Roman Around

combating liberalism and other childish notions

Posts Tagged ‘Rush Limbaugh’


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 14, 2010

Robert Gibbs, Press Secretary, Liar

Clarification time …

What is with this White House? Is it necessary to be dishonest about everything? Is it just an ideological reflex? Is it a biological preinclination? Do they think that no one has the capability to check these things?

I know Rush Limbaugh is under fire for supposedly suggesting that people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. This disgusting lie was proffered by the greatest White House Press Secretary the human race has ever had the privilege to know, Robert Gibbs. According to him, in every crisis, there are people who will say “really stupid things,” and this time, Limbaugh was one of them.

But it is blatantly, provably untrue.

Rush Limbaugh never said people should not donate to relief efforts in Haiti. It was never suggested, implied or even hinted. What Limbaugh did say, however, was that people who really want to see help extended to Haiti should send aid through private charities, churches, or any number of non-government entities which, as he pointed out, have always been far more efficient and far more successful in disaster relief efforts than the feds.  Don’t count on government aid to do much of anything.

How on Earth can that be denied?

The inability of the federal government to handle finances with any degree of efficiency, accountability and responsibility also cannot be denied. This is an entity that has severely botched Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and has supposedly created or saved two million jobs – the overwhelming vast majority of which are government-based – by sending taxpayer dollars to phantom districts and zip codes.

And they’re to be trusted to handle disaster relief?

RUSH: We’re going to start in Raleigh, North Carolina. Justin you’re first today. Great to have you with us.

JUSTIN: Mega Rush Baby dittos. My question is, why did Obama in the sound bite you played earlier, when he’s talking about if you wanted to donate some money, you can go to —

RUSH: Yeah.

JUSTIN: — to direct you how to do so. If I want to donate money to the Red Cross, why do I need to go to the page and —

RUSH: Exactly. Would you trust that the money is going to go to Haiti?


RUSH: Would you trust that your name is going to end up on a mailing list for the Obama people to start asking you for campaign donations for him and other causes.

JUSTIN: Absolutely.

RUSH: Absolutely right.

JUSTIN: That’s the point.

RUSH: Besides, we’ve already donated to Haiti. It’s called the US income tax.

JUSTIN: Rush, my mother was going to be on a missionary trip. She was going to leave at 4:30 this morning to go to Haiti with our church.

RUSH: That’s another point, too. Churches —

JUSTIN: No government money, Rush.

RUSH: Exactly right. Look, there are people that do charitable work every day in Haiti. It’s not as though — like Debbie Wasserman Schultz, it’s our fault. Reverend Wright, it’s our fault, there’s no excuse for such poverty when there’s a nation as rich as we are so close. There are people that have been trying to save Haiti just as we’re trying to save Africa. You just can’t keep throwing money at it because the dictatorships there just take it all. They don’t spread it around, and even if they did they’re not creating a permanent system where people can provide for themselves. It’s a simple matter of self-reliance. Nobody takes that approach down there because this has always been a country run by dictators and incompetent ones at that.

How is that unclear?

Where did Rush Limbaugh say that people should not give money to Haiti?

If people are genuinely moved to boost relief efforts, would they best be served to see their contributions (i.e., tax dollars) make it to Haiti via the United States federal government on their behalf? Is there anyone who believes that US Government donations wouldn’t be turned over directly to corrupt Haitian politicians and officials? Who will be held accountable for what happens to our tax dollars? Remember that Haiti was a man-made disaster before the earthquake flattened it. How much of the money filtered through the federal government would find its way into hungry politician pockets instead of the millions who really need it?

Despite Obamacrat thinking, Americans are the most generous people in the world. They will always come to the aid of those in need. The government need not siphon its citizens for unaccountable, mismanaged funds.

Recall yesterday, I wrote:

This is not to suggest that the United States should not call on its citizens to come to the aid of a nation that has been incalculably overwhelmed by such a disaster. The President, in fact, handled his response to this earthquake perfectly fine. I am of the mind that citizens of the United States must come to the assistance of fellow human beings in a time such as this. The America that President keeps apologizing for will step up, as always, and do what’s right. That’s what the American people do, despite who is in charge. That isn’t the issue.

Note I said it is perfectly alright for the President to ask the people to donate to assist in relief efforts.

The people.

I never suggested the government was the right vehicle.

I did, however, say that Robert Gibbs was a liar. (Just reinforcing).

wordpress statistics


Posted in Natural Disaster, Obama Bonehead, Robert Gibbs, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , , , , , , | 4 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

Read just about any conservative blog. There is no denying – nor should there be – that the blogosphere is rife with passionate anti-Obama sentiment. From hard analysis to parody, from opinion pieces to political cartoons, conservatives are not shy about expressing their extraordinary disfavor with this administration and its destructive policies. Obamacrats are keenly aware of this, going as far as instructing Americans to “tattle” on others who voiced opposition to ObamaCare earlier this year. (Remember that little nugget?)

Conservative bloggers mince no words in their epic distaste and dissatisfaction with the leftist policies being put forth by this President. They see disaster for this freest nation on Earth and take offense when these life-long leftists with no real comprehension of what liberty it is (and how precious it is) try to dismantle the Constitution.

Admittedly, some conservative bloggers are more “colorful” than others, while others successfully get their points across in more subtle and creative ways. But regardless of how it’s done, all of these voices matter.

Millions have expressed their opinions through online petitions, while others have organized and participated in tea-party rallies. Others, still, have confronted their elected representatives at town-hall meetings, demanding that they be properly represented. And while lines have been crossed on occasion – as in all human endeavors, regardless of political affiliation or ideology – these “right wing ideologues” are letting it be known that it is their country, too. They will not be silenced and they will not be ignored. The Constitution means something to them. Liberty is treasured. In unanimously peaceful and law-abiding fashion, conservatives en masse have resisted Obama’s attempt to lurch the nation leftward.

As I have written about on many occasions, leftists don’t just disagree with conservatives, they accuse them of being bad people. To today’s liberal, conservatives are sinister beings, motivated by ulterior motives and unwholesome goals. Conservatives don’t just hold opposing positions, they are corrupt and selfish, controlled by special interests, interested only in making the rich richer at the expense of “regular Americans.” Liberals, meanwhile, are as pure as wind-driven global-warming snow. Howard Dean, you may recall, famously encapsulated the liberal view of Republicans by saying that GOP values support children going hungry at night.

That’s literally how they view conservatives.

With the announcement of Rush Limbaugh’s admission into the hospital yesterday, the lefty blogosphere has been rejuvenated with the kind of hateful rhetoric that can only come from that side. It is the kind of mean-spirited, abominable sentiment that liberals whole-heartedly and unabashedly embrace. It is the kind of disgraceful elocution that validates inviting so-called comediennes, like the repugnant Wanda Sykes, to the White House Correspondents Dinner to joke about the death of Rush Limbaugh (while President Obama laughed). It is a broken value system that legitimizes wishing for the death of someone because of their opposing political views.

At the I Own The World blog, SnarkandBoobs writes:

Some on the Left, however, are on full display as the hateful, creepy people that they truly are. They are wishing for the worst and are almost giddy with excitement, as the comments at TMZ indicate. Some examples:

— I hope he dies. – Posted at 10:03PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Chris

— Best news I’ve heard in years…Hope he joins MJ, the sooner the better! – Posted at 10:02PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Ron Burgundy

— Good riddance! -Posted at 10:01PM on Dec 30th 2009 by james

— Oh, please let him die! Preferably quickly and very painfully. Please, please, PLEASE!!! – Posted at 10:06PM on Dec 30th 2009 by Shittohead

The vile comments, rejoicing in someone’s serious condition, are also rampant on Twitter. I have yet to venture over to HuffPo or Kos because I don’t think that I have water hot enough to wash the icky off of me afterward.

By the way, it’s not a good argument for wanting to take over our health care, Left – wishing DEATH on those with whom you disagree.

Stay Classy, Left. You disgust me.

Interesting to note here is that lefties don’t even know how to be properly vile. One clever wordsmith said, “Good riddance,” although Rush did not die. Another wished for a quick and painful death when everyone knows that suffering is maximized by a slow and painful death.

Libs don’t even know how to be abhorrent correctly.

Speaking of Twitter, these are taken directly from the great Weasel Zippers blog. (Full credit where credit is due. H/T to Zip for compiling it):

I’m sorry leftists, conservatives do not wish for, nor would they call for, the death of Barack Obama in a similar circumstance. If some accident or illness should befall the President – or God forbid, an assassination attempt is made on him – conservatives would not light up the blogosphere with such evil and disgusting sentiments as wishing for him to die. It is inconceivable.

Conservatives don’t wish for the deaths of their ideological opponents – only their political deaths.

“Drink a bottle of cancer?”

“I hope Rush Limbaugh fucking dies?”

Such class.

It’s the inevitable result of anonymity.

And those who would try to compare this to the right’s reaction to Senator Edward Kennedy’s illness and death are being intellectually dishonest. Disgust for Kennedy was not based on his politics. It was based on his being a detestible human being. He was directly responsible for the death of a young woman, leaving her to drown while he walked away to safety. He failed to report the incident for several hours. He was a priveledged, spoiled-brat, drunken philandering elitist who got away with it because of his last name. His staying power in the Senate was hinged on the fact that two of his brothers were murdered. Period.

