Not long ago, so-called experts insisted "presidential debates don't matter."  Then Denver happened, and Mitt Romney beat Barrack Obama harder than Liz Warren's ancestors ever beat their tribal drums.  Days later, even the most biased Biden fan could only argue that the Polident Vice President "didn't lose any serious ground."  The rest of the Country saw a much sharper, smarter, professional Paul Ryan.  Ryan bested Biden from budgets to Benghazi.  On the few points Biden did score, Ryan listened calmly and responded accordingly.  Conversely, when Ryan was ripping into Obama's record, or lack thereof, Biden behaved like a surly teenager (minus the dentures), interrupting Ryan routinely, and eerily smiling like an original "guest" of Bethlem Royal Hospital.   It was, at times, disturbing.     

But take note.  This was more than a drubbing by Romney and a disturbing lapse of decorum from, alas, our sitting Vice President.  These two moments were the outward manifestations of inward campaign meltdowns.  As hard as it is for Democrats to fathom, The Chosen One may very well not be chosen by the voters on November 6, 2012.  When I confronted a Liberal colleague with this very real possibility recently, he responded haughtily with a single word: "inconceivable."  I laughed (not at him) but at the diverting and droll way the human mind works: the moment my friend uttered the word "inconceivable" my mind flashed back to The Princes Bride.  Famously, Vizzini (after overusing using the word "inconceivable" incorrectly numerous times) again remarked the word in an improper setting: "inconceivable!"  Knowing this, Inigo uttered the following memorable retort: "You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means."  Indeed.  A Mitt Romney win in November would not only be a very important event for America, it is becoming ever more conceivable. 


BCT - ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you. 

When I heard the raucous DNC crowd booing "God" and "Jerusalem" on Thursday, I reasonably assumed things were not going well for the Democrats.  And as the day progressed, things didn't appear to be getting any better for the progressives.  The rest of Thursday's DNC line-up read more like the punch-line of a bad joke than the prime-time slots for a presidential convention: Sandra Fluke, Liz Warren, and Bill Clinton.  In order, the poster-child for free contraceptives, a resume fudger par excellence, and the Dress Stainer-in-Chief.  This army of orators simply didn't strike me as the "tip of the spear" in the Democrats' so-called War For Women. 

But what do I know?  

Say what you want, Clinton came through in the clutch.  It will be a thick irony indeed if one of the most demonstrably dishonest men in decades, Bill Clinton, hoodwinks America into re-electing President Barack Obama.  Love him or hate him (or both), Bubba had the DNC wrapped around his omnipresent, arrogant finger at the convention.  It was impressive.  Clinton is, if nothing else, a master story-teller and a consummate liar.  ("Wait, wait, this is important, you gotta listen to this part.  Hold on, now, wait.")  But we know all this.    

The gift Bill delivered Barack was generously selfish.  It can be described as follows: if I (Bill Clinton)  couldn't have fixed this crappy economy in four years, then America can't blame Obama for not being able fix this crappy economy in four years.  It was both vanity and a DNC-deliverance all wrapped in a bow.  As members of the media tripped over themselves to pour syrupy praise over Clinton, it was a reminder that Clinton is everything Obama is not: in touch with mainstream Democrats. Clinton still makes you believe he "feels your pain."  In a single speech (albeit a long, meandering speech), Clinton did more to articulate Obama's case than Obama has done in four years. This had to infuriate Obama (who can't afford to hate Clinton because he needs him so).  But for the rest of us, the Clinton speech was a very sad but very real reminder:  too many of us still love the Clinton lies. 

BCT - ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you. 

English

Verb

"to shoot oneself in the foot"

1. (idiomatic) to act against one's own interests; to unintentionally behave self-destructively.

To be frank, I'd begun to weary of the "birthers."  Admittedly, my patience wasn't that long to begin with.  Ab initio, I assumed an issue fully vetted (yet unsuccessful) in 2008 was dead-on-arrival in 2012.  Therein lies the question, however.  Was the matter fully vetted in 2008?  Sure.  Of course it was.  It had to be, right?  Well, following the curious information related to Acton & Dystel, I am no longer certain about anything. 

