind what people do – particularly powerful leftists who associate with known domestic terrorists, racist clergy and corrupt community organizations.

For instance, one thing conservatives do far better than liberals is place a correct context on historical events. Leftists, by contrast, frame every argument and every position around how they feel at any given moment. Emoting is the general mechanism by which liberals set policy.

Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, as an example, are seen as nothing but dead white slave holders to many on left – certainly by most of the Chomsky/Zinn intelligencia that dominate the overwhelming vast majority of American universities – which automatically discredits everything else they (and many of the other Founding Fathers) ever accomplished in their remarkable lives.

Therefore, I wonder if Obama’s “liberal context filter” is functioning properly when it comes to Abraham Lincoln. (If he weren’t a lib, I wouldn’t even ask).

Here are two Lincoln quotes I wonder if we’ll hear come from the lips of our President anytime soon.

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.”

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan A Douglas - debating slavery

Abraham Lincoln and Stephan A Douglas - debating slavery

The first is famously taken from the fourth Lincoln/Douglas debate of 1858. The second actually comes from a letter Lincoln wrote to renouned newspaper editor Horace Greeley in August, 1862.

My point is neither to denigrate Lincoln nor play “gotcha” with President Obama.

Like most conservatives, context is everything. I am perfectly willing (and able) to read these quotes in their proper context. These words – well known and oft-quoted – do not diminish or elevate what I already think of our 16th president. I am capable of taking them for what they were in the period they were spoken and written. Thus, any reasonable thinking person would have to assume, given Obama’s admiration of him, that Lincoln’s controversial views on issues of race and slavery are perfectly known. Lincoln is, after all, the Great Emancipator.

So the question … if those words were spoken by anyone other than Lincoln, would that person still be held in high regard, or just thrown in with Jefferson, Washington and other Founders who had slaves?

Would Lincoln’s head be allowed a coveted place in the Oval Office?

Let’s face it … Honest Abe didn’t exactly erect statues to American blacks. He certainly wasn’t their unabashed cheerleader during America’s most divisive period. Maybe because he didn’t own slaves he is given a pass. (It’s hard to make sense of the liberal mind sometimes).

An interesting point to ponder is the fact that Obama is not descended from American slaves, so perhaps Lincoln’s words are less “personal” to him then the events of the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya and Churchill’s role in what happened to his grandfather . Perhaps Obama is able to keep some of Lincoln’s “less than embracing” words about blacks in proper historical context and admire him for other things.

Obama is a liberal’s liberal (and then some) … and like dung beetles, somehow intrigue me … like a tumor … sort of.


Posted in American History, Obama's first 100 days, Slavery, World History | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 15, 2009

foreclosureIt pays when someone else pays.

I initially thought President Obama was going to turn a blind eye and neglect the housing crisis in his porktabulous $787 billion spending bill in favor of doorknobs, STD awareness, hybrid cars and abandoned mine sites. It looks like I couldn’t be more wrong … and it took an article I read at the Indy Mind blog to bring it to my attention. (Thanks a million, Arkady).

Nothing apparently gets by President Obama – that is, except the truth, American values and the need to keep terrorists caged. Housing, as it turns out, is a huge priority for our 44th Chief Executive. To that end, Obama is, in fact, going to push a boatload of money toward housing – $13.5 billion in total, according to the bill he is expected to sign on Tuesday.

However, in the spirit of clarity, it should be noted that all of that critical stimulus money – needed, we were told, in short order to keep the United States breathing- is being directed toward “section 8 housing, low-income and public housing.” And two billion of that money is going toward “abandoned and foreclosed homes.”

How nice.

Now, that’s what I call stimulating.

(Boy, do I feel like a sucker. I should have let the house go into foreclosure).

The first question that comes to mind is … if a home has already been abandoned, what is the federal government  supposed to do with it, to it, or for it, to stimulate the economy?

The second question that pops into my head is … if the home has been foreclosed on, what is the federal government  supposed to do with it, to it, or for it, to stimulate the economy?

Whatever it is … it is going to cost at least two billion bucks.

Please explain it to me. I’m willing to learn.

Pouring money into Section 8 housing and inner city housing projects, funded by taxpayers who actually pay their mortgages on time, for such inspiring economic catalysts as “Grants and loans for green investment” (for example), to the tune of over a half-billion dollars, seems to concern no one outside of conservatives and people who think. In Obama-speak, this is stimulus, and it will save America.

Admittedly, the bounds of my imagination may be more stunted than the visionaries on Capitol Hill, but what on Earth exactly is “green investment?” And how is it to be implemented in Section 8 housing? And how in hell is it stimulus? What exactly are we talking about here?

Solar-powered food stamps?

Reusable bathroom tissue?

Carbon credit magnets for the kitchen?