With that in mind, conservative reaction to his passing still doesn’t hold a candle to the way the cyberspace libs have reacted here with Limbaugh (or even with Tony Snow, for that matter).

Disgust for Limbaugh is based solely on his political views.

The irony here is that the majority of these “Death to Limbaugh” types are probably against the death-penalty.

Incidentally, kudos to those libs who have forwarded well-wishes to Limbaugh. Indeed, there are some.


wordpress statistics

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 31, 2009

It was reported on Wednesday that talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh was taken to a hospital in Honolulu, Hawaii, where he was vacationing, because of chest pains.

He was reported to be in “serious” condition.

That seems fairly typical for someone rushed to the hospital with chest pains.

From the Associated Press via Fox News:

Paramedics responded to a call at 2:41 p.m. from the Kahala Hotel and Resort where Limbaugh is vacationing, KITV reported. The station, citing unnamed sources, said the 58-year-old Limbaugh was taken to The Queens Medical Center in serious condition.

Queens spokeswoman N. Makana Shook says the hospital is unable to comment on the report.

Like so many others, I want to offer my prayers and very best wishes to Rush for a quick recovery and speedy return to his seat behind the golden EIB microphone.

It goes with out saying, we still need you, my friend.

(Best to get this out of the way now before ObamaCare kicks in).


Update – 31 December 2009 7:46 AM

Rush is resting comfortably.

From Rush Limbaugh’s website, posted yesterday:

Rush was admitted to a Honolulu hospital today and is resting comfortably after suffering chest pains. Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes. He will keep you updated via and on Thursday’s radio program.

I’m sure Wanda Sykes is pissed off. She almost had some new material. President Obama will just have to find something else to chuckle about.

Posted in Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 13, 2009

On Friday, talk show host Rush Limbaugh aired an audio clip of Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse speaking from the Senate floor in which the Senator accused Limbaugh-led Republicans for being anti-Obama obstructionists. Limbaugh, he said, was leading the charge to inflict maximum political damage to the President by opposing health care reform.

Blah, blah, blah … and so on.

To Whitehouse, the debate isn’t about the concern over astronomical costs to the American taxpayer or the inevitable decline in quality of health care. It isn’t about the contraction of liberty, or the expansion of government control or even free markets.

It’s really all about Barack Obama.

Whitehouse said:

This is about creating a political defeat for the President of the United States on their side. Nothing to do with health care – entirely about creating defeat for this new president … when in the face of all the obstruction the distinguished Senator from Michigan described so eloquently – this record-breaking, unprecedented in the history of the Senate obstruction that we’re seeing, the person who I think right now seems to characterize the leadership of the radicalized right wing that is running the Republican Party, Rush Limbaugh, is telling the other side that they haven’t been obstructive enough.

Besides speaking somewhat disjointedly, Senator Whitehouse is wrong on several counts.

First of all, if Rush Limbaugh was “leading” or “running” the Republican Party, you can bet a vital appendage that John McCain would not have been the party’s standard bearer in the last election.

Second, the term “obstructionist” is nothing more than a cheap buzz word that the Rachel Maddows of the world can sink their ever-lovin’ teeth into as Dems desprately – frantically – try to connect with fleeing independents. By definition, those who oppose a given policy and wish to see it defeated, regardless of what side of the aisle they’re on, are obstructionists. That the vast majority of Capitol Hill Republicans are adamantly against a government take over of health care is no more obstructionist than a slew of Dems voting against a Republican plan.  (Of course, it isn’t obstructionism then … just good old fashioned, healthy checks and balances).

I’m also inclined to ask … Which party has control of both houses of Congress and the White House? What obstructionists?

Just asking.

Third – and most important – no one on the right side of the health care debate (both literally and figuratively) gives a rat’s ass who the President is. This cry-baby, foot-stomping whining about how the big bad right hates poor Obama – and would be willing to do anything to see his initiatives defeated because he is Obama – grew stale in fairly short order. It is all utter nonsense. The fact is, the President of the United States is a raging leftist, and in the minds of limited government conservatives, the policies born from leftism must be squashed for the good of the country.


From the tea parties to the town hall meetings, from talk radio to Capitol Hill rallies, the fervent (and continually growing) opposition to what Obamacrats are trying to do has nothing – repeat, absolutely nothing – to do with Barack Obama. This is not about defeating this President. This is about defeating any President who would promote these asinine policies.  To keep this nation from adopting dangerous European models of health care delivery, a political defeat for Obama is necessary – but this isn’t about Obama. Believe it or not, the world does not revolve around him. This is only about the policy.

If, for instance, J Fred Muggs was running the show, each and every single Republican who currently opposes ObamaCare would also oppose MuggsCare (although the influence of the banana lobby could hardly be overstated).

In this context, Barack Obama must fail.

And, by the way, what the hell is the “radicalized right?

What, pray tell, has the right done to make them “radical?”

Here’s a quick lesson…

It is the Left that wants to completely overhaul the greatest health care system the world has ever known. That sounds fairly radical.  It is the Left looking for all-out transformation, as opposed to minor corrections. Again, radical. By definition, it is the Left who wishes to follow the radical path – just as they wish to redefine marriage, manage worldwide carbon emissions, and escalate deficits to unheard of levels thanks to unprecedented spending.

It’s not difficult to understand.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Democrats, Dumb Liberals, health care, leftism, Liberalism | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 30, 2009

Limbugh - he's number one

It won’t surprise most to learn that talk show host Rush Limbaugh is considered by Americans to be the most influential conservative in the country. In fact, according to a 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll issued yesterday, Limbaugh sits comfortably ahead of the pack with 26% of the tally, 15 points ahead of Glenn Beck.

To many, however, that number sounds too low. Way too low. The general perception persists among influential lefties (i.e., the mainstream media) that all conservative thinkers, talkers and pundits get their daily marching orders from Limbaugh in some form.

He is the puller of strings, issuer of swastikas, and mentor to all who hate.

It cannot be denied that no other conservative can twist the panties of the mainstream media like Limbaugh. They obsesses over no one else on the right like they do Limbaugh. All other conservatives combined don’t draw the attention that Limbaugh does on a daily basis. (Yes, even the current Sarah Palin fervor will subside over time).

But that’s okay.

It has almost become a spectator sport to see which news outlet can take a Limbaugh quote and render it most unrecognizable from its original meaning each day.

Good times.

That the most influential conservative in America is not a politician is both telling and predictable. The reality is, Americans are infinitely more likely to hear conservative values articulated more eloquently and more thoroughly on talk radio than from almost anyone serving in Washington.

Incidentally, both former-Vice President Dick Cheney and former-Governor Sarah Palin came in one point behind Glenn Beck at 10%.

Two other tidbits from the poll are worth touching upon.

First, President John F. Kennedy was chosen by 29% of those polled as the face they’d most like to see added to Mount Rushmore. President Ronald Reagan finished behind him at 20%.

This is not the least bit surprising.

In all honesty, I am actually quite astonished Reagan pulled in as many as 20%.  I say so not because Reagan is undeserving. To the contrary, I can think of no one more worthy of such an honor. 

Unfortunately, President Reagan is not nearly the popular culture icon JFK is. (Who is?) That Kennedy was a politician is almost secondary. Kennedy is revered much the same way John Lennon, Elvis Presley and James Dean are.

To this day, he personifies “hope” and “promise” and “what might have been.”

Those are big ones on the lefty hit parade.

He was young, charismatic, uncommonly photogenic, as quick on his feet as any one in public life has ever been, and murdered in the prime of his life.

All the ingredients are there.

To this day, Kennedy is regularly referenced and cited by Democrats who long to build bridges to their party’s storied past; and yes, even by Republicans who routinely claim that he’d actually be a conservative on many critical issues by today’s standards. For whatever reason, it seems mighty important to folks on both sides of the aisle that they are able to claim their share of the JFK pie.

Ronald Reagan, meanwhile, couldn’t even muster a mention by the current President during the ceremonies earlier this month commemorating the fall of the Berlin Wall. As I recall, there was that whole “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” thing that might have been interesting to bring up, but Reagan’s name never came from Obama’s lips.

Obama did, however, manage to quote JFK.

The President exemplifies how America is hard-wired.

The fact that one of America’s greatest presidents – largely portrayed by the mainstream media as an overrated, yet likable, cowboy who could never have accomplished a damn thing without the great Mikhail Gorbachev to guide him – still manages 20% of the vote behind someone as culturally deified as John Kennedy is quite astounding.

Attaboy, Gipper.

Finally, which of these events did Americans say they would most want to participate in?

Laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier; lighting the Olympic torch; tossing the coin to open a Super Bowl; starting the race at the Indianapolis 500; ringing the opening bell at the stock exchange; or throwing out the first pitch at the World Series?

Believe it or not … half of Americans said that laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknowns is the ceremony they’d most like to be a part of.

Maybe there’s hope yet.

wordpress statistics

Posted in American culture, Polls, Pop Culture, Ronald Reagan, Rush Limbaugh | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 17, 2009

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

NFL Commissioner, Roger Goodell

Readers of Roman Around know that I’ve no need to resort to the use of profanity here, and save for a few occasions in which I’ve opted to quote someone else, I have deliberately avoided it. I assure you, I am no prude, and I certainly don’t say this from a position of superiority or righteousness. I do not begrudge any of my colleagues in the blogosphere who do (including some I respect immensely). It’s simply a choice I’ve made for this blog.