Almost a year after embarrassing the "birthers" by releasing his "birth certificate," the controversy regarding Obama's birth was officially re-born.  This time, though, all blame rests squarely with Team Obama.  It seems an old Barack "biography" surfaced, one created by his former literary agency, Acton & Dystel.  In 1991, in trying to promote the former Harvard Law graduate, the agency boasted (in print) that Obama was "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."  Or as one clever blogger wrote this week, Obama and his agent produced a little "reverse birtherism." 

Not surprisingly, both Obama and his former agent immediately stated the "Kenyan birth" representation was a "mistake."  It was "nothing more than a fact checking error by me," the agent in charge stated.  A fact checking error?  Oops, I meant to say my client was born in Chickamauga, Georgia, but somehow the brochure read he was born in Reykjavík, Iceland.  No big deal.  Sorry, folks, I'm not swallowing that whopper.    

An innocent error of this gravity simply does not happen.  (One must consider the statistical odds).  Does it mean Obama's birth is, again, in question?  Not necessarily.   It is possible that, back in 1991, a writer (Obama) and his agent deliberately waxed hyperbolic (uh, lied) in order to create a more exotic image for potential readers.  After all, "Kenyan-born, Indonesian and Hawaiian-raised" does have a certain ring.  Thus, it may very well have been an effort to gild the lily.  The trouble, of course, is if you end up trying to run for President of the United States someday. Then, one idiom (gilding the lily) swiftly turns into another idiom (shooting oneself in the foot). 

Oops indeed. 

BCT – ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post, please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you.

From time to time, so-called "constitutional purists" will send me scathing e-mails or tweets concerning my support for Mitt Romney.  I use the hyphenated "so-called" deliberately.  Some of the people with whom I debate are indeed well versed in the Constitution.  Many of these self-professed purists, however, don't know the difference between the Commerce Clause and a compacted colon.  These same citizens complain bitterly about the extra-legal power wielded by Obama, but then tell me they cannot, and will not, support Mitt Romney in November – allegedly on "constitutional grounds."  Think deeply on that curious statement: self-declared constitutional purists will "never" vote Romney. 

I am obliged to cut through such crap.      

As President, Jimmy Carter was an abject failure.  Franklin Pierce had a plethora of problems.  Warren G. Harding had absolutely no business being Commander-in-Chief.  Indeed, we Yanks have suffered through our "fair share" of poor leaders.  But none have sullied the soul quite like Obama, the Left's modern Messiah.  No President has shown such contempt for the Constitution as has the current resident of Pennsylvania Avenue.  To any bona-fide constitutionalist, the recent whisper from Obama to Medvedev ("I'll have more 'flexibility' second term, Vlad") makes us very, very afraid.   

I could speak of the legion of Obama policy failures.  Fuel prices are up, morale is down. Unemployment is up, consumer confidence is down.  Racial tensions are up, home prices are down.  This see-saw situation has forced the 2008 architect of Hope & Change, David Axelrod, to construct an entirely new strategy for Obama in 2012: one centered on ad hominem attacks, bigotry, and virtually no reference to Obama's presidential record.  This is telling.  I agree, however, with Peggy Noonan: when you couple Obama's agenda with the slew of recent government scandals, something else "seems to be going terribly wrong."

Actually, what is wrong is what has always been wrong.  When Obama reads the Constitution, he does not "see" what you and I "see."  What we consider sacrosanct, he dubs "deeply flawed."  When we talk about getting "back to first principles," Obama talks about getting away from an "imperfect," misguided document, one pregnant with the prejudices of an anachronistic, racist society.  The inherent racism in early-American society, according to Obama, begat "blind spots" that continue to plague us in 2012.  Incapable of seeing the majesty of the Declaration and the Constitution conjoined, Barack Obama, if he could, would tear the Constitution to shreds and start from scratch. 

This election is not about dogs (eating or transporting) or about $47 dollar hookers.  This election is about two very different views of the Constitution.   Therein lies the fundamental difference between candidates.   For all his flaws, Mitt believes in American exceptionalism, the genesis of which can be found in our Declaration and Constitution.  Barack does not.  Is this therefore a vote for Mitt Romney?  Or is it a vote against Barack Obama?  Both, and there is no need for the Left to force the "either-or."  Come November, however, please choose wisely: the constitutional consequences couldn't be more considerable.

BCT – ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post, please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you.