As Arkady at Indy Mind writes, $13.5 billion housing dollars breaks down this way:

-Public housing capital improvements: $3,000,000,000
-Public housing renovations and energy conservation investments: $1,000,000,000
-Native American housing block grants: $510,000,000
-Community development funding: $1,000,000,000
-Emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes: $2,000,000,000
-Additional capital investments in low-income housing tax credit projects: $2,250,000,000
-Homelessness prevention and re-housing: $1,500,000,000
-Assistance to owners of properties receiving section 8 assistance: $2,000,000,000
-Grants and loans for green investment in section 8 properties: $250,000,000

Homelessness prevention and re-housing” dangles a $1.5 billion price tag?

And thank the Lord those “Native American Housing Block Grants” are finally coming through. It is unlikely this country would see an economic recovery without it.

Arkady finishes his post this way:

Call me old fashioned, but I do not believe that this country amounted to greatness due to punishing and robbing those that do everything right only to reward those that did everything wrong. A trend like this cannot continue and must not continue, America’s stability depends on it.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 14, 2009

obama_liarI cannot even imagine the magnitude of the cacophonous outcry all of us would be hearing right now from every seedy nook and cranny of the main-stream media had Republicans been in control of both the White House and Congress while an unread, unscrutinized, unvetted, who-did-it-and-ran spending bill passed both houses before anyone could as much as inhale.

Democrats orchestrated a legislative drive-by shooting for the ages, with the fleetness of a goose suffering from dysentery, sending to the President’s desk a hunk of burning pig-meat over a thousand pages long that no one outside of speed readers and time travelers could possibly find the time to go through before it was put up for a vote. As quickly as it appeared from the joint committee, it was shoved through the House, and by Friday evening, it was in and out of the Senate.

Just like that.


Thanks for coming.

And now, Nancy Pelosi and company are gone, scattered about – off to Rome, or wherever.

Had such a thing occurred under the watch of, say, George W. Bush, the scale of outrage and disdain that would be emanating from every Democrat able to gurgle into a live microphone would be literally unimaginable.

And because the mainstream media share a bunk and toothbrush with Obamacrats, we the people would never hear the end of it.

Just think of how many blood vessels Senator Chuck Schumer would explode carrying on about fascist Republicans. Nancy Pelosi would spring a leak yelling about right-wing tyranny and a culture of corruption unlike this nation has ever seen. Barney Frank would be speed-bitching about totalitarianism to the point that he would actually be pronouncing his “r”s and “w”s correctly. Talk would begin in earnest about impeachment. Television talking-skulls would be whining about checks and balances and dictatorships and the death of democracy. Hitlerian references and Stalinist comparisons would be running rampant. There’d be Christiane Amanpour documentaries on CNN.

But this hijacking was not a GOP affair. It was, rather, a study in expedience conducted by the party of change – or “fundamental transformation,” as it were.

With endless promises of unprecedented transparency and openness with the American people as their hallmark, the Democrats have set the gold standard for scare tactics, using the so-called impending collapse of the entire American financial system as leverage, running the most expensive spending bill the world has ever seen, stuffed and puffed with billions upon billions of non-stimulating pet projects, through the United States Congress at breakneck speed without affording politician or civilian alike the opportunity to read the damn thing.

And why?

Because it was necessary to save the country from certain ruin.

They said so, despite example after example proving that government interference of this nature is detrimental to the American economy. Something had to be done, they said, despite the fact that this recession does not even compare to the one that Ronald Reagan faced in the early 1980s. “Catastrophe” they cried if this pig-meat was not passed. “Irreversible” they screamed if Congress did not act … immediately.

And with a precision of a crack commando unit, the Democrats rammed over a thousand pages of undeciphered, irresponsible gobs of back-breaking pork through both houses of Congress without a scintilla of the lucidity and honesty they promised this country.

This little exercise of trickery and deceit will never have the word “tyranny” attached to it … although it should. Rest assured that if Republicans had conducted themselves in such an underhanded and dishonest way, “tyranny” would be among the more docile terms being hurled at them.

Posted in Bailout, Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


Nearly one-third of the Fort Myers, Florida police department was assigned to “body removal patrol” – that is, clearing away those who had fainted. Fully one-half of all EMT personnel in Lee, Collier and Charlotte counties were called in to resuscitate those for whom it was too much. From Southwest Regional Airport, all the way to the Harborside Events Center where HE spoke last evening, all along the route – and for three miles in each direction off his motorcade path – businesses were ordered closed, residents were ordered to leave, pets rounded up and kept out of sight, and nearly thirty-two million people lined the streets to get a glimpse of HIM.

On Daniels Road, thousands were seen licking the black top where HIS limo had driven once the motorcade passed. Others were stretched across the median crying loudly, flailing their arms, while others wept silently. All along HIS travel route, worshippers struggled to break security lines to be able to inhale some of the exhaust fumes of HIS car. One even wrapped herself in a giant burrito and covered herself in sour cream and picante sauce and dangled herself from a “Yield” sign on US 41 when she heard that HE liked tex mex. The blind and physically handicapped were brought to the parking lot of the Harborside Events Center to touch full-color Xerox copies of HIS image. The deaf were allowed to watch a young man wearing a rubber Obama mask communicate articulately in sign language the way HE might do if he couldn’t hear.