Primarily because I find it beneficial to elevate language whenever possible. Yes, I am wont to have a little fun with words now and again, but as a rule, I find wanton profanity polluting and wholly unnecessary – particularly in a world where competing ideologies and value sets can get explosive.

I don’t even allow replies with profanity to be posted here. If there is a point to be made in response to something I’ve written, I trust it can be made without having to resort to vulgarity.

If it cannot, then I invite the reader to go elsewhere.

Indeed, a case can be made that there is a time and place for profane language – like in a movie, or when listening to Senator Chuck Schumer speak.

However, there are times – rare occasions – when the inclusion of profanity and epithets on this blog become a necessary evil to illustrate critical points.

(Uh oh, says the audience … What am I trying to say here?)

Here’s my point:

The common criticism – the underlying theme – in the tsunami of anti-Rush Limbaugh rhetoric that has flooded the mainstream media in recent days has been Limbaugh’s (supposed) insensitivity and divisiveness. His bid to be a minority owner of the St. Louis Rams football team actually offended and outraged many.

Limbaugh has no place in the National Football league, his enemies have said. He is simply is not good for professional football, his detractors have argued. He would not project the right image or uphold the league’s high standards, his opponents have claimed.

At Andrew Breitbart’s Big Hollywood site, blogger “Stage Right” exposes hypocrisy at its double-standard ugliest:

And now a word from an NFL owner:

“And the game done chose me to bring pain to niggas and pussy holes, they one in the same.”     – I’m Real, co-written by Jennifer Lopez, minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Sensationally crude, I know.

(My sincere apologies)

But in light of the brutal beating Limbaugh has taken in the media for things he never said or did, such eloquence and lyrical vivacity bear repeating in order to emphasize the point: “Niggas and pussy holes.”

Isn’t it delightful?

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you that grandiloquent wordsmith – and minority owner of the Miami Dolphins – Jennifer Lopez.

As “Stage Right” explains:

Jennifer Lopez, whose Sondheim-like lyric genius is on display at the top of this post, holds the same status with the Miami Dolphins as Limbaugh would have with the Rams. And, not only does she have co-writer credit on this offensive drivel, she also recorded and performed it live. She continues to earn money in royalties for her genius use of the “N-Word.” My guess is that those who took issue with Limbaugh’s imaginary racial slur are OK with J-Lo’s actual racial slur because she looks a lot better in tight pants.

Although Limbaugh has slimmed down considerably in recent months, I’ll concede the point and give the nod to Lopez in the “looks-better-from-behind” department. However, distinguishing between that which is excreted from that shapely backside of hers and the filth coming from her mouth is no easy task.

(My apologies once again).

Remember, liberal bigotry unifies.

Compare Lopez’s lyrics with these words that actually did come from Limbaugh’s mouth:

When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential. We do not look out across the country and see the average American, the person that makes this country work. We do not see that person with contempt. We don’t think that person doesn’t have what it takes. We believe that person can be the best he or she wants to be if certain things are just removed from their path like onerous taxes, regulations and too much government.

We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. We recognize that we are all individuals.

Appaling, right?

Divisive, yes?

How dare he say that he wants every American to be the best he or she chooses to be. How dare he see Americans as human beings. Perhaps if he saw them as “niggas” and “pussy holes,” he’d have been accepted by the standard bearers of professional football.

Stage Right at Big Hollywood continues:

Meanwhile, another minority owner of the Dolphins has some controversial issues with public statements as well. Recently, Dolphins minority owner Serena Williams broke quite a few FCC laws by letting loose an “F-word” filled tirade on live television during the US Open. Then she menacingly threatened a side judge and was subsequently disqualified. This kind of behavior and speech seems to be right in line with the NFL’s standards since I missed the press conference from Commissioner Roger Goodell condemning it.

Ahh, yes.

Self control personified.

If only the coffers of Medicare and Medicaid could have been fortified with one dollar for each use of the F-word in Serena’s nationally televised snit; President Obama could have then focused on his pursuit of the Nobel Prize in Physiology instead of health care reform.

Finally, we get to Fergie, some-time member of the Black Eyed Peas and some-time solo artist.  You betcha, she has also been approved as a minority owner of the Miami Dolphins.

Earlier this week, Goodell said of Limbaugh’s potential ownership, “Divisive comments are not what the NFL is all about.” Is he splitting hairs between “comments” and “lyrics?” Because these lyrics from a 2003 Black Eyed Peas song sounds pretty divisive to me:

Overseas, yeah, we try to stop terrorism
But we still got terrorists here livin’
In the USA, the big CIA …

A war is goin’ on but the reason’s undercover
The truth is kept secret, it’s swept under the rug

Nothing like accusing the CIA of terrorism and our government of lying to bring people together.

 Goodell also said, “We’re all held to a high standard here.”

Really? Does this meet his high standard?

Whatcha gonna do with all that junk
All that junk inside your trunk
I’ma get get get get you drunk
Get you love drunk off my hump
My hump my hump my hump my hump my hump
My hump my hump my hump my lovely little lumps

How about drinking so much that you wet your pants, mid-song, on stage, in front of a live audience?

Where, pray tell, is the contingent of outraged football players on this one? And who will summon the courage to comment on the divisivness of accepting a  member of a musical group that accuses the CIA of terrorist activities as a minority owner?

Am I to assume the league would somehow be tarnished to have a man who doesn’t care a damn thing about skin color – and has said repeatedly that he wants everyone in the United States to succeed – as a minority owner, but somehow benefits from embracing a foul-mouthed, undisciplined, F-bomb dropping cry baby?

When can we expect a statement from Al Sharpton on the unacceptability of a non-black using the word “nigga?” (Beacuse it’s clearly okay for blacks to use that word). 

Aren’t 70% of the NFL’s players offended by the diviseness of Jennifer Lopez’s use of a racial epithet? 


And other adjectives too.
wordpress statistics


Update – October 17, 2009, 10:08 AM

In a column published online last evening at the Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh wrote:

The sports media elicited comments from a handful of players, none of whom I can recall ever meeting. Among other things, at least one said he would never play for a team I was involved in given my racial views. My racial views? You mean, my belief in a colorblind society where every individual is treated as a precious human being without regard to his race? Where football players should earn as much as they can and keep as much as they can, regardless of race? Those controversial racial views?


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 16, 2009

Rush Limbaugh

Rush Limbaugh

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

Be forewarned.

It isn’t pretty.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And keep in mind, this was but a sampling.

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

Reasonable, no?

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

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

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

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

Ken Hutcherson

Ken Hutcherson

Limbaugh: Hutch, Welcome to the program.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 15, 2009

contemptible, as always

contemptible, as always

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who are they? What was said about them?

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

Mr. Sharpton, you are a boldface liar.

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

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

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

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

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

Divisive and incendiary?

Kettle, meet pot.

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

Rush Limbaugh is somehow more intolerable than convicted felons?

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

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

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

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

Do the words “upside down world” mean anything?

Please don’t misunderstand me.

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

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

How about a little moral clarity?

Moral victory, my ass.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009

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

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

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

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

She googles, of course.

Such is the case with Karen Hunter.

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

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

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

Hunter said:

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

Plantation grandeur?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hunter went on to say:

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

Is there anything else that needs to be said?

You can go online …” she says.

Such rectitude. Such honor.

Karen Hunter

Karen Hunter

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

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

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


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

There can be no doubt about that.

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

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

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


Update October 14, 2009 – 6:57 PM

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

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

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on October 14, 2009

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

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

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

Nice, Sean.

Loathsome, isn’t it?

Disgusting, don’t you think?

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

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

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

Jamming a CO2 pellet in someone’s head?

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

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

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

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

(Cue Jeopardy music)

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

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

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

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

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

That, and no one watches MSNBC.

Here’s the entire quote in context:

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

“We’ll be there to watch?”

Nice, Chris.

Loathsome, isn’t it?

Disgusting, don’t you think?

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

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

Mark Finkelstein at NewsBusters writes:

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

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

Liberals can’t even get their insults right.

wordpress statistics

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on August 30, 2009

diane watsonServing California’s 33rd Congressional District is Los Angeles native, Congresswoman Diane Watson. Among her other laudable attributes is not only her titillating support of Fidel Castro and his country’s exemplary health care delivery system, but her capacity to deal cards from the race deck effortlessly.

At a town-hall meeting on Thursday, Watson declared that those who oppose ObamaCare do so because they wish to see the President destroyed. As sure as there are pungent armpits in a summertime New York subway tunnel, it is no surprise to learn that the President’s skin color is the real reason. Indeed, according to Watson, the desire to see Bracak Obama’s initiatives defeated – and thus, his presidency branded a failure – comes down to good old-fashioned, let’s-break-out-the-hoods-and-matchstick racism.

From the well of incisive thought and seasoned analysis that is Diane Watson, there are two comments she made during that meeting that I’d like to dissect.