Hilary Rosen, a paid political consultant who advises the Democratic National Committee, is either: (1) dumb; (2) dishonest; or (3) both.  I choose my words carefully.  Lest you think I am being too harsh, please consider Rosen's own words in the last 48 hours:

“His wife [Ann Romney] has actually never worked a day in her life.”

As this pinpoint attack was aimed at a stay-at-home mother of 5 (who both happens to have MS and be a cancer survivor), there is only one logical conclusion: Rosen believes stay-at-home mothering "isn't work."  It is for this reason two curious things happened last night.  First, Twitter erupted over Rosen's crudeness and stupidity.  Second (and this is shocking), the never-offended David Axelrod appeared offended.  Obama's top strategist, at record speed I might add, wrote that Rosen's comments about Ann Romney were both "inappropriate and offensive." This, please remember, from the man who found dozens of ways to "excuse" Bill Maher for calling Sarah Palin the "C" word.  Instructive?  Oh, yes. 

Rather than apologize, Rosen simply doubled-down.  Seething, she spat back at any and all, writing, "spare me the faux anger."  (FYI, Hilary, there is nothing faux about how I feel about you right now).  She then – how do I say this? – lied.  The evidence simply demands no other conclusion.  I remind you again of her first comment:

“His wife [Ann Romney] has actually never worked a day in her life.”

After getting backed into a corner, Rosen said: well, being a mother is the "hardest job [I] have ever had."  Umm.  Which is it?  Sorry, Democrats, there is no way to square this circle.  Perhaps the most instructive moment last night was a slip from Rosen that she feels "envy" for women who get to be stay-at-home moms.  Ahh, I see.  Envy.  Class warfare.  Racial tension.  All the "divide and conquer" elements necessary to keep us from focusing on what is really wrong with our country.  Thanks, Hilary, for that single elucidation of honesty. 

To all the mothers out there (full or part time), please don't let the Democrats do this.  All mothers work, whether inside or outside the home, or both.  A Rosen apology will be forced (by the Democratic hierarchy) for, likely, the standard "poor choice of words."  Yawn.  Rosen can spin this all she wants, but she said what she said and she meant what she said.  I go back to dishonest or dumb?  You choose.  I am fortunate enough to have a beautiful, intelligent bride who wants to stay at home and raise our 3 children.  And I have long said I would never trade her "jobs."  Why?  Too much work. 

BCT – ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post, please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you.

A singular beauty of our law is nested in Article XI of the Constitution where the Framers expressly instructed "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." No, of course, means no.  It was with some curiosity, therefore, that I beheld the bold-faced bigotry of Lawrence O'Donnell this week as he boldy bashed Mitt Romney, um, Joseph Smith, um, all modern religious experience.  For a network that purports to stand for … something … MSNBC took one giant step toward embracing nothing. 

Never mind that O'Donnell was deeply flawed on his material facts.  (Do the facts matter to this network?)  He did get one thing correct: Joseph Smith, Jr., was, in fact, a polygamist.  But since O'Donnell is hell bent on dredging up the idiosyncrasies of iconic leaders, it should be pointed out that virtually every American (who claims some type of traditional religious belief) is tied to polygamy, like it or not.  Father Abraham was an energetic polygamist.  Thus, all three monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (in the chronological order of their founding) honor and revere Abraham as prophet and seer.  (So Obama should be covered there somewhere).  Thus, it seems a little odd, if not downright hypocritical, for O'Donnell to single out Mitt.  Methinks there is more going on.

Poking fun of religion is easy.  Too easy.  Being a man (I'm talking to you, Lawrence) is not so easy.  Modern Mormons are often some of the hardest working, loyal Americans in this country.  Yes, some of their religious views may appear (out of context) a little goofy to some; but then again, the sacred doctrine of the Immaculate Conception (not to be confused with the Virgin Birth) is anything but easy to understand.  And, call me stupid, but, speaking of the Trinity, it is not surprising that I fail to comprehend the Trinity inasmuch as most scholars on the subject boast that this sacred doctrine is meant to be "incomprehensible." 

Had O'Donnell simply swapped "Muslim" for "Mormon" in his mean-spirited segment, even his Lefty supporters would have called for his head.  (A punishment, ironically, some Muslims would have actually demanded).  But no.  This is MSNBC, and Mormons may be the last refuge of American bigotry.  I don't know much, good friends, but this debate should be about the 2012 presidential candidates: Romney and Obama.  Article XI does appear instructive.  That said, if the obtuse O'Donnell wants to hear words of wisdom from two spiritual mentors, men revered respectively by Romney and Obama, then by all means, I will oblige:

"I am the greatest advocate of the Constitution of the United States there is on the earth. In my feelings I am always ready to die for the protection of the weak and oppressed in their just rights." 