Before HIS arrival, devotees were ushered in by the droves, from all walks of life, from the very sick to the young and healthy, wearing “Obama Is King” t-shirts, carrying “Heal Me Obama” signs, wearing “Bend me, Shape me, Obama Baby” buttons, pulling in their Bam-O-Matic Messiah Brand dialysis machines and diabetes test kits. As many as two-hundred million Americans crammed into the Publix parking lot across the street and into the field behind the Circle K adjacent to the venue to be able to say they exhaled the very carbon dioxide that fed the palm tree by the back entrance of the building where HE was going to conduct a townhall meeting.

The excitement was immeasurable. In the aisles, obstetricians were inducing labor on pregnant women so that HIS voice would be the first their babies heard upon entering the world. The dead were exhumed and wheeled in so that HE might inject life into them. Hundreds of children were singing songs of praise to HIM in four thousand different languages. The swimming pool in the center of the arena was cleaned one last time so that HE would have unsullied water to walk on during HIS presentation. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was seen picking out Drake’s Coffee Cake crumbs from the grill of the microphone HE would use (Michael Moore spoke there the night before), while Keith Olbermman had Charmin Ultra Soft bathroom tissue wound up in hand at the ready should HE need to visit the facilities.

Just moments before HE made his appearance, the roof of the venue opened up to sounds of clapping thunder so deafening that the dead began to stir. Forty-four streaks of lightning then came from the heavens, illuminating the night sky with a brilliance the likes of which had not been seen by human eyes until then. The audience at once fell to its knees as a beam of paisley hot light rose from the depths of the swimming pool, morphing into a violent red vortex of flame, eventually reaching through the open roof, into the night sky, beyond the clouds.

More sounds of calamitous thunder echoed across Lee County and into the Gulf of Mexico as HE appeared.

At first no one dared to lay eyes upon HIM until HE said that they all were permitted to look.

He told them to raise their eyes, and they did.

The applause lasted eleven hours, eighteen minutes.

As President Barack Obama eventually began to speak, nearly thirteen thousand women lost consciousness instantaneously. Another ten thousand – including men – became woozy from constantly mouthing the words “I love you, Barack” over and over again. Tears flowed down every cheek in the hall.

Paraplegics stood up.

The halitosis-inflicted had minty fresh breath.

They came to see HIM, to sniff HIM, to be hugged by HIM, to have their gaping wounds touched by HIM, to have their electricity bills paid by HIM, to have their homes financed by HIM, to have their food supplied by HIM, to have their infections cleansed by HIM, to have their souls healed by HIM, and to ask HIM questions.

And they did.


Q: “Mr. Obama, why?”

A: “Uh .. because.”


Q: “Mr. One, how can I be a better person?”

A: “Uh .. you definitely can.”


Q: “Mr. President, things are tough for me. Can you pay my mortgage?”

A: “Let me hug you.”


Q: “Oh Great Obama, does this shirt make me look fat?”

A: “There are no fat cats here.”


Q: “Do you love us? Will you save us?”

A: “I won.”


Q: “Can you give me stuff?”

A: “Yes we can.”


HE fielded six thousand, two-hundred seventeen questions at the Harborside Events Center in Fort Myers, Florida last evening – and shared his tongue and onion sandwich with everyone who came to see him.

When it was all said and done – after all the waffles had been eaten, and long after the last healed cripple jogged home to wait by the mailbox for his stimulus check – The One spoke to reporters about what was truly a magnificent evening, saying, “Are you the Huffington Post guy? Or is it that gay looking dude?”

One thing is for certain … He left an everlasting impression upon those who came by car service and Subaru to see him.

Next up at the Harborside Events Center, the Frank Cox Gem and Jewelry Show, February 13-15, 2009.

Posted in American culture, Obama-Mania, Silly Stuff | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


It’s good to be left out sometimes. A couple of weeks ago, Republicans unanimously pulled themselves out of the fun of passing Obama’s stimulus bill in the House – and they took eleven Dems with them. Yesterday, save for three legislative wastes of space, Republicans said “no” to the Senate version. Now, comes the word that Republicans are being left out of the House-Senate negotiations on finalizing the bill by the all-inclusive, unity-happy, postpartisan Democrats.

Politically, I say “good.” Let them have it. All of the credit for a bill that everyone with at least a few working synapses knew would pass know matter what Republicans did can stay with the Obamacrats.

Republicans shouldn’t want any credit for this disaster. I comment on this only because its fun to point out all of the “change” and “bi-partisanship” Democrats have showered upon Washington during in their eventful first three weeks in complete power.

