Archive for April, 2012

Dear Mr. President,

You have undoubtedly now heard the buzz about one of your campaign websites featuring a post entitled “Behind the curtain: A brief history of Romney’s donors.”  As you are no doubt aware, this piece calls out 8 Romney donors who are private citizens, and proceeds to smear them.  You are probably also aware of today’s opinion piece about it the Wall Street Journal, which starts as follows:

Try this thought experiment: You decide to donate money to Mitt Romney. You want change in the Oval Office, so you engage in your democratic right to send a check.

Several days later, President Barack Obama, the most powerful man on the planet, singles you out by name. His campaign brands you a Romney donor, shames you for “betting against America,” and accuses you of having a “less-than-reputable” record. The message from the man who controls the Justice Department (which can indict you), the SEC (which can fine you), and the IRS (which can audit you), is clear: You made a mistake donating that money.

Are you worried?

No.  I am infuriated.


HOW DARE YOU attempt to intimidate private individuals who are exercising their First Amendment rights by donating to candidates who they believe will do better than you.  As a “consitutional scholar”, I’m sure you can articulate why it is that this isn’t a reprehensible practice.

After you do that for us, perhaps you can explain how it is that this is an appropriate practice for someone who was elected to serve ALL AMERICANS, not just the ones that you like, or the ones who like you.  How is the denigration of PRIVATE CITIZENS, whose participation in the political process is confined to contributing money a legitimate exercise of Presidential power?

Then, I’d like for you to perform a little thought exercise of your own.  I would like for you to ask yourself  “If someone who was so thin-skinned and insecure that he was willing to abuse a public trust and the power that goes with it, to call out and attempt to intimidate private citizens for exercising their fundamental Constitutional right to support his opponent, is that demonstrating the kind of character that Americans who are electing a leader of the entire country wants or should want?

Thanks for your time.  Tell the IRS to be gentle when they come to play proctologist with me.

Blackiswhite, Imperial Consigliere.

Read Full Post »

I have a confession to make: I love this series of movies.

This is one of those things that caught me by surprise, because I was the last person to think that I would have.  But on a rainy Saturday about 5 years ago, I watched the first movie in the series, and a little over half way through the movie, I realized that something unexpected had happened; I cared what happened to the characters.  It isn’t often when I’m surprised by Hollywood anymore, but in a film that I believe the studio even thought was going to be a “throwaway” movie, they had created a story with action, excitement, intrigue, and that also told a story about family, honor, and loyalty.

It still might have been a hard sell, but the casting overcame this.  I won’t say that the next two films were a disappointment, but by not having the core character of this story (Dom Toretto, played by Vin Diesel) these movies were less than they could have been.  I wouldn’t say “The Phantom Menace”, more like “Attack of the Clones”…the story advanced, and you meet characters who will matter more later…along with the gradual disillusionment of the other main character in the franchise, Brian O’Connor, played by Paul Walker, who comes to realize the adage repeated in another of my favorite movies, Mother Night, be careful what you pretend to be, because you might just find that IS who you are.

When Fast and Furious, the fourth installment in the franchise was released, Toretto and O’Connor were reunited on a mission of revenge and the sad truth of his employer’s faithlessness was brought home to him in a way that was very personal, and the end found he and Toretto’s sister, Mia, played by Jordanna Brewster, starting a breakout of her brother.

Fast Five opens with the completion of that breakout, and the three of them living as federal fugitives.  This run brings Brian and Mia to Rio de Janeiro, and to the doorstep of Vince, the last surviving member of Dom’s original crew.  While it is clear that Vince still harbors a grudge against Brian, he offers to bring he and Mia in a new job that will be “easy money”.

When the job goes south, Mia, Brian, and Dom are once again on the run, and when Vince doesn’t like the questions Brian is asking, he finds himself exiled, just as both a Federal team lead by Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson, and a pissed-off villain with an inexhaustible source of gun thugs both start tearing the city apart looking for them.

Dom, in his signature fashion, decides to take the fight back to the villan’s front door, with a plan that will allow everyone in on the plan, including characters from previous movies, like Roman, Han, Tej, Tego, and Rico, to fade away and never have to worry about footsteps behind them again for the rest of their lives.

Everything about this movie is brash, loud, and fast paced.  The stunts are bigger, the plans bolder, and the driving outrageous, but instead of feeling insulted, I enjoyed the ride tremendously.  It incorporated the elements that made the 1st and 4th movies so much fun, and added a bit of redemption, and a twist at the end, which of course, opens the door to a sixth installment.

You won’t feel smarter for having watched Fast Five.  There is nothing profound in it.  There are no erudite statements about the life we all share, but the writers didn’t give us two-dimensional characters, either.  At its heart, this is still a story about loyalty, honor, family, love, and also redemption.  And that’s what makes it a better action story than most of the ones put out by Hollywood today.

Read Full Post »

Remember when conservative women used to have to run for office to experience the scorn of the Left for being of the wrong political persuasion, and therefore ineligible for the defense and protection of the Party of Identity Politics?

Now, you don’t even have to be the candidate.  Being married to the candidate and having committed the crime of raising your five boys instead of paying someone else to do it is enough to bring to you the tolerance and inclusion that the left reserves especially for those who reject their social hegemony, and instead choose to live according to “outdated” and “archaic notions”.  They aren’t worthy of the same outrage reserved for other candidate’s wives who find themselves under scrutiny for things they have actually said.

Hilary Rosen forgets that raising children is a job, and if it weren’t, parents all over the country wouldn’t pay others to do it for them while they go to work.  But then actually raising your children yourself doesn’t fit in with the left’s “equality” narrative, because to the left, equality only exists when everyone is the same.  The idea that there really are gender differences keeps wymyn like Ms. Rosen awake at night.  

 I’ve heard the cries demanding her resignation or dismissal.  I don’t want her to quit or lose her job with the DNC.  I think she should go right on advising Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on how to “soften” her image.  More outbursts like this and the triple-down non-apology apology are inevitable.  I think that the only difference between her and other members of her party is that she doesn’t bother to conceal her contempt for women who don’t need the government’s assistance and feminism’s archetype in order to be confident, happy, and fulfilled.  By all means, keep her where she is.  She couldn’t be of bigger benefit to the future of the country if she were on the RNC payroll.

Read Full Post »

Seriously.  If no one who is on “our” side is going to grow some balls, then we should all get used to living in a world where a small minority empowered in the victimhood gets to dictate ridiculous rules to the rest of us.

Read Full Post »

…for a Constitutional law professor should be demanding a refund.

He really needs to stop letting Joe Biden write his remarks for the Press.

President Obama today said that he was “confident” that his signature Health care law would be upheld by the Supreme Court but warned that should the court rule the law unconstitutional, it would be an “unprecedented extraordinary event.”

He’s right.  Most people in government don’t often tell him no.  Especially twice.

Obama reminded reporters that conservative commentators, have complained about “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint,” that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”

That sound you just heard was God waiving off the universe imploding on itself because that bit of irony amused him to no end.  But seriously, I’m having trouble with the idea that saying that the Commerce Clause won’t support the government mandating that people buy a product just because they draw breath would hardly be “a lack of judicial restraint”.

“Well, this is a good example and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize this, and not take that step.” Obama insisted.

He was pretty sure that Chicago was a shoe- in for the Olympics, too.

“I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama concluded.

Having gone through law school myself, I’m confident that this answer would flunk him out of class…even at the University of Chicago.



Read Full Post »