- Joseph Smith, Jr. (Founder of Mormonism) Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith 326-27 (d. 1844).

One must contrast Smith's comments with those of (the 21^st Century) Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Romney, of course, never crossed paths with the 19^th Century Smith.  In contrast, Obama sat in Wright's pews for 20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side, married Obama and his wife, Michelle, baptized their two daughters, and is credited by Obama for the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."  Wright's words are both alarming and instructive.  (So will O'Donnell do a piece on Wright?)

"The government gives [African-Americans] drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people … God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

 - Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Sermon 2003

If MSNBC were smart (a very big if), it would take a hard look at the bigotry displayed by O'Donnell.  The American people can do the smart thing by simply asking the following question: which candidate (Mitt Romney or Barack Obama) is more likely to uphold the Constitution of the United States of America?  On that question, it isn't even close: which is why, in 2012, people like Lawrence O'Donnell  are spending precious prime-time hours talking about 19^th Century gossip.  

Sigh. 

BCT – ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post, please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you.

Last year, thousands of African-American males were killed by African-American males.  Alas, the ugly American epidemic of which we are not allowed to speak.  In the aftermath of these black-on-black homicides, not once did Barack Obama inject himself into their sad dramas.  Not once did Obama play politics, pander to the press, or call for cameras so he could utter the absurd line: "If I had a son, he'd look like [insert latest Black victim]."  Sigh.  If only African-Americans knew how perfectly this "African-American" president is playing them. 

The case of Trayvon Martin presents a curious conundrum for extremists.  The race-baiting Mark Thompson, for example, shouted me off his radio program ("Make it Plain") last week before I could even make a simple point.  Thompson, of course, comes from that extreme, white-hating camp that believes racism is an inherently White problem.  Racism on the Left?  Oh, uh, uh, no way, man, no way. Thompson then angrily said he was "going to blow [me] out of the water!"  He then proceeded to spew several nonsensical non sequiturs – leaving nary a listener any wiser.  On that day, Thompson did indeed make his racism plain.     

Thompson's trouble (an infection that often plagues the Liberal mind) is that his brain believes any effort to be "objective" in a matter involving African-Americans must mean (all facts be damned) you are a racist.  Please understand something Thompson could not: I am not defending Zimmerman.  Indeed, from the little we know, it is possible that Mr. Zimmerman will have some very difficult challenges ahead of him.  On the other hand, Due Process demands we allow every citizen to have a fair and impartial trial.  This media mess over Martin (including the Black Panther's bounty on Zimmerman's head) is anything but fair and impartial.  They can change venues as many times as they want, good luck on not having a mistrial after the White House and media have already told the jury how to vote.  

And let's remember one more thing.  Who, exactly, injected race into this sad story?  The Reverend Sharpton told crowds in Florida that the GOP "doesn't care about black kids."  What?  More troubling than that, however, the NYT dubbed Zimmerman a "White Hispanic."  Huh?   What the _____ does that mean?  Yes, Zimmerman's father is White and his mother is Hispanic (Peruvian, to be specific).  So, according to the NYT, the son of mixed-blood parentage should be identified as such, right?  Except that doesn't work well with Barack Obama: son of a Black (Kenyan) father, and a White (American) mother.  The Left anointed Barack Obama as America's first African-American president.  The NYT has never – ever – referred to Obama as our "White Black" President.  Nor will they.  According to Thompson, it doesn't matter who Barack's mother was, "he is all black."  I think I get it.  No I don't.  If I really understood what the crap Thompson meant, I wouldn't be writing this column; and I sure as heck wouldn't have choked on my own tongue when I read the description of Zimmerman in the NYT.  From 30,000 feet, this appeared to be a case about the justifiable (or likely not) use of deadly force.  Yet, just look what this has become.  You can call me confused.  You can call me objective.  Thompson, alas, calls me a racist. 

BCT – ConstitutionFirst

If you want to subscribe to this post, please click on "Add Comment" and sign-up.  Thank you.