From the Great Human Events website, Connie Hair writes:

Republicans have caught the Democrats in a midnight “stimulus” power play that seeks to cut Republican conferees out of the House-Senate negotiations to resolve a final version of the Obama “stimulus” package. Staff members from the offices of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) met last night to put together the “stimulus” conference report.

They intend to attempt to shove this $1.3 trillion spending bill through in the dead of the night without Republican input so floor action can take place in both chambers on Thursday.

Fox News is reporting that a tentative $790 Billion stimulus bill deal between Congress and the White House has been reached:

Congressional leaders and the White House have crossed a first hurdle, tentatively agreeing to a $790 billion price tag on President Obama’s economic stimulus bill. The new price tag reflects a cut of nearly $50 billion from the Senate version.

Among the considered cuts to the bill, according to numerous Democratic aides involved in the talks, is a trim to Obama’s tax credit — $500 per worker and $1,000 per couple — with a phase out beginning sooner than originally written: at about $70,000 per individual and $140,000 for couples.

You mean the coveted, much talked-about Obama “tax cuts” are being tossed aside?

No way.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?


Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.


Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009

government-spendingIt’s not just the colossal amount of waste in the Obama Recovery Kill that has my head trying to make apple juice out of pomegranates, but it’s trying to figure out how the meatheads who created this thing arrived at some of their funding figures. (Whole cloth comes to mind).

For instance, $650 million has been allocated for “abandoned mine sites.” Call me uncreative and void of vision, but how exactly does one spend over a half-billion dollars on abandoned mine sites?

On bigger signs warning people to stay out?

To fill the holes?

To put up a gift shop?

Interestingly enough, the mine money is $150 million dollars more than the funds set aside for state and local fire departments. I may not have supported the Obama spendulous disaster, but at least shoveling money into fire departments makes some sense to me.

There is, of course, the much talked-about $650 million allotment going out to rabbit-eared Americans so they can make the switch from analogue TV to digital TV in June – the same amount of money set aside for those abandoned mine sites. Each converter box is about $50.00, and the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), as of January 9th, said the waiting list for free converter box coupons totaled a little over a million.

That’s a figure just north of $50 million.

I consider myself fairly bright – in an everyday shlub kind of way – but I must admit to some confusion here.

Even if the list of queued converter box recipients totaled five million, what is the other $400 million for?


Barack Obama scratch-n-sniff fridge magnets?

Maybe if there’s any leftover, it can be allocated for “abandoned rabbit ears.”

Keep in mind, that while well over a billion dollars goes for abandoned mines and TV converter boxes combined, only $10 million is being set aside to combat Mexican gun runners.


Ten times that amount, I’m happy to see, is being directed toward a far worse plague on the American landscape – “lead paint hazard reduction.”

That’s a hundred million dollars.

I might be able to save them some money here, if they’re so inclined. I respectfully submit this cost-effective tactic in lead paint hazard reduction: “Junior, don’t eat the paint!”

See? Didn’t cost a thing.

Something that is finally getting some attention in this craptacular spending bill is the age-old problem of “watershed rehabilitation.” While only $65 million is heading in that direction – because Lord knows there are a whole lot of watersheds that need rehabbing – $10 million is going straight to “urban canals.”

Thank the good Lord for that.

Other than not knowing what the hell that means, it sounds stimulating.

It’s funny, I never got paid for volunteering for anything – hence the name – but the Feds need $160 million for “volunteers at the Corporation for National and Community Service.”

I think they’re missing the concept.

Maybe they should think about throwing some of this money at the Mexican gun running budget.

Then, there’s $300 million going toward hybrid and electric government cars – less than half as much set aside for those abandoned mines – but $25 million more than “flood prevention.”

How on earth does one spend $25 million on preventing floods?

Man, if we could do that, why would we even care about Global Warming? Or Climate Change? Why not then spend $100 million, or $500 million, on preventing tornados? Or humidity?

We’re obviously far more advanced than even I would have imagined.

And explain to me why over a half-billion dollars is needed for “construction on the Bureau of Indian Affairs,” and yet only $300 million is needed for “constructing FBI office buildings?”

Something’s amiss there, I think.

And that’s pretty vague, isn’t it? “FBI office buildings?”

And this one I love most of all … $5.5 billion (with a “b”) for “making federal buildings green.”

What, pray tell, does that mean?

Toilets powered with tiny windmills? Emergency Exits illuminated with those squiggly light bulbs? Organic lap tops?

One things for sure, each and every one of these “pet projects” will cost more than the money being allocated for them.

Many many thanks to Eric the Red at Vocal Minority for inspiring this piece.


Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 11, 2009


When anyone on the payroll of the Associated Press actually bothers to veer away from Interstate Obama and earn their pay by doing some genuine reporting, i.e., legitimately questioning some of the claims put forth by the Messiah himself, it is definitely worth acknowledging. (It happens so rarely). AP reporter Calvin Woodward has actually done a fairly nice job fact checking some of The One’s assertions made in Elkhart, Indiana on Monday, while the President was attempting to build up support for his pig-meat spectacular, ultimately passed by the Senate yesterday. . The problem is, while doing a respectable job checking some of the President’s spending ishkabibble, Woodward falls into the “earmarks” trap Obama himself created – something I have been writing about a lot in recent days.