First, said Watson:

“You might have heard their philosophical leader. I think his name is Rush Limbaugh. (She pronounced it Lim-BO). And he said early on, “I hope that he fails.” Do you know what that means? If the President – your Commander-In-Chief – fails, America fails.”

To begin with, the term “philosophical leader” is about as meaningless as the words that roll off an Obama teleprompter, or a New York Mets baseball game.  However, seeing as I’m in a particularly festive mood this morning, I’ll roll with it.

Rush is certainly one of conservatism’s finest “spokesmen” (for the want of a preferable phrase), but he didn’t invent conservatism. To the great dismay of liberals, leftists and other children, he happens to articulate it exceedingly well – almost as well as the “drive-by” media misinterpret, misquote and misunderstand almost everything he says. And while there is definitely a profusion of weak-kneed, mushy-in-the-middle, pseudo-conservatives who attempt to redefine conservatism by abandoning its principles for more leftward ideals, Rush does no such thing.

His “philosophy” has remained steadfast since his Sacramento radio debut in 1984. That fact alone is enough to send the undergarments of liberals into vexatious knots.

Again, assuming the “philosophical leader” tag is applicable, the most entertaining part of Watson’s statement is when she says she “thinks” his name is Rush Limbaugh – as if trying to decide whether or not she’s heard of him.

There isn’t a single self-respecting, self-serving, big-government liberal taking in oxygen today who has not heard of Rush Limbaugh.

He haunts their dreams.

Additionally, Limbaugh’s “I hope Obama fails” remark has been so well explained, so painstakingly explicated and so remarkably misunderstood by the saliva-danglers who spend countless hours frantically collecting fractured phrases and out-of-context hateful commentary from him, that Watson – like all Democrat notions – comes across as weak, tired and pedestrian. However, for those who came in after the credits, read my articles The Limbaugh Fetsih – The Democrats Are Obsessed and My Two Cents On Whether You Can Support The President While Not Supporting His Policies. 

In short, if the Commander-In-Chief fails to apologize on foreign soil for his own country; and fails to expand the deficit to unsustainable record-breaking levels; and fails in his quest to nationalize the greatest health care delivery system in the world; and fails in his attempts to have the government take over automobile companies and financial institutions; and fails to weaken the defenses of the country he is charged to protect by keeping agencies like the CIA from doing their job; and fails to recognize the ongoing battle against murderous Islamo-fascists as a genuine war; and fails to understand that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are not to be afforded the same rights as American citizens; and fails in adopting industry-killing, job-killing “global warming” legislation … then America wins.

It’s pretty simple, really.

Watson continues:

“Now when a Senator says that this will be his Waterloo – and we all know what happened at Waterloo – then we have him, and he fails. Do we want a failed state called the ‘United States?’ So remember, they are spreading fear, and they’re trying to see that the first President who looks like me fails.”

Regarding fear … it was not a conservative who scared America into believing that the nation would be ravaged by heterosexual AIDS in the 1980s. It was not a conservative who promised that food supplies would run out by the year 2000. It was not a conservative who warned that natural resources would be depleted by 1990 due to human over consumption. It was not a conservative who foresaw a world in peril due to global cooling. It was not a conservative who promised a planet devastated by overpopulation by 1996. It was not a conservative who said the bird flu would wipe out countless numbers of humans. It was not a conservative who promulgated the impending Y2K disaster and set up numerous agencies, websites, roundtables, taskforces and contingency plans to save the world from it. It was not a conservative who predicted widespread catastrophe due to mad cow disease.

And as far as the “first President who looks like me” remark … is there any group of people more intolerant, more race-consumed, more fixated on the skin color of people than leftists? Time after time, these sorry excuses for thinkers hurl their character-assassinating bombs into the public square, accusing conservatives of harboring animosity toward President Obama due to his race, never once realizing that everything they project is a direct reflection of how they think. To leftists, everything that carries even the slightest negative connotation regarding Barack Obama can only be about his color. It must be about his color. It simply isn’t possible for anyone to legitimately disagree with President Obama policy-wise and not be bad; it has to be because they hate blacks or resent the fact that America would put a black man in the White House.

Frankly, people like Watson need to get their antiquated behinds out of the 1960s and enter the real world. If Dr. Martin Luther King’s dream of a nation where character previals over color is at all being asphyxiated, it is happening because of the likes of Watson and her race-obsessed ilk. 

To people like me, President Obama needs to fail because of his desire (and promise) to transform America into something the country has never been – a nation where the State is more important than the individual.

Obama’s failures assure that such a transformation cannot – and will not – take place.

Watson also threw in these gushing words about Cuba’s world-class health care:

Let me tell you, before you say, ‘Oh, it’s communist,’ you need to go down there and see what Fidel Castro put in place. And I want you to know, you can think whatever you want to about Fidel Castro, but he was one of the brightest leaders I have ever met. And you know, the Cuban Revolution that kicked out the wealthy – Che Guevara did that – and after they took over, they went out among the population to find someone who could lead this new nation and they found … well, just leave it there … an attorney by the name of Fidel Castro.

Perhaps Ms. Watson could use a paper towel or a sedative … or a cigarette.

As Jay Ambrose wrote in October, 2007, outside of Guevara’s reckless extermination of “people proven guilty of absolutely nothing,” his desire to use Soviet missiles against America, and the fact that he “ran a Havana prison in which he killed, killed and then killed some more, and later helped start the labor camp system in which homosexuals and others considered undesirable were to be confined as nothing more than slaves,” what’s not to love? 

Does anyone love a war criminal more than a leftist? Or a t-shirt manufacturer?

And as for Cuba’s health care system … until Congresswoman Watson ditches her inferior Capitol Hill health plan for CastroCare, the discussion is closed. 

Diane Watson is a first-class farce and a genuine disgrace.

The great website has the audio.

Posted in American culture, health care, Liberalism, Racism | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 28, 2009

During the first hour of his radio program on Thursday, Rush Limbaugh said that the country is failing because President Obama is succeeding.

I happen to agree.

Following the Messiah’s “You ain’t seen nothing yet” comment at a fundraiser in front of a bunch of rich Hollywood liberals on Wednesday – a comment that literally struck fear into my heart (along with a sprinkling of nausea) – I have decided to re-post one of my most requested pieces – The Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure.

This was originally posted on 27 January 2009.

quill1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.

Not because he is black. Not because he is a liberal. Not because I seek some sort of vengance on the deranged, lunatic Bush-bashers of the past eight years.

I want him to fail because each and every one of these policies hurts my country.


There are more to be added, I’m certain.

This particular list is a breathing document.

Posted in Big Government, Liberalism, politics | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 12, 2009

the great wanda sykes

the great wanda sykes

Enough has already been written about the disgraceful appearance by (so-called) comedienne (and militant black lesbian) Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondents Dinner over the weekend.

You’ve surely read about what easily qualifies as one of the most embarrassing and pathetic appearances ever at the annual event in which Sykes decided to unleash some of the most inappropriate and malevolent prattle anyone’s ever heard there – as leftists are wont to do when void of any substance (which is almost always).

With that grating, nasal cavity-dredging voice that would have had both the chalkboard and jackhammer grimacing, Sykes broke out the best of her venomous arsenal of unfunny personal attacks on – of all people – Rush Limbaugh.

How original. How cutting-edge.

Because jokes about the September 11th attacks are so damn funny, she quipped that Rush was the 20th hijacker.


Because people with addictions make for such knee-slapping fodder, she worked in some drop-dead hilarious references to Rush’s former troubles with the drug oxycontin.

How does she do it?

And, of course, what stand-up routine in front of the President of the United States would be complete without asking for the death of Mr. Limbaugh by kidney failure?

Nothing but net.

Even the President thought it was funny. He laughed.

Yesterday, however, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs went out on a limb and said that the September 11th terrorist attacks are a topic “better left for serious reflection than comedy.”

No wonder this guy is considered the best Press Secretary in the history of the world. No one can put things in perspective like he can.

Of course, the question has yet to be answered – Why was the President of the United States laughing at any of these personal attacks on Limbaugh?

Indeed, the President thought it was a hoot – including Sykes’ follow up line about Limbaugh needing some waterboarding.

(Move over Lucille Ball. There’s a new sheriff in town).

Let’s set aside the obvious. Limbaugh never said he wanted the country to fail, as Sykes alleged in her “routine.” It never came from his lips. No such quote exists. Rather, Limbaugh stated that he wanted Obama’s leftist policies to fail – just as libs wanted the policies of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan to fail.

Somehow, this is news – that the opposition party wants policy failure of the party in power.

Let’s also put aside the outpouring of affection and support regularly given to celebrities who battle addictions with recreational drugs. Inspirational stories about their “courage” and “fortitude” fill magazine pages and gossip columns as the celebrity in question navigates the troubled waters of addiction toward the safe harbor of sobriety. However, slap a conservative label on the celebrity and all bets are off. It’s open season. After all, what could be funnier than addiction?