First off … the fact checking.

Said Obama:

“I’ve appointed hundreds of people, all of whom are outstanding Americans who are doing a great job. There are a couple who had problems before they came into my administration, in terms of their taxes. … I made a mistake … I don’t want to send the signal that there are two sets of rules. Everybody will acknowledge that we have set up the highest standard ever for lobbyists not working in the administration.”

As we know, two Obama appointees, Tom Daschle and Nancy Killefer, dropped out when it came to light that both had failed to pay taxes. (Obama’s vetting machine needs vetting). There is also Timothy Geithner, the new Secretary of the Treasury, who decided not to drop out when it was revealed that he had some IRS difficulties of his own – that is, until he paid his $34,000 IRS bill.

As far as lobbyists go, Woodward writes:

Obama has in fact established tough new rules barring them from working for his administration. But the ban is not absolute. William J. Lynn III, tapped to be the No. 2 official at the Defense Department, recently lobbied for military contractor Raytheon. William Corr, chosen as deputy secretary at Health and Human Services, has lobbied as an anti-tobacco advocate. And Geithner’s choice for chief of staff, Mark Patterson, is an ex-lobbyist from Goldman Sachs.

Then there’s Obama’s stimulus-bill promise of creating (or saving) millions of new jobs.

Note the word “save.

Said The One:

“The plan that we’ve put forward will save or create 3 million to 4 million jobs over the next two years.”

Woodward counters:

THE FACTS: Job creation projections are uncertain even in stable times, and some of the economists relied on by Obama in making his forecast acknowledge a great deal of uncertainty in their numbers. Beyond that, it’s unlikely the nation will ever know how many jobs are saved as a result of the stimulus. While it’s clear when jobs are abolished, there’s no economic gauge that tracks job preservation.

Clever Democrat-speak, to be sure. The President has spent the better part of the last two weeks talking about the impending “catastrophe” of allowing his spending bill to die. That didn’t happen, of course, but had the bill not passed, job losses across the country would have been massive, he told us. Naturally, Obama never actually defined just how massive “massive” really is. Thus, no matter how many jobs are lost over the next two years, Democrats will assure the public that the total is not nearly what it would have been had the recovery bill not passed.

Viola! Saved jobs.

Then there’s the “earmark” thing.

Said Obama:

“I know that there are a lot of folks out there who’ve been saying, ‘Oh, this is pork, and this is money that’s going to be wasted,’ and et cetera, et cetera. Understand, this bill does not have a single earmark in it, which is unprecedented for a bill of this size. … There aren’t individual pork projects that members of Congress are putting into this bill.”

Here is where Woodward forgets how to be a reporter:

THE FACTS: There are no “earmarks,” as they are usually defined, inserted by lawmakers in the bill. Still, some of the projects bear the prime characteristics of pork – tailored to benefit specific interests or to have thinly disguised links to local projects. For example, the latest version contains $2 billion for a clean-coal power plant with specifications matching one in Mattoon, Ill., $10 million for urban canals, $2 billion for manufacturing advanced batteries for hybrid cars, and $255 million for a polar icebreaker and other “priority procurements” by the Coast Guard. Obama told his Elkhart audience that Indiana will benefit from work on “roads like U.S. 31 here in Indiana that Hoosiers count on.” He added: “And I know that a new overpass downtown would make a big difference for businesses and families right here in Elkhart.”

U.S. 31 is a north-south highway serving South Bend, 15 miles from Elkhart in the northern part of the state.

President Obama is playing a dishonest game, and Mr. Woodward did not do his homework.

First off, as I have said repeatedly – and will continue to do when facts are deceitfully manipulated – “earmarks” are not a process – as Obama suggested on January 6th, when he said, “We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having earmarks in the recovery package, period.”

The President seems to think – or wants us to think – that because “pet projects” were not inserted into the bill individually by members of Congress after the fact, as is often the case, they are not earmarks. In my article “President Liar and Company – Confirmed,” I used this analogy:

Let’s say, for instance, I declared to the world that there will be no profanity used in this article. After that, I went on to say that I describe profanity as the process by which an offensive word is inserted it into this piece. The guidelines I lay out speficially state that a profanity is only such if I type the word myself, using my keyboard. Then, with that newly created criterion in mind, instead of physically typing a four-letter-word into this article, I simply browsed the internet until I found the desired curse word on someone else’s website and cut-and-pasted it into my article. I could then claim that based on how I defined it, there is no profanity in this piece because I didn’t type it myself. Using the Obama method, I defined profanity based on the process by which it found its way into my piece – not the word itself.

pinocchiobamaOf course, the President contradicted his own assertion on Friday of last week when he said, “Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.

The fact of the matter is there are earmarks in the bill, no matter how many times the President looks America square in the eye and says otherwise. There can be no doubt about it. Americans are not stupid – at least many of us aren’t.

The definition of “earmark” according to the Federal Office of Management and Budget is money provided by Congress for projects where the destination of that money, whether in bill form or in legislative reports, is specified or managed by Congress (as opposed to the Executive Branch).

Where Woodward stumbles is in neglecting to point out that there are two types of “earmarks” – hard earmarks and soft earmarks. Hard earmarks are those that are actually written into the bill (like those in Obama’s crapulous package), while soft earmarks – the most common and the kind Woodward is referring to – are written into reports that “suggest” where spending bill money should go.

If I can do the research to find such things out, certainly a professional like Mr. Woodward can.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Media Bias, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 10, 2009


Think of the free market as a fire hydrant and President Obama as the dog about to shower it with contempt. The President told America – and the world – last evening that only government is capable of fixing the economic problems this country faces. The very concepts that help to define America itself – rugged individualism, personal responsibility, liberty, entrepreneurialism – all found themselves thrown under the Obama magical misery bus during his first prime time press conference as President.

The leader of the free world sent the message that it isn’t the individual who can make things right. It isn’t the free market that can set things straight. It is government – big, bumbling, inefficient, unaccountable, tyrannical, fingers-in-everybody’s pie government – that can save this country. With his ringing endorsement of an all-powerful, all-intrusive Washington as problem-solver and healer, the President of the United States made it clear that he possesses no confidence in the American people.

Such inspiration. Such leadership.

Contrast these two quotes:

Ronald Reagan:Government is not the solution to our problems. Government is the problem.”

Barack Obama: “It is only government that can break the vicious cycle where lost jobs lead to people spending less money which leads to even more layoffs.”

If that doesn’t serve as the quintessential distinction between right and left, then nothing does.

What Bam also did last night was add to his ever-growing list of contradictions, inconsistencies, half-truths and downright lies. He said during his less-than-impressive performance that he found it difficult to accept criticism of his porktabulous spending bill from the people (Republicans) who helped double the size of the deficit during the previous administration. Yet, with his $800 billion-plus pig-meat bill, he wants to propel to deficit into uncharted territory with a spending spree that would put Bush’s recklessness to instant shame.

I’m not sure if his handlers and preparers are this obtuse, or if he is just the worst out of the box thinker America has seen since John Kerry, but he embarrasses himself when he is away from the nestling warmth of his teleprompter.

No one likes to give a hard time to those who have come down off the cross to save humanity, but how about some honest analysis?

This works part and parcel with the President’s fractured view of his own country – his misguided, university-constructed, leftist take on the greatest country the world has ever known.

It is frightening, but no one should be surprised now. The tone for the Obama-Nation was set on January 20, 2009 in what was an otherwise sleepy and forgettable inaugural address.

Recall The One said:

“Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

How many of you, when you heard those words, took pause to say to yourselves, “Wow, the Bush years really are over.”

If ever something more provably untrue were uttered by a President, it’s not immediately popping into my head. How exactly is the safety of the United States enhanced in any way because of how just our cause is? Where in all of human history has a cause served to strengthen the security of a people? That such a statement can be made without any serious scrutiny or backlash (outside of conservatives who pay attention) is utterly astounding. No country’s security ever emanates from the justness of a cause.

Security emanates from a strong military. Period.

Were the Jews of Nazi Germany more secure because of the justness of their cause?

Can I now keep my doors unlocked at night because I am a just man?

What poppycock.

The security of the United States emanates from the men and women who serve in the armed forces.

Then, there was this little ditty, extracted directly from the multiculturalist’s songbook:

“We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn from every end of this Earth.”

This country may be comprised of people from every corner of the world, but it is patently false – and in no way defensible to assert that this country has been shaped by every language and culture.

How exactly?

Undoubtedly, one could probably find just about every one of world’s languages spoken somewhere in the United States, but the influence of Hindi and Latvian on the United States is nil. The role of Farsi and Burmese in forming the cultural landscape of America is nonexistant. Even the effect of Zulu on American life is negligible.

And as deplorable as it is for anti-religious revisionists to have to admit any prevailing Christian influence, this country has not been shaped by Hindus or Muslims, despite ongoing attempts to reconstruct American history into an all-inclusive, everybody-influenced-everything fairy-tale.

Culturally, this country exists in the English tradition, shaped by its Judeo-Christian value system. Period.

This is not a matter of opinion.

But worry not … just a little while ago, the Obama spendulous bill passed in the Senate, 61-37. America is well on the way to a “fundamentally transformed” future filled with big government band-aids,  astronomical deficits and encroaching tyranny.

Yippee, eh?

Piece by piece, America is going away.

America is falling down and going Bam.