But even more noteworthy than all of that – even more of a head-shaker to me – is something I’ve written about several times since Obama’s inauguration – namely, what seems to be a diminishing sense of dignity and elevation surrounding this White House. It is no secret that President Obama is very much an anti-pomp and circumstance man. He is, in his own words, more laid back and casual than any of his predecessors. Traditions mean far less to him than those who came before him. Thus, with that “there is nothing bigger than me” mentality that leftists regularly embrace, Obama believes everything is all about him and not about the Office of the Presidency – which is infinitely larger than any man who has ever occupied it.

el rushbo

el rushbo

In approaching his Presidency this way, he erodes some of the dignity of the office – and in doing so, entertainers like Wanda Sykes, who have had open contempt for Obama’s stodgy, God-happy, predecessor, now see themselves as more welcome and closer the inner circle of power. They see the President as more like one of them, one of the “regular” people, not tied down by an antiquated, patriarchal set of traditions. Without saying so specifically, the laid-back President sends the signal that it is quite alright for Sykes and her ilk to bring a more gutteral act – something more “real” and unconstrained – to a public function involving the President of the United States. Thus, the undignified diatribe of Wanda Sykes in front of the leader of the free world becomes possible.

Dignity matters. Decorum matters. As talk show host Dennis Prager says, “It adds tremendous substance to life.”

I couldn’t agree more.

But perhaps most astonishing is to observe how much anger still exists on the left. I admit to being astounded at how much nastiness and bitterness still comes from that side.

If you doubt me, here are two words to illustrate my point: Miss California.

The left owns both houses of Congress, the have the White House, they maintain their stranglehold on academia, they run just about every major newspaper in the country, Hollywood is all theirs, most of television media serve as Obama’s personal cheerleading squad, and outgoing liberal Supreme Court justices are fixed to replaced with even more liberal judges.

What in hell do they have to be angry about?

Utopia is no laughing matter, I guess.

Posted in American culture, Liberalism, politics, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on May 7, 2009

whip it, baby - larger, older and in the same costumes thirty years later

whip it, baby - larger, older and in the same costumes thirty years later

I am well aware of how much of a waste of oxygen (and broadband) it is to take the time to quote the inanities of insignificant celebrities. I know this to be true because it is very often a waste of vital resources to quote well-known celebrities.

Still, I am enamored with the absurdities that roll off the tongues of people best suited to hacky-sack, political science or go-fish. Musicians (like actors and university students) are particularly susceptible to this affliction of knee-jerk, ad hominem, vapidity of thought. With leftists, the development of an idea or premise often reaches the “sounds good, high-five” stage before dying on the liberal vine.

Enter Gerald Casale – best known as a member of the post-punk, new wave group from the 1970s and 80s, Devo (short for devolution). Many of you will remember Devo’s huge hit from 1980, “Whip It.” Many of you will also remember the video that accompanied the song – geeks with ridiculous looking red hats (energy domes) cracking whips.

Mr. Casale believes that humanity is, indeed, devolving – and he believes one of the clearest examples of its devolution is the existence of talk show host Rush Limbaugh.

From Spinner Magazine Online:

Nobody thinks the idea of devolution is far out anymore,” Casale says. “Just look at the decimation of the air, land and water, and the crisis with the food supply on a global level.”

But to truly illustrate the decline of the three decades since they began, Casale doesn’t need to look further than the TV and radio airwaves — namely, a certain conservative broadcaster. “Rush Limbaugh, to me, is a great example of devolution,” Casale says. “He’s exactly what we were sickened by, the kind of human being we talked about back then. He’s a bad spud.”

A bad spud?

The decimation of the air, land and water?

Food supply crisis?

Let’s see here … pollution levels are as low in the United States as they’ve been in decades. Our rivers and lakes air are remarkably clean – and getting cleaner. Air quality is exponentially better than it was thirty years ago. There is even more forest land in this country than in previous decades. And as far as food shortages go, I thought humanity was already supposed to be out of food by now.

I must be getting my crises mixed up.

I love it when libs try. They’re so cute.

And the idea that a graying, used-to-be-someone, irrelevant, lefty devolutionist would attack Rush Limbaugh is about as shocking as hearing a car horn in Manhattan.

The irony of an aging music star wearing a three-decade old getup consisting of a (let out) yellow jumpsuit and red dome hat talking about “devolution” cannot be overstated.

Posted in Liberalism, Pop Culture | Tagged: , , , | 2 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 31, 2009


Is there a word more overused – or rather, misused than “hypocrite?” Somehow, worse than almost anything else that a human being can do or be, there is practically nothing that can compare morally, or is as downright ugly or unforgivable as being a hypocrite. Once that label has been given to someone, it clings insistently, like being labeled a racist, a homophobe or an environmental crusader (which, by the way, carries more weight than being a hypocrite, as I will explain momentarily).

Without equivocation, I despise genuine hypocrisy as much as anyone. With equal fervor, however, I hate seeing the excessive maltreatment of the word by people who don’t know how to make a cohesive and substantive argument otherwise. Governor Sarah Palin is a strong and steadfast conservative, and the very fact that her teenage daughter became pregnant out of wedlock and has since “broken up” with the baby’s father has propelled the laptop hammering left into action. Liberal blogs everywhere have unleashed on the Palins, attacking them incessantly as hypocrites.

So much for the party of compassion.

The distinction needs to be made between being inconsistent and being a downright hypocrite. Indeed, I have done things – as has each and every human being in existence – that are inconsistent with my values. It is intrinsic to being the flawed creatures we are. To veer away from paths we know are wrong for us, or are contrary to personal convictions, is not always possible.

That’s the way it is.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’d like to introduce you to the human being. I’d like to introduce you to inconsistency.

To be inconsistent does not mean the value system being compromised is invalid. It means that human beings are not perfect. Unfortunately, the ever-adamant smear merchants who exist in the blogosphere and elsewhere are quick to pounce on a human failing and run with it. If a flaw exists in someone, they reason, then all of the positions and advocacies associated with that person must also be contradictory. By that logic, if someone robs a convenience store knowing that theft is against the law, the law is invalid and should then be repealed.

Sometimes, the strength of a good message cannot adequately dissuade the bad behavior of those that wish to adhere to it. An evangelist, for instance, who weakens and seeks out sexual pleasure outside of marriage could be called inconsistent (and certainly an adulterer), despite all the good he does preaching to the contrary.

If, for the sake of argument, talk show host Rush Limbaugh, during the time of his addiction to pain killers, continued to speak passionately about the evils of doing drugs, as he always had, but instead of trying to deal with the addiction and admit his weakness, tried to rationalize his narcotic use on the air and get himself off the hook with his listeners, wouldn’t that be indicative of more than sheer inconsistency? In other words, if Rush played the “It’s okay for me, but not for you” card, wouldn’t that be a true hypocrite?

I think a good case can be made for it.

As I alluded to earlier, as much as the word “hypocrite” will stick with someone once the label is given, to be called an environmentalist crusader will trump even that.

Climate Lord Al Gore, forever saturated in his tempest of carbon credits and looming global disaster, is the text-book definition of a hypocrite – complete with his fossil-fuel burning jets that whisk him around the world, his home that consumes more energy in a month than some entire neighborhoods, and his quickness to tell everyone else to curb their own energy consumption while spreading the word to the four corners that saving the planet is the greatest battle of our time. That goes way beyond inconsistent. In his case, it is truly a case of, “It’s okay for me, but not for you.”

In the case of the pregnancy of young Bristol Palin there was not so much as a hint of, “This is okay for me, but not for you.”

How ironic it is, in this case, that if the pregnancy would have been terminated, the left would not have given a second thought for the child that was killed, but would have spent all its time going on and on about hypocrisy of the act – and would have actually been correct this time.

Posted in American culture, Conservatism, Ethics, social issues | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 4, 2009


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such leadership.

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

Still, your adoration of him is admirable.

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

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

As if taking dictation from Rahm Emmanuel, Frum writes:

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

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

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

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

How petty, Frum. How pompus. How liberal.

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

Rush did just that on Saturday.

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

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

Frum finished up this way:

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

The “enterprise?”

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

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

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

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

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

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on March 3, 2009


The hundred-dollar phrase of the week is “de facto” – as in “Is Rush Limbaugh now the ‘de facto’ leader of the Republican Party?

True, the word had been caroming around main-stream media news sets for a few weeks – particularly since Rush’s now notorious “I hope Obama fails” sound morsel hit the news cycle – but it had quite a revival over the weekend, following his landark speech at CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) on Saturday. In fact, for most of the weekend, the news channels were devoting almost all of their non-Messianic time allotment to Rush. Anchors, analysts and others of the blathering class have since been falling over themselves trying to figure out who will lead the Republican Party from the ruins of their Obamacratic trouncing. (After all, it was a mandate, wasn’t it?)

De facto this, de facto that…  (It is the “nuance” or “hubris” of 2009).

To liberals, Limbaugh is already the de facto embodiment of Hitler and the de facto personification of racism. Being the de facto leader of the Republicans is almost pedestrian in comparison.

Still, it has been incredibly fun to watch.

Following Limbaugh’s talk on Saturday afternoon, the first words from CNN’s equitable political analyst Bill Schneider’s mouth were:

“Well, it was an angry tone. He was the hero of 1994. Fifteen years ago when Republicans won a big victory in Congress. And that was the year of the angry white men.”

Angry tone?

I have no doubt that Mr. Schneider, along with almost everyone else who comprises what Limbaugh famously calls the “drive-by media,” genuinely heard it that way.

For liberals, any impassioned oratories delivered by conservatives must be filtered and processed as “angry right-wing rhetoric” because to try and substantively deal with the contents of a speech such as Limbaugh’s would reveal the weakness and indefensibility of leftist ideology. Thus, when Leftocrats hear conservatives speak of individualism, liberty and achievement, they hear indignation and acrimony. When conservatives talk about American exceptionalism, liberals hear animosity and exasperation.

By contrast, when liberals hear themselves go on about government as the people’s problem-solver, and the need to level the American playing field by punishing the most successful among us, they see the greatness of America.

CNN’s Schneider went on to foam:

“Well, this was a very angry speech. By the way, they’re not all white and they’re not all men but they are angry conservative voters. They didn’t do so well last year but they’re still angry. The tone of this speech was mocking, bullying, it was full of contempt, and I thought it was a very harsh speech.”

Translated from my brand-new 2009 edition of the ‘Drive-By Media/English” dictionary, Schneider is affirming and validating the Bos-Wash news media mindset – that anything critical of liberalism, i.e. Barack Obama, uttered by any conservative can only be rooted in antagonism – maybe even racism. After all, what the mainstream media does so well – aside from nothing – is portray conservatives as angry and bigoted. The playbook says so.

And conservatives aren’t just wrong, mind you, they’re bad – replete with ulterior motives and underhanded intentions, looking to crush the working man, the struggling mother and the “trying-to-make-ends-meat” family in favor of their white corporate overlords.

Ask anyone who doesn’t think … or calls themselves an independent voter. They’ll tell you so.

All of this right-wing antipathy, of course, came through manifestly through Limbaugh’s speech.

Sample some of the mockery and contempt from Rush’s lips:

“When we (conservatives) look out over the United States of America, when we are anywhere, when we see a group of people, such as this or anywhere, we see Americans. We see human beings. We don’t see groups. We don’t see victims. We don’t see people we want to exploit. What we see — what we see is potential.”


Bitter, scathing, offensive, wasn’t it?  Watching someone drop kick a baby duck would have been less ghastly.

“We want every American to be the best he or she chooses to be.”

The scoundrel. Does he also favor open-hand slapping the elderly?

“… I want everyone in this room and every one of you around the country to succeed. I want anyone who believes in life, liberty, pursuit of happiness to succeed. And I want any force, any person, any element of an overarching Big Government that would stop your success, I want that organization, that element or that person to fail. I want you to succeed.”

Hang him from the highest tree, take him down, and string him up again.

And not even a mention of food stamps.

While the likes of the always-vainglorious Keith Olbermann and the never-interesting Janeane Garofalo carry on about Limbaugh with all the charm of two old men in a nursing home comparing their bowel obstructions, what the American Leftocracy simply doesn’t comprehend is that Limbuagh in not the de facto leader of the Republican Party – nor does he wish to be. He is, however, one of America’s most eloquent and compelling spokesmen for conservatism … and it is conservatism, through world class communicators such as Rush, that must  – and will -reclaim its place as the core of the Republican Party.

– – – – –

And since Rush’s “I hope Obama fails” remark is getting so much play and is so remarkably misunderstood, I am going to once again stand by him and his courageous – and completely correct – position on the matter.

I am REPOSTING RIGHT HERE, something I posted back on January 27, 2009 – an article that prompted more hate-mail and personal attacks than I have gotten since starting this blog – but something I firmly stand by. It is the Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure:

1. If President Barack Obama is resolute on reversing Bush administration measures that have served to keep this country safe from attack for over seven years, I want him to fail.

2. If the President believes that enemy combatants captured on the field of battle are due the same Constitutional rights as American citizens, I want him to fail.

3. If the President believes that “direct diplomacy” with despotic leaders of murderous regimes is the best way to keep America strong, I want him to fail.

4. If the President is willing to trod upon one of the fundamental rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence – namely, the right to life – with his illimitable support of abortion, I want him to fail.

5. If the President believes that taxpayer dollars should be used to fund abortions, I want him to fail.

6. If the President wishes to use taxpayer dollars to fund embryonic stem cell research, I want him to fail.

7. If the President wishes to appoint judges to the Supreme Court who view the Constitution as a document that breathes and bends with time, I want him to fail.

8. If the President wants to infringe on my Constitutional right as a law abiding American to own a firearm, I want him to fail.

9. If the President believes that government is better equipped to solve the problems of Americans than Americans themselves, I want him to fail.

10. If the President attempts to follow through on his campaign promise to fundamentally transform the United States of America, I want him to fail.

11. If the President wishes to send me a check that I didn’t earn, paid for with other people’s hard-earned tax money, and call it a tax cut, I want him to fail.

12. If the President wishes to send a so-called stimulus check to those who did not pay federal income taxes, I want him to fail.

13. If the President believes that government bailouts of private sector businesses are the way to tend to an ailing economy, I want him to fail.

14. If the President believes that the government should set pay limits on executives of companies who receive bailout money, I want him to fail.

15. If the President believes that government spending of unprecedented amounts of taxpayer money is the way to deliver the economy from recession, I want him to fail.

16. If the President believes that the planet is in danger of catostrophic ruin due to man-made global warming, and is willing to implement so-called “green” policies that will damage this country’s economy, I want him to fail.

17. If the President wishes to undertake an unparalleled “domestic infrastructure” plan that puts untrained non-professionals on the government’s payroll with the belief that this will stimulate the economy, I want him to fail.

18. If the President believes that people who fall into the highest tax brackets in this country need to pay more taxes, I want him to fail.

19. If the President believes that the military of the United States is a venue for social engineering – such as lifting the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy – I want him to fail.

20. If the President believes that healthcare is not only a right but a moral obligation of government, I want him to fail.

21. If the President believes that it is a good idea to attack those who listen to conservative talk radio as a means of fostering unity, I want him to fail.

22. If the President supports a reinstatement of the so-called Fairness Doctrine, effectively ending talk radio as we know it, I want him to fail.

23. If the President is unwilling to boldly deal with illegal immigration into the United States, and chooses to try and come up with something “comprehensive” to solve the problem, I want him to fail.

24. If the President is unwilling to take a serious look at nuclear energy as a viable and safe alternative source of energy, while wasting time focusing on wind turbines and solar paneling, I want him to fail.

25. If the President decides that he will continue his class-warfare style assault on big corporations – such as oil and pharmaceutical companies – as he did during his campaign by punishing them with higher tax rates, I want him to fail.

Posted in Conservatism, Good Republicans, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 8 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 28, 2009

rush limbaughIf you think for one moment that Democrats did not want George W. Bush to fail, then I have an East River bridge I’m dying to get off my hands that I’m willing to sell for cheap. When President Bush tried to reform the nation’s largest Ponzi scheme – Social Security – I defy anyone to look me in the eye and tell me that Democrats did not want that initiative to fail.

When President Bush proposed his across-the-board tax cuts, is there anyone who believes that Democrats did not want that policy to go belly up as well?

Name me the Democrats who came forth and said, “Well, we didn’t want these tax cut passed, but now that they’re law, let’s all hope it turns out to be a good move for all the American people.”

It did not happen.

Democrats wanted the Bush tax cuts to fail.

In fact, as shocking as this revelation apparently is to Democrats, it is the nature of politics.

When disagreements on political positions exist, one side wishes the other side’s policies to fail.

It’s the way it is.

(Do I also need to explain that water is wet?)

Why is this concept only now twisting the panties of the whiny ones? Is it because the precious Messiah has ascended to the Mount and all of us be damned who oppose him?

The fact is … when proposed Democrat policies run contrary to those beliefs held by the opposing party, how can Republican not want them to fail?

How hilarious is it that Democrats – the party of tolerance – are now outraged that talk-show host Rush Limbaugh has called for Barack Obama’s initiatives to fail.

So what?

(They ought to read my column from yesterday, “The Obama Manifesto – 25 Reasons To Support Failure.”)

Let’s put this in perspective …

Did Candidate Barack Obama want Candidate John McCain to fail in his bid for the White House?


Would President Barack Obama want any initiative that would lead to the overturning of Roe v Wade to fail?

Of course we would. He’s said so.

If Republicans call for an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as being between only one man and one woman, are there not a whole host of Democrats (and some Republicans) who would want that proposal to fall through?


So what are we talking about here?

Why on earth would I – or any other conservative – want to see Obama’s plans succeed?

I guess it doesn’t matter, because Democrats have launched a petition. (Of course, they have).

And guess who they’re attacking … again?

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has launched an online petition to express outrage at conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh for saying he wanted President Obama to “fail.”

“Jobs, health care, our place in the world — the stakes for our nation are high and every American needs President Obama to succeed,” the petition reads. “Stand strong against Rush Limbaugh’s Attacks — sign our petition, telling Rush what you think of his attacks on President Obama.”

The petition comes after Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill Friday that they need to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

A petition?

Hold me.

Where were the petitions when non-talk show hosts like Senator Ted Kennedy declared the rape-rooms and torture cells of Abu Ghraib opened under new management? Or when Senator Harry Reid called President Bush a “loser?” Or when Senator Dick Durbin compared US troops to Nazis?

There are times when I am convinced I have slipped through the space and time continuum into an alternate reality, and others when I simply realize that Democrats are in power .

Posted in Conservatism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on January 23, 2009

harmless fuzz ball

harmless fuzz ball

Dignity, wherefore art thou?

The President sure is making friends off the bat, isn’t he? His silly glove across the face of Rush Limbaugh is already filling up blog space everywhere tonight – and rightly so. It’s been a while since we’ve seen this kind of pettiness coming from the White House. This is just the latest in what has been nearly four days of yanking away the so-called olive branch Barack Obama spent the better part of his campaign promising to extend to the other side and shoving it into the nether regions of his opponents.

After all, in his own words, “I won.” (I’ll get to that in a moment).

Let’s run through a quick checklist …

He has already endeared himself to the families of the victims of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by announcing the closing of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay. He’s reached out to pro-lifers by lifting the ban on overseas abortion funding. His economic advisor has decided that white professionals are not good enough for the rebuilding of America’s infrastructure. The benediction at his inauguration was, arguably, the most racist prayer I have heard this side of Jeremiah Wright. And he’s already proven what a ray of sunshine he is in dealing with questions he doesn’t wish to answer.

Why can’t he just eat his waffle?

And now this.

To review … according to the New York Post:

President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

“You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,” he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

Recall, it was Obama-drooler, former Secretary of State Colin Powell – a Republicrat – who made similar remarks against Limbaugh not too long ago, warning the Republican Party to stop “all the shouting.”

This time, the newest attack against the nation’s top radio talker is coming from the very top. (Not that Limbaugh cannot handle it, believe me).

But it’s not just the signing of Executive Orders in public that keeps the President looking most off kilter, it is the fact that he actually took time to comment on and condemn those who might listen to Rush Limbaugh’s radio program – this while Obama was attempting to sell his out-of-control “socialism here we come” stimulus package to Republicans.

Perhaps if more members of the GOP actually did expend a little time listening to Rush Limbaugh instead of worrying about how to get Charlie Gibson and Matt Lauer to like them, the 2008 election might have ended with different results. Then, We the People would not have to witness the nation’s Chief Executive come across as petty and unpresidential.

What precisely is The One hoping to achieve here?

RINO #1: “You know, he’s right. We must stop listening to Limbaugh.”
RINO #2: “He is right. I hadn’t thought of it that way before.”
RINO #3: “What do we do now?”
RINO #4: “Don’t worry. The Messiah will tell us what to do.”

Remember, unity is defined as having everyone think as Obama does.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

“I won,” he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. “I will trump you on that.”

The response was to the objection by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Arizona) to the president’s proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don’t owe federal income taxes.

Good for you, Jon.

We are experiencing an unprecedented economic crisis that has to be dealt with and dealt with rapidly,” Obama said during the meeting. Republicans say that is too big a burden for a nation already crippled by debt and that it doesn’t do enough to stimulate the economy by cutting taxes.

“You know, I’m concerned about the size of the package. And I’m concerned about some of the spending that’s in there, [about] … how you can spend hundreds of millions on contraceptives,” House GOP Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) later said. “How does that stimulate the economy?”

But White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs countered: “There was a lot of agreement in that room this morning about the notion that we’re facing an economic crisis unlike we’ve seen in quite some time … There was agreement that we must act quickly to stimulate the economy, create jobs, put money back in people’s pockets.”

Gibbs disagreed with those who called the meeting window dressing.

“The president is certainly going to listen to any ideas,” he said. “He will also go to Capitol Hill the beginning of next week to talk to Republican caucuses and solicit their input and their ideas.”

Two things here …

One, this is not – repeat not – an unprecedented economic crisis. By every measure, not only does the current recession not even qualify to be mentioned in the same paragraph as the Great Depression, but it doesn’t even compare to the economic woes Ronald Reagan inherited when he took office.

Facts are facts.

President of the United States

President of the United States

Two, anyone who believes that the President is going to listen to any ideas that does not involve growing the government by leaps and bounds, please stand on your head.

Will Obama, for instance, be as open-minded about how to handle the economy as he has been on the “case closed” verdict on Global Warming? How many of a rapidly growing list of reputable dissenters has he actually talked to on the subject?

How about his resurrection of the New Deal? Has he talked to any of a number of respected economists who believe that FDR’s big government approach to saving the floundering economy actually prolonged the Great Depression?

And how quickly did President Obama put an axe to Guantanamo Bay? Was it necessary to kill it on his second day in office without having a specific plan – or any plan, for that matter – on what to do with the terrorists who are detained there? Would it have been at all unreasonable to try and formulate a proposal slightly more worthy of the most powerful nation on Earth?

Incidentally, Rush Limbaugh’s radio program returns Monday at 12 Noon EST, live.

I might just give it a listen.


Update: 10:16 PM, 24 January 2009

Byron York, at National Review Online’s The Corner, spoke to Rush Limbaugh early on Saturday to get his response to the BAM attack.

In part, Rush said:

There are two things going on here. One prong of the Great Unifier’s plan is to isolate elected Republicans from their voters and supporters by making the argument about me and not about his plan. He is hoping that these Republicans will also publicly denounce me and thus marginalize me. And who knows? Are ideological and philosophical ties enough to keep the GOP loyal to their voters? Meanwhile, the effort to foist all blame for this mess on the private sector continues unabated when most of the blame for this current debacle can be laid at the feet of the Congress and a couple of former presidents. And there is a strategic reason for this.

Read the entire response here.

wordpress statistics

Posted in Conservatism, Liberalism, Obama's first 100 days, Talk-Radio | Tagged: , , , , , , , | 6 Comments »


Posted by Andrew Roman on December 12, 2008

stop all the shouting, guys

stop all the shouting, guys

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

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

Said Powell:

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

Meaning what exactly?

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

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

Principles and dogma?

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

Rush himself would beg to differ.

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

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

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

And who exactly is shouting at whom?

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

Allow me to assist the former Secretary of State.

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

better instincts?

better instincts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

He, too, can shout.

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

Just asking.

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


Posted by Andrew Roman on November 26, 2008

on balance, america is bad

on balance, america is bad

When asked in 2006 on Dennis Prager’s radio show if he thought the United States, on balance, has predominantly been a force for good or bad in the world, Howard Zinn, well-known leftist, historian and America-hater, answered:

“Probably more bad than good. We’ve done some good, of course … but we have done too many bad things in the world. If you look at the way we have used our armed force throughout our history – first, destroying the Indian communities of this continent and annihilating Indian tribes …”

…followed by a whole lot of blah, blah, blah.

(Like you didn’t see that coming).

Almost as much of a tradition as turkey, cranberry sauce, Dallas Cowboys football and pumpkin pie are the annual Thanksgiving Day editorials and opinion pieces which sound like they could have come directly from the pen of Zinn (and others), printed almost everywhere, lamenting the horrifically murderous origins of the United States – the wiping out of indigenous people, the calculated spreading of disease, slavery, raping, pillaging, you name it.

For example, today’s editorial page of the Redmond Reporter opines:

Columbus, in fact, was the precursor to a mass genocide. More than 100 years later, the Pilgrims arrived peacefully to participate in the first Thanksgiving dinner. But, instead they opened the door to more death and destruction of the Native Americans.

Eventually, they became the minority, captives in their own land. You can bet, they were never thankful for the famine, war, death, and plagues brought on by the Europeans.

Thanksgiving was a holiday created by President Abraham Lincoln to give Americans something to be thankful for during the Civil War. People can be thankful for a lot of things, but genocide should not be one of them.

To read these guilt-ridden shame-peddlers, who ironically benefit tremendously from the freedoms and opportunities afforded them in this country – suffering from what Rush Limbaugh sometimes calls “affluenza” – you’d almost have to conclude that although the failings of humanity may have manifested themselves in various ways before the founding of the United States, they have never done so with such ferocity, never to such a degree and never with such reward since the founding.

The author obviously went to an American University.

Okay, first … a tiny history lesson (If you know this already, skip ahead).

Let’s be clear, the holiday was not created by Lincoln. Rather, it became a consistently annual one under Lincoln. There were, in fact, many instances of a Thanksgiving holiday prior to 1863.

mr thanksgiving

mr sam "thanksgiving" adams

In 1777, the Continental Congress gave the first National Proclamation of Thanksgiving:

“It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive Powers of these UNITED STATES to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for SOLEMN THANKSGIVING and PRAISE: That at one Time and with one Voice, the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor;”

The next year in 1778, Samuel Adams authored a Thanksgiving resolution, approved by Congress in November, writing:

“It having pleased Almighty God through the Course of the present year, to bestow great and manifold Mercies on the People of these United States.”

Yeah, really. God was in there.

George Washington, of course, gave his famous Thanksgiving Day proclamation on October 3, 1789:

” Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be. That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks, for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation…”

Good stuff.

And there were many others – not only at a national level, but at a state level as well. (It’s not difficult to do the research. Really.)

Now, as far as genocide is concerned – and I admit to a touch of fascination with how Leftocrats choose the words they will bastardize and dilute while still managing to keep straight faces – let me be as explicit as possible.

The idea that Europeans committed genocide against the indigenous North American population is categorically false. It did not happen. The evidence and the historical record do not corroborate these claims. Indeed, there were slaughters, bloody battles, all out wars waged and ugliness to be sure … but to claim genocide is a flat out lie.  Genocide’s meaning is as unambiguous as a definition can be – the deliberate, calculated, systematic destruction of a particular group.

That America has “evolved” to the point where offense is taken at honoring what is often called the first Thanksgiving in 1621, and words like “genocide” are tossed around so freely and easily, speaks volumes about those  who hawk these contemptible myths.

Frankly, it’s disgusting.

So long as the invading Europeans can be portrayed in the most negative light possible and school children can be made to bewail the earth-loving civilizations that were obliterated by the invading peace-pummeling, weapons-loving, land raping, slave owners, Thanksgiving will still have a place.

the first thanksgiving

the first thanksgiving

This is anecdotal, of course – and I do know that tributes to the first Thanksgiving still take place in schools across this country – but I have noticed, with my own kids, that as they got older, the rituals that were once considered “standard practice” in commemorating the holiday, e.g., dressing up as Pilgrims and Indians, were not being practiced as much any more. Traditional reenactments were being vanquished in favor of a more multicultural “Let’s give thanks to everyone in every subgroup that has ever existed so that even the dead are not to feel left out.”


Every single ethnic group and race will have wielded equal influence on all things related to the founding of this country by the time the history books are reconstructed with a multicultural pen.

At some point, it may not be unreasonable to expect to “discover” that there were actually Muslims or Africans or Atlantians at that first Thanksgiving table almost four centuries ago.

(I digress)

As far as the real meaning of the holiday … don’t even think of bringing God into the discussion.

It is really about the Indians teaching the stumbling, bumbling Europeans to catch eels.

As evidenced by the recent events in Claremont, California – where the parents of kindergarten students have been clashing over the 40-year tradition at Condit Elementary School of kids dressing like Pilgrims and Indians to celebrate Thanksgiving – moronic hippie-trail sensitivity (critical leftist thinking) is trying to redefine the rules of the game … again.

As one parent put it:

“It’s demeaning. I’m sure you can appreciate the inappropriateness of asking children to dress up like slaves (and kind slave masters), or Jews (and friendly Nazis), or members of any other racial minority group who has struggled in our nation’s history.”

Umm …


The inability to solicit critical thought from the Left no longer astounds me. I accept it – like losing socks on laundry day or belly button lint.

I have always thought of the Thanksgiving holiday this way, as expressed by George Washington:

“…that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions, to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually, to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed, to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord.”


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


Posted by Andrew Roman on June 17, 2005

he's right

he's right

To the uninitiated, there is a misconception of the degree of difficulty involved in being a conservative talk show host, despite a fertile climate of Democratic inanity from which to draw inspiration (Howard Dean and Harry Reid immediately come to mind). Having been in radio, I appreciate fully how much hard work and dedication must be invested. As a chef friend of mine says, “Just because you have a bowl of big beautiful tomatoes, doesn’t mean you can make a great red sauce.” How right he is.

Beginning with allegations in Newsweek that Korans were being desecrated in G’itmo, the latest assault on President Bush (and America) from the left in the form of alleged mistreatment of enemy prisoners by the American military has come to a head. This week, in the wake of all this, legendary talker Rush Limbaugh has been particularly effective, arguably as good as he’s ever been. Like him or not, he is the most enigmatic and compelling raconteur on radio, and if you take him at his word, accepting his contention that he is correct better than 98% of the time, then this week, his batting average has surely been bumped up enough to flirt with perfection.

Limbaugh understands that the situation at Guantanamo Bay is not a political issue – nor should it be. It’s an American issue. He has been spot on.

Unfortunately, all hell has broken loose from the left. Apparently, it has now become accepted practice to not only openly criticize, accuse and condemn the United States military in a time of war, but to equate it with the most murderous regimes the world has ever known. Focus and concern from the blue wing rests not with the defeat and elimination of those who murdered three thousand innocents almost four years ago on American soil, but — astonishingly — with the treatment and so-called abuses of those enemy combatants whose purpose is to see the destruction of America. Such practices by the US military were detailed in Time’s story on the twentieth hijacker, Mohammed al Qahtani. Among the unspeakable: The horrific Christina Aguilera music torture technique, the terrifying standing-for-prolonged-periods torment, and the petrifying shaving-of-the-facial hair ordeal. (I don’t even want to get into the anguish of lowering the air conditioner in the middle of the tropics.)

Almost commonplace now are the tedious comparisons of Bush’s America to Hitler’s Germany, and more recently to Stalin’s gulags. The sheer stupidity of such comparisons should be obvious to even the modestly informed. Yet, right on cue, a new old voice has emerged, the latest unapologetic spokesperson for the ever-growing anti-American wing of the Democratic party – Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois. Predictably leafing through his Vietnam-era playbook, reflexively affording the enemy the benefit of the doubt, choosing to condemn the United States with the most outlandish, ill-informed, hateful ramblings imaginable, he has reached new lows. He’s made the anti-American campus-burning dope smoking rejects of the sixties seem like amateurs.

Of course, the issue at hand is not freedom of speech. It is about lending aid and comfort to those who are at war with us and wish us infinite harm.

what the hell are you talking about?

what the hell are you talking about?

Rush Limbaugh, to his great credit, hasn’t put up with this. On Wednesday’s show, he unremittingly condemned Durbin for his comments wherein the Senator enumerated so-called torture techniques employed by the Americans – including the playing of rap music, the fluctuating of enemy prisoner’s room temperatures, and (unbelievably) keeping prisoners in chains. In an historical context, one shudders to think of the unimaginable brutality that would have been inflicted on captured Nazis should they have been subjected to lethal doses of Bing Crosby during World War Two, or even the Andrews Sisters. (Perhaps the backs of the Japanese could have been broken without having to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Perhaps we just needed to tinker with the thermostat a bit.)

Durbin then concluded: “If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags, or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings. Sadly, that is not the case. This was the action of Americans in the treatment of their prisoners.”

Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and the American military – a veritable fab four of despotism.

Well done, Mr. Durbin.

If this doesn’t qualify as aid and comfort to the enemy, what exactly does?

Meanwhile, Limbaugh was unforgiving. He angrily ripped into Durbin, saying, “We don’t deserve to win this war as long as we have people like Dick Durbin in the US Senate.”

He’s absolutely right.

“If we’re going to be led by such idiocy and such ignorance as this, we deserve to lose it, folks. There’s a price to pay for having this kind of thinking at the highest levels of government.”

He’s absolutely right.

“This is what you get when you have a political party that’s so obsessed with hatred for the sitting president that they’ll do anything they can to beat him … they’ll do anything to get their power back.”

He’s absolutely right.

Limbaugh’s website also offers Club G’itmo merchandise, including a t-shirt that reads, “Your tropical retreat from the stress of jihad” and “My Mullah went to Club G’itmo and all I got was this lousy t-shirt.”

Here, too, Limbaugh is absolutely right. The absurdity of all of this cannot be overstated.

Predictably, rather than be outraged at the accusations of torture being leveled at our military, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) chose to make Limbaugh’s “Club G’itmo” campaign the issue at Tuesday’s Senate Judiciary Meeting by saying, “This idea of changing the focus … seeming to argue (G’itmo) is more a Club Med than a prison. Let’s get real. These people have been locked up for three years, no end in sight, and no process to lead us out of there.”

Lest we forget, “these people,” as Senator Leahy refers to them, are our enemies – not rounded up from innocent summertime picnics, universities and private homes, but captured on the field of battle in the process of attempting to kill Americans. Indeed, most human beings have a better-than-reasonable idea of what constitutes genuine torture. Understanding the ravages the Nazis inflicted on human bodies is to understand torture. Knowing what really went on in the Soviet gulags under Stalin is to understand torture. Pol Pot, for the most part, didn’t even afford his victims torture. He simply eliminated them, about two million souls.

If the United States military can obtain critical intelligence from enemy combatants (which they have) by implementing techniques that most reasonably informed people would see as benign – such as blaring rap music or having someone withstand discomfort by standing for hours on end or even denying air conditioning (as opposed to something like, say, applying electrodes to human genitals) then what exactly is the problem? Doesn’t America benefit by not having to inflict on enemy combatants what most people would define as genuine torture? If, indeed, the enemy can be “broken” by such relatively innocuous methods as loud music, being chained up in fetal positions, having scantily-clad woman encroach on their personal space, and being forced to shiver in overly air conditioned rooms, then wouldn’t it stand to reason that every proponent of human rights, from whatever corner of the globe they come from, would be, at the very least, supporting our efforts? In other words, if the enemy feels tortured and compelled to relinquish vital information, even though it is clear by most reasonable standards that torture is not taking place, aren’t we actuality demonstrating for the world the civility of America and our dedication to human rights?

Let’s not forget, this is war, not a college campus. War is ugly. That’s why we try to avoid it at all costs.

When the rhetoric of America’s enemies becomes indistinguishable from that of a United States Senator, it is time for something to be done. The arena of public opinion must now exercise its power.

On Thursday’s program, Limbaugh made it clear that he had no desire to hear Senator Durbin apologize for his remarks, even after other pundits were outraged when the Senator steadfastly refused to retract his statements. Instead, Limbaugh called for Senator Durbin to resign in disgrace.

Again, Limbaugh is right.

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