Posted in American culture, Big Government, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2009

Go away

Go away

Senator Arlen Specter, Republican (by registration), says it is very simple. He is supporting President Obama’s spending bill because the United States cannot afford to sit idly by and do nothing. He said so himself in a column he wrote for the Washington Post, published this morning.

I think it’s simple, too. Senator Arlen Specter is getting too old to let his knees jerk that violently. He could rupture a patella.

With inaction, he warns, it could be too late for the United States. In other words, this crisis – which you’d have to believe is close to being worse than the Great Depression or maybe the worst ever to befall homosapiens anywhere – could potentially destroy almost two-hundred-thirty-three years of existence unless we incur astronomical amounts of additional debt.

Along with some nearly incoherent references about MovieTone news reels, he laid out his reasons why the Obama bill must be implemented to save America. Said the rambling Rino:

The unemployment figures announced Friday, the latest earnings reports and the continuing crisis in banking make it clear that failure to act will leave the United States facing a far deeper crisis in three or six months. By then the cost of action will be much greater — or it may be too late.

This is one of those instances where a clueless, misinformed politician believes that just saying something automatically gives it credence. If given the chance, I would ask directly … what exactly makes it clear that failure to act could bring down the country, Mr. Specter? What do you base that on? That the President dramatically used the word “catastrophe” to describe what might happen if the pork never hits the grill?

Fear mongering, thy name is Specter.

Wave after wave of bad economic news has created its own psychology of fear and lowered expectations. As in the old Movietone News, the eyes and ears of the world are upon the United States. Failure to act would be devastating not just for Wall Street and Main Street but for much of the rest of the world, which is looking to our country for leadership in this crisis.

Our $780 billion bill would save or create up to 4 million jobs, helping to offset the loss of 3.6 million jobs since December 2007. The bill cuts some $110 billion from the $890 billion Senate version, which would actually be $940 billion if floor amendments for tax credits on home and car purchases and money for the National Institutes of Health are retained.

Yes, I feel better now. Thanks Big A.

Why the Republican National Committee is not commissioning the construction of statues to Specter and the Mods for heroically slashing over a hundred billion bucks from the bill (after the price tag went up over a hundred billion) is beyond me.

Please feel free to read the article in its entirety, if you like. My nausea level peeks into the red when I cut and paste his pathetic attempts at rationale.

Interestingly enough, the Congressional Budget Office predicts this nation-crippling recession will end by the start of 2010without passing Obama’s craptacular spending bill.

No kidding.

See the report in PDF format here.

At the Indymind blog, Arkady writes:

Specifically observe that by 2010 Revenues are projected to increase. GDP also jumps after completely flat lining from 2008-2009 and more importantly deficit dramatically drops. Do yourself a favor and peruse the 9 page document.


Mr. Specter, it is time for you to go away now.

Take your patella and go home.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 9, 2009

paying for the S-Chip bill all by himself

Paying for the S-Chip bill all by himself

Being a Democrat can mean several things – possessing the ability to emote as a means of creating policy, having the facility to substitute feelings for wisdom, or the innate instinct to never think what happens next. It’s a cushy intellectual life, to be sure.

Take the President’s signing of the so-called S-CHIP bill into law last week – a measure which expands (fancy that) the State Children’s Health Insurance Program by roughly $35 billion over the next five years.

President Obama may not have asked anyone to read his lips, but you’ll recall he did promise no new taxes of any kind to those making under $250,000 a year.

Well, feel free to add another tick into the Obama-lama-ding-dong column of Lies and Redefinitions.

Back on September 12, 2008 – when the word “trillions” was still more freely associated with how many reality shows were on television than with bailouts and stimulus – the President said:

“I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.”

One fourth of all smokers are below the poverty line.

Respectfully, the President can take his ” firm pledge” and put it in the same place his “no earmarks in the stimulus bill” promise rightly belongs.

The only thing “firm” is the grip America has had on its ankles since January 20, 2009.

To pay for this idiocy, the federal excise tax on tobacco will increase 62 cents per pack of cigarettes. In short, Obama is taxing smokers to pay for the healthcare of children – many of whom have absolutely no business being covered by this nonsensical piece of … legislation.

But Democrats are so cute.  They do everything in their power to make cigarette smoking as morally deplorable as possible, systematically legislating it from American life “for our own good,” yet rely on it to save the children.

Taxing cigarettes, as we’ve been told, is a genuine deterrent to purchasing them. Once the price gets too high, it stands to reason that less people will smoke. Yet without those who do smoke, many of America’s children will apparently be deprived of the healthcare they deserve or can afford. Without these yellow-fingered, second-hand smoke producing, nicotine fiends feeding their disgusting addictions, innocent kids across the map will be shut out of the medicine supply line and forced to exist (somehow) on antiquated home remedies and penicillin derivatives made from household bread mold.

Is the risk of what would essentially amount to the government having to support some cigarette smoking – and thus condoning the infliction of second-hand (and third-hand) smoke on an innocent population, which we’ve been told kills tens of thousands annually – worth funding health care for those children who would otherwise be forced to rummage through garbage cans for Robitussin residue and half-sucked Halls cough drops?

What a predicament to be in.

Maybe what the government should do is raise the excise tax by twenty-thousand percent on each pack of cigarettes and buy up all the smokes needed to fund the S-CHIP bill themselves.

Viola! Instant funding!

That’ll keep the mint busy.

(And it’ll take only forty-two generations of Americans to pay it back).

Then, perhaps the government can sell their newly acquired smokes back to the public at a discounted price, thus generating even more revenue – or to China.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on February 6, 2009


That’s a harsh title and a serious accusation, I know.

But if you truly believe that President Obama does not know what an earmark is, then he is only a sensationally irresponsible Chief Executive, and I am nothing but a bomb thrower. Otherwise, he is both profoundly careless and calculatingly dishonest, i.e., a liar.

You choose.

I opt for the latter.

I assure you, it gives me no great pleasure to use the term “liar.” There is more than enough material out there to nail the President and crew on.

The fact is, he has lied. He has willfully deceived.

I’ll explain.

Two days before Christmas, when Joe Biden was still heading the Office of Vice-President-Elect, he stressed that there would be no pet projects in any Barack Obama stimulus bill. He said, “…And we will not tolerate business as usual in Washington. There will be — I will say it again — there will be no earmarks in this economic recovery plan.”

On January 6, 2009, Barack Obama himself said, “We will ban all earmarks in the recovery package. And I describe earmarks as the process by which individual members insert pet projects without review. So what I’m saying is, we’re not having earmarks in the recovery package, period.”

So far, so bad, right?

Typical lib falsehoods.

But now, the President himself seems to confirm the dishonesty of those assertions.

Yesterday, President Obama said the following:

Then there’s the argument, well, this is full of pet projects. When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it? Not one.

And he laughed about it, as if to say to those of us who are actually concerned about reckless, irresponsible spending, “What’s the matter with you? You know this kind of stuff goes on all the time.”

So, not only has he effectively admitted that there are earmarks in the stimulus bill, he has conceded that it is business-as-usual in Washington. He said it himself : When was the last time that we saw a bill of this magnitude move out with no earmarks in it?”

Let’s be clear …

The President took it upon himself to redefine the term “earmark” so that he could look into the eyes of America and say, in good conscience, that he did not go back on his word. His phrasing was very carefully crafted.

He said, “I describe earmarks as the process …” (blah, blah, blah)

The process.

Again, is there anyone who honestly believes that Bam has no idea what an earmark really is?

Let’s say, for instance, I declared to the world that there will be no profanity used in this article. After that, I went on to say that I describe profanity as the process by which an offensive word is inserted it into this piece. The guidelines I lay out speficially state that a profanity is only such if I type the word myself, using my keyboard. Then, with that newly created criterion in mind, instead of physically typing a four-letter-word into this article, I simply browsed the internet until I found the desired curse word on someone else’s website and cut-and-pasted it into my article. I could then claim that based on how I defined it, there is no profanity in this piece because I didn’t type it myself. Using the Obama method, I defined profanity based on the process by which it found its way into my piece – not the word itself.

That’s Obama-think.

Bam went on to say:

So then you get the argument, well, this is not a stimulus bill, this is a spending bill. What do you think a stimulus is? That’s the whole point. No, seriously. That’s the point.

My Lord. Where to begin?

How about … Wrong, Mr. President. Wrong!

You have peddled this spendulous monstrosity as a stimulus package. This is not your everyday, off-the-rack, spending bill, sir. “Stimulus” is the word you and all the little Obamacrats have chosen to label this craptacular disaster.

We’re not idiots, Mr. President. We know that literally a stimulus bill is a spending bill. (You’re going to have to do better than that to frame an argument).

The question is … What are you spending $900 billion on?

How is the Phase II design and construction for a Latino Cultural Center in Dallas stimulus?

How is the creation of an African American/Ethnic Heritage Trail along a stretch of St. Catherine Street between the Forks of the Road Slave Market Site in Natchez, Mississippi stimulus?

How are golf course renovations in Arlington, Texas stimulus?

How is building an indoor soccer field in Hempstead, New York stimulus?

How is funding a program for residents to reduce their carbon footprints and training programs to meet new green technologies stimulus?

How is supplying Laurel, Mississippi with new doorbells stimulus?

(Insert your own waste of taxpayer dollars here)

Despite the absolute ludicrous claims by President Obama that the United States economy may never recover if his stimulus bill is not passed as soon as humanly possible (before more Americans really know how much garbage is contained in it), history has shown us that the only thing truly “irreversible” is big government.

Indeed, I did write an article back on January 30, 2009, where I accused the President of lying, called Obama Lied, The Economy’s Fried.

This time, however, both the President and I are saying it.

On that, we can agree.

Posted in Big Government, Economy, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »