The top finishers in the Power Line Prize competition are being posted around the web. Number seven, called “Fiscal Child Abuse,” is a video submitted by the Independence Institute in Colorado. It features three young girls who want to start a lawsuit; it is funny, and is one of my favorites in the competition. Roger Simon of Pajamas Media has posted the video. …

Number five was submitted by the Young Cons, two rappers (and basketball players) from Dartmouth. Their video features lots of quick cuts as they interview students and a soldier. The cons themselves take the stage at the end. It is an impressive piece of work that rivets your attention even though it was one of the longer videos in the competition.

And here is number five:

—–

Visit our friends at Power Line for links to more runner ups and the upcoming announcement of the $100k grand prize winner.

However, President Barack Obama’s latest fundraising report cites an “A-list of Hollywood stars, with donations from some of the top celebrities in the entertainment industry.” Apparently, left-coast liberals want to see to it that the best script reader since Martin Sheen has another shot at practicing lines on set while acting the part of President.

It’s not surprising that Hollywood is smitten with the “Yes We Can” man’s refusal to admit he can’t.  Those in the acting profession are impressed by amateurs like Barry Soetoro (stage name Barack Obama), who has proven to have a professional-level ability to make believe he’s something he is not. Heck, for a season, even Paul Giamatti was convinced he was John Adams.

What could be better for Hollywood than a President who swims around in a policy cesspool similar to the one they refuse to empty in Tinsel Town, overflowing with the squalid water of loose morals, abortion rights, angry feminists, racial indignation, class warfare, and overall elitist hypocrisy?

By and large, actors, comedians and entertainers pride themselves on being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-free Mumia, pro-promiscuity, and pro-anything non-traditional. Hollywood is full of left-wingers whose “Hope [is to] Change” America into a nation where the likes of Bill Maher and Jane Fonda are symbols of empathy and truth.

The fact that big name stars contribute to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection bid proves once again that ideological liberals lack intelligence and common sense.  Little do they know that if Obama gets another four years, it’s certain he’ll drive a stake through the heart of the nation that has bestowed fame and fortune on ignorant people who like to play pretend.

It doesn’t take Will Hunting to figure out that people who can’t afford gas and groceries aren’t likely to drop $10 on a movie ticket to watch Julia Roberts fake-giggling while riding on the back of a moped driven by a middle-aged Tom Hanks in a leather jacket.

Yet, despite the inevitable looming catastrophe if Obama is reelected, according to the latest Federal Election Commission report the list of Who’s Who of Obama aficionados includes usual suspects such as Darfur defender George Clooney, Mr. and Mrs. Forrest Gump, and cancer survivor Michael Douglas – a man who would have already succumbed to throat cancer had Obamacare already kicked in.

Campaign contributors also include Schindler’s List director Steven Spielberg and wife Kate Capshaw. The Spielbergs, despite their supposed brilliance, fail to realize they’re supporting a president whose feelings for Israel are at best questionable and whose lack of action could result in the need for another list if an unrestrained Iran eventually has its way.

Another contradictory campaign contributor is newly discovered country singer and proud part-time Londoner, the multifaceted Mrs. Chris “Coldplay” Martin, Gwyneth Paltrow.  Gwyneth likes living in England better than the US, which may be why she decided to punish the colonies by contributing to Obama’s “We Bent the Air Hose in 2008 – Let’s Pull the Plug in 2012” campaign.

Also in the mix is political scene newcomer Jennifer Garner, wife to one of JLo’s many former fiancés, Ben Affleck. When not speaking before Congress on behalf of Save the Children, Garner supports the reelection of a radically pro-choice threat to the lives of millions of unborn children who, thanks to Barack Obama, truly need saving.

Other Obama star contributors include: Monk star Tony Shalhoub, Glee’s Jane Lynch, 24’s president Dennis Haysbert (a man who knows firsthand how to pretend to be a president), and sci-fi star Scott Bakula.  The eclectic group joins cantankerous political wannabe (who should also be in the sci-fi category), 30 Rock actor/über-liberal aspiring NYC mayor Alec Baldwin, who prides himself on being diversified in every area except liberalism.

The July quarterly report for the President’s reelection campaign touts $47 million in donations, while the Democratic National Committee raised $38 million through Obama’s joint committee. According to Barack Obama’s campaign, about 40% of the President’s record-breaking take came from “big-money bundlers” and top Hollywood heavy hitters like Rahm’s sibling Ari Emanuel and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Obama continues to practice governing the nation with the finesse of a jackhammer operator doing a kidney transplant. Yet, never once have Fruit of the Loom grape man Wayne Wilderson or Brenda Strong of “Desperate Housewives,” colleague of esteemed “brainstorming” border security adviser Eva Longoria, questioned the craven cynicism of demonizing the rich while stuffing Hollywood capital into his campaign coffers.

Seems that even after chastising Americans for failing to “share the wealth,” a selectively philanthropic Barack Obama is more than willing to accept the “additional income” of well-to-do Hollywood supporters, if doing so finances his glitzy billion-dollar bid for reelection that should be coined: Take two.

So once again, America is witnessing the unbridled ignorance of affluent individuals who choose to support a President who decries prosperity but has little trouble siphoning off the wealth of a community too clueless to understand who they’re really supporting and too committed to liberal ideology to really care.

—–

Where is reason?

But the constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is sacredly obligatory to all.

George Washington, in his Farewell Address, speaks to us about the obligation we have, as citizens, to the United States Constitution. Obligation. Americans, we the people, who live in America, we the people, who reap from her spirit, her resources, her goodness, her history of independence and equality, should be obliged to live by and honor our Constitution.

But do we? How can we, if we do not know it?

Americans love football. How would we ever expect a football player to play the game, if he did not know the rules? Similarly, how do we expect to maintain our republic if we do not know the rules, the laws, of our intended government?

Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty.

George Washington states that we should respect the Constitution’s authority, comply with its laws, acquiesce to its measures.

How can America’s citizens sacredly oblige, respect, comply and acquiesce to the measures in the Constitution, if we do not know it? How can we sustain our Republic, a form of government where the people rule through their representatives by electing leaders, congressmen and women and selecting judges to protect our liberties, if we know not from where these liberties are borne and maintained?

Is this not reasonable? Where is reason?

Reason, a caveat in all things brilliant and everlasting, a mental attribute our founding fathers understood, leads us to a fundamental conclusion.

Is it not reasonable, that we as adults fully comprehend the foundation of our government? Is it not reasonable that we dedicate as much time educating our children about the founding principles of our country as we do taking them to soccer practice and ballet school, the science fair and math labs?

But, where is reason in America?

I will never forget a recent experience I had when I was a guest on someone’s radio show. As we were discussing the importance of the Constitution, he said, “I don’t agree with it.” I was awestruck. He didn’t “agree with it?” What was his reasoning for such a blatantly, broad and ignorant statement?”

It reminded me of the great line in the movie Amadeus. After a beautiful, sumptuous Opera, the king walks up to Mozart and comments, prompted by his faction, that there were “Simply, too many notes.” A flabbergasted Mozart asked the king to describe to him exactly which notes. The king was at a loss for words.

The same applies to a broad comment regarding the Constitution such as, “I don’t agree with it.” I wondered to myself, which part? Reason led me to question whether this person had ever read the Constitution or studied it. If he didn’t agree with it, which implies the whole of it, then was I to suppose that he didn’t agree with the separation of powers, the checks and balances, the genius of Articles 1, 2 and 3?

Did he not agree with the bicameral Congress – one for the people, one for the states? Did he not agree that the President’s Cabinet has to be approved by the Senate? Did he not agree that the President is prohibited from declaring war without the consent of the Congress? Did he not agree that the House of Representatives, the people’s house, holds the purse strings for the war thus empowering the people, through their vote, to end the war at any time? Did he not agree that the President cannot appoint a Supreme Court Justice but can only nominate one, and that the nominee has to be confirmed by the Senate? Did he not agree that a bill vetoed by the President can be overridden by a two thirds majority of the Congress?

Did he not agree with the 13th Amendment, that gave slaves freedom, the 19th Amendment that gave women the right to vote, or the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments, which includes freedom of speech – the freedom of speech which gave him his right to voice his blasphemous opinion – that he didn’t agree with the Constitution?

Where is reason?

It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the powers of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachments tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism.

Is this not happening today? The executive branch is encroaching on the legislative branch by appointing unelected officials and Czars thus blatantly disregarding the Constitution. This encroachment has a residual effect on the liberties of the people, the resiliency of industry and the inspiration of free enterprise. This can only happen if we the people are ignorant to the proceedings, the true intent of our government.
Thus, the bias against the Constitution and against the people who revere it, propels the purpose of the perpetrator – to intimidate the desire of a civic yearning and learning which thus allows the government to insidiously overstep its bounds.

All obstructions to the executions of the laws are ….. of fatal tendency.

Where is Reason?

Well, I reasoned, if this gentleman didn’t agree with the Constitution of the United States, then he could move to another country, a, or b, if he could ever define the part with which he didn’t agree, he could start a movement for an amendment.

If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation… it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.

Broad and unsubstantiated statements such as, “ I don’t agree with it” are by products of the proponents of faction. Faction is like a wildfire that rips through an innocent land. It breeds contempt, discord, division distrust and eventually the demise of our Republic, but more on faction next week.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetuated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. …sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation on the ruins of liberty.

Part one can be read here.

I am not calling Michael a pig because he hasn’t seen his toes since zoot suits were in fashion, or that he seems like the type who roots around the snack cake aisle at the supermarket like a hog rooting for truffles.  I am calling him a pig because all objective evidence points to the fact that he fits the definition of chazzer.  Michael is a pig that doesn’t fly straight.

OBAMA AND ME

Michael Moore first rolled onto the American scene when he made the film “Roger and Me.”  This movie was about the evils of General Motors and how the callous pursuit of profits by then CEO, Roger Smith, resulted in American plant closures and the unemployment of thousands of union workers.  At this point in his career he was very interested in what was going on with the world’s biggest auto producer (at the time) and how it affected the working man.

After the bankruptcy of GM, Obama’s federal government took control of the car company with the treasury owning 60% of the automaker.  Instead of becoming the sort of workers’ paradise that would cause Moore to spontaneously combust with joy, it would seem they continued the exact sort of business practices that inspired Moore to attack the Roger Smith run GM so many years ago.

Today, one of the worst kept secrets in the auto industry is that GM forces a number of their suppliers to outsource work to less expensive nations.  This is not done with subtle pressure and code words.  Outsourcing is written right into the suppliers contracts.  In many cases the supplier is required to outsource 25% or more of their work to countries that are deemed “emerging nations.”  Countries on this list include India, China, and Brazil. Ignore the Democrat rhetoric about outsourcing, the White House has decided that keeping these jobs away from American’s is good for the bottom line.  Considering his past works, shouldn’t Michael Moore be outraged, or at least curious, about this?

OUTSOURCED THAT

In his book, “Outsource This,” Michael Moore called companies who receive government tax breaks “corporate welfare mothers.”  With that said, he has been MIA on the subject of GE, a multi-billion dollar company, paying no corporate income tax in 2010.  Oh sure, he released a brief tweet or two on the subject, but this is far from the passionate crusades that had him blaming the Bush Administration for everything from giving the nation away to Wall Street to the conspiracies around the existence of Big Foot and how he may have factored into the Kennedy assassination.

If Michael Moore had a shred of intellectual honesty he would have his cameras on the steps of the White House, asking some very intriguing questions.  For example, how did Jeffrey R. Immelt, the CEO of General Electric, manage to not only completely escape any taxes on his company, but also somehow find himself the recipient of a presidential appointment as the Chairperson of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness.  Maybe some of those questions could involve the near half million dollars GE contributed to the Obama campaign, or maybe the priceless air support that Barry Hussein received from NBC News and MSNBC; both owned at the time by GE.  Naaaaaaah that’s simply not as compelling as making films that suggest that the Cuban health care system is better than the one in the USA.

SENIORS UNPLUGGED

The debate, passing, and signing into law of Obamacare was full of deception, payoffs, violations of the law, and the sort of ethics that would make Castro look like Gandhi by comparison.  This would be a target rich environment for any filmmaker who wanted to expose the government abuse.  What most folks, including Michael Moore, have missed is that health care shifts the class warfare debate to something a bit more evil than the haves vs. the have nots.  If Moore were to take the Al Franken blinders off and see what is going on, he would notice that the “class warfare” in health care has shifted from rich and poor to old and young.  In a recess appointment, Obama crowned Donald Berwick the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.  Berwick is an aggressive advocate of health care rationing.  His feelings on the issue became clear when he said “the decision is not whether or not we will ration care, the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”  To ensure that that rationing of care was institutionalized, the Senate rules were changed to protect the Independent Payment Advisory Board (the bureaucrats/death panel in charge of rationing).  It now takes a 2/3rds, super majority in congress to dissolve this board.

Despite what the liberals say, most of us have some say in whether we will fall into the rich or poor category.  We live in a meritocracy where hard work and innovation will allow most of us to take care of ourselves.  Most people who complain about the high cost of insurance premiums also seem to have cell phone accounts, upgraded cable packages, multiple televisions, etc.  So in many cases the decision between an iPhone data package with all the bells and whistles and paying for your own insurance simply comes down to what a person values.  In a rationed health care environment, where the young will get most of the services and the elderly will be treated like a beloved pooch who has outlived its usefulness, there is nothing we can do.  Ponce de León never found the fountain of youth so those who are retired will need to watch their backs when they stop paying into an overstressed system and begin simply accepting Social Security payments.  Their end of life care may become part of a government cost cutting effort.  There is probably a movie in there somewhere.  Of course not one that Michael Moore will ever make.

CLEAN MONEY AND UNION RUN LAUNDROMATS

Public sector unions give millions of dollars to Democrat candidates.  When Democrat candidates are elected, they give public sector unions sweetheart deals.  When the unions need more money, the same elected Democrats expand the size of their local governments, and bring in more union employees, whose dues will make their way into election war chests of Democrat candidates.  Workers, in most cases, have no choice whether or not they join a union, and have no control over what the union does with the dues they are forced to pay.  Does something seem wrong here?  Of course if Caterpillar or the Koch brothers dare give money to any conservative candidates, Moore will be there to cry foul.

THIN THIGHS IN THIRTY DAYS, THE MOVIE

This one is self explanatory.

——

Rep. Anthony Weiner and Bill Maher are both, obviously, looking down the road towards the inevitable ObamaCare fight in the Supreme Court and desperately hoping to craft some sort of conflict of interest narrative that might remove Justice Clarence Thomas – a likely vote for overturning that pile of steaming socialism – from the case. The Wall Street Journal’s John Fund not only destroys that desperate talking point with inconvenient facts about a judge on the notorious Ninth Circuit, but in a beautiful act of intellectual judo, he effectively throws down the feminist card … twice. 

Argue with that, Lefties!

I must say that with all the personal vitriol and venom we’ve seen directed towards conservative women and Blacks lately, it was impressive to see (outside of a couple of harmless jokes) a substance-based debate surrounding Mr. and Mrs. Thomas. Maher can talk about Glenn Beck’s behavior all he wants, but all of America knows that the only person melting down on cable right now is Chris Matthews. One can only imagine the spectacle that spittle-flecked ball of Bachmann rage would’ve made of himself had he been on the “Real Time” panel last night. Just hearing the names Clarence and Ginni Thomas would’ve likely split his skull wide open as he screamed “APOSTATE!”  Thankfully, Matthews wasn’t there, though, and this ended up being a pretty good discussion.  

It’s also worth noting that on the very same evening Maher declared an end to Palin’s political ascent, she was giving the speech of her life.

Finally, I know there aren’t a lot of Bill Maher fans in the Big Hollywood community, but give the man credit not only for inviting Fund on the show but for letting him get his points across. That’s something the so-called mainstream media rarely allows.

His op-ed skills, alas, need some fine tuning.

McMurtry took to the pages of The Washington Post this week to share his thoughts on the Tucson shooting and the ensuing cultural debate. He’s a longtime Tucson resident and felt he had something to add to the conversation.

“Brokeback Mountain” screenwriters Larry McMurtry, left, and Diana Ossana with director Ang Lee

On second thought …

His rambling essay contained the usual liberal bromides spelled out in convoluted fashion. And, worst of all, he apparently has serious misgivings about the free and unfettered political debates in this country. Why would an artist who makes his living with words fear a spirited body politic?

After a quick attack on Arizona’s lax gun restrictions – a subject wholly relevant to the matter at hand – McMurtry brings out his big guns.

Oh, sorry. Is that hate speech today?

He applauds Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik for blaming heated political rhetoric for the killings, even though the entire civilized world now knows there isn’t a microscopic scrap of evidence to bolster Dupnik’s case.

That doesn’t seem to bother McMurtry.

I thought that he was magnificent and his point obvious. Ask the Indians and the Mexicans; the latter are usually referred to as “illegal aliens,” though none of them comes from outer space.

Definition of “alien” from Dictionary.com:

1. a resident born in or belonging to another country who has not acquired citizenship by naturalization ( distinguished from citizen). 2. a foreigner. 3. a person who has been estranged or excluded. 4. a creature from outer space; extraterrestrial.

McMurtry recent wrote Books: A Memoir, which recalled his life-long love affair with texts as well as remembrances of his own book collections. Maybe the only edition missing from his book shelf is one written by that Webster fellow.

The Pulitzer Prize winning author then blames Arizona’s willingness to enforce its own border as part of the state’s violent mindset, using a massacre from 1871 to help buttress his case.

“This border has always been cruel,” he writes. “On Ajo Way car wrecks are frequent; the convenience stores sell memorial crosses.”

Wonder if he has any compassion for Arizona residents who deal with the wave of illegal “aliens” on their property, or the crimes a fraction of them commit? And why can’t a nation defend its borders? Does he consider the consequences if immigrants from every part of the world streamed into the country without any sort of control in place?

Of course, you know a slam on former Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin is mere syllables away.

“Palin has attacked journalists for suggesting that violent speech might provoke violent action – but mightn’t it?  We don’t know for sure.”

Actually, we do know for sure in this case. It didn’t. But the monster who shot 19 people Jan. 8 is on record as loving The Communist Manifesto and digging music from Drowning Pool. Where is McMurtry’s essay calling out either source for blame? Don’t hold your breath. Violent fiction doesn’t inspire murder. Criticism of ObamaCare just might, though.

Chalk McMurty up as a literary genius whose skills translate badly to the op-ed pages. He’s also yet another artist willing to use a tragedy to malign those who don’t agree with his ideology.

—–

But there’s another side to the good doctor, one recently revealed on “The Adam Carolla Podcast.” The Nov. 26 podcast, which reteamed Pinsky with his old “Loveline” partner, found the duo railing against government overreach while praising the free market system. You won’t find that kind of material on HLN’s “The Joy Behar Show.”

It’s grand news for conservatives, who might hear their opinions shared by that rare TV personality outside the Fox News bubble. And Pinsky isn’t a divisive figure like former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh. He’s not viewed through an ideological prism, so when he pontificates on a topic it has the chance to stir the independent crowd to action. He might even make a liberal or two rethink an entrenched opinion.

Behar likely won’t be swayed, though.

Pinsky sounded alternately defeated and outraged while discussing the state of the nation on the podcast.

“Our government does these crazy things … and we expect to be abused,” Pinsky says, his voice cracking with rage. “Do you know what the average federal employee makes, like, $120,000 a year and they get benefits. It’s ridiculous!”

Carolla discussed how, after the 1994 California earthquake damaged local highways, private contractors managed to rebuild a five-mile stretch of freeway at a remarkable clip.“The thing came in under budget and six months early. Why? Motivation,” Carolla explained about the hustle that made the project possible.

Left unsaid – imagine if government workers had been tasked with the assignment.

“In government, losing is winning. If you take longer you get paid more,” Pinsky says. “And we’re making the government bigger now? Really?”

Carolla used professional sports to buttress his argument about the free market.

“What would [players in] the NFL or NBA be like if they didn’t have a guy who was five years younger nipping at their heels?” Carolla asks. “In the absence of competition nobody does their job well.”

Pinsky brings an extensive background on medicine to any discussion, and he sounds horrified at the impact of Obamacare’s nest of new rules.

“Doctors will start fleeing Medicare starting January 1,” Pinsky warned, adding he‘s being pushed out of his own profession by over-regulation.

One of Pinsky’s podcast confessions could become a rallying point for his new show – and might make him a darling of the Right even if he doesn’t actively embrace an ideological point of view.

“I started obsessing about why I’m not doing something about this, how we just sit by and let stuff happens. We don’t speak up,” Pinsky says.

Come Spring 2011, he’ll be able to do just that.

—–

Dr. Drew not only has a new Headline News show, he’s also sounding more and more like a small government conservative/libertarian every day. Who can’t relate to his statement about all the government hassles involved in simply improving YOUR OWN HOME. the ObamaCare prediction is chilling, however, because it makes so much sense.

As the old joke goes, if America screws up her health care system, where will Canadians and wealthy European socialists go?

More over at Three Fingers of Politics

—–

There’s something disturbingly Being John Malkovich about Griffith’s Being Andy Taylor routine in these ads. That said, you have to credit the ObamaCare marketing team for this stroke of advertising genius. How do you best sell a wildly unrealistic, Utopian health-care fantasy to a resistant American public? You hire the beloved star of a beloved show set in a beloved, unrealistic, Utopian fantasy town, naturally.

Or do you?

Because, paradoxically, that’s exactly what’s wrong with hiring Sheriff Taylor to pitch ObamaCare. Mayberry was an alien, antiseptic fantasy-land of normalcy run amok. Even by the pristine naive standards of rural 1960, that America never existed.

Having Andy Griffith cooing at us over the benefits of ObamaCare makes about as much sense as having Ray Walston (Bill Bixby’s “Uncle” Martin of My Favorite Martian) don his rabbit ear antennae to soft-soap us on the now mercifully moribund cap-and-trade bill. (Although Sheriff Taylor and Uncle Martin do have one thing in common—neither creature was of this world.)

—–

Now had the Obama ad team instead used Andy’s other celebrated TV persona –Ben Matlock — to hawk ObamaCare, it might have had a fighting chance. I don’t know about you, but I always preferred cranky Ben to stuffy Andy. Matlock was far better company than the asexual, forever-moralizing, holier-than-thou Taylor. (Come to think of it, Andy sounds an awful lot like the President.)

Compared to Andy Taylor, Ben Matlock had personality. First of all, he’d stick up for you—even if he thought it possible you’d killed someone. Sheriff Taylor might toss you in jail for littering or jaywalking. Matlock was always getting people out of jail, helping you fight the system; Andy was the system.

In addition to their differing views on the highest and best use of jail cells, Matlock was human. He had flaws. A wildly successful and wealthy defense attorney, nevertheless the man was too cheap to own more than one light-gray suit or spend more than a few bucks on lunch—a dubious-looking hot dog purchased from a two-bit street vendor with a push-cart.  (By the way, in Obama’s czarist America that street vendor and his dangerous wares would have been regulated out of business long ago.)

—–

Matlock usually demanded his fee (or a healthy chunk of it) up-front. He understood the free market capitalist system was the best arbiter of individual freedom—literally. He could get you found not guilty, but you’d have to pay for it. Liberty had a price, the same way a carton of eggs did. Unlike in Mayberry, in the Land of Matlock there was no such thing as a free acquittal.

Ben was cantankerous, avaricious and, the way he ogled some of the hot young things around the office, even borderline lecherous. In short, he was lovable. He reminded us of us.

Sheriff Taylor on the other hand was all sanctimony, condescension and platitudes. (Sound like anyone we know?) Since I was never a big fan of The Andy Griffith Show, I don’t know how Sheriff Taylor wound up a widower. But my guess is he bored his wife to death—either with all those cloying renditions of dusty Americana prairie songs like “Turkey in the Straw” or with that annoying self-congratulatory altruism. Regardless of how he did it, I’m thinking not even Matlock could have gotten Taylor off that murder rap.

 As Ayn Rand wrote in The Virtue of Selfishness,

Only a rationally selfish man, a man of self-esteem, is capable of love—because he is the only man capable of holding firm, consistent, uncompromising, unbetrayed values. The man who does not value himself, cannot value anything or anyone.

Ben Matlock was a selfish, greedy, petulant sonofabitch. But if he had tried to sell me on ObamaCare, I’d probably have gone all in.

Still, something tells me Ben wouldn’t have cared much for the ironically-named Patient Protection (sic) and Affordable (sic) Care Act. Lifelong skinflints have a way of sniffing out a terrible waste of money.

Too bad, though. Because I’d give anything to see the episode where Matlock shouts down the Federal Hot Dog Coronary Endangerment Panel.

Two examples:

In 1978, a young director named Michael Cimino ascended to the very tippity-top of Tinseltown adulation with his sophomore directing effort “The Deer Hunter,” which triumphed at the box office and that year’s Oscars. Subsequently, everyone in Hollywood wanted to be like Mike. And yet, a mere two years after his out-of-nowhere rise to the top and flushed with the power of his own invincibility, Cimono went on a then-unprecedented spending spree to produce the ill-conceived “Heaven’s Gate” which would not only become the biggest financial debacle in all of Hollywood history, but effectively destroy an entire studio, United Artists. 

And thus ended Hollywood’s love affair with Michael Cimino. Oh, he would go on to make a few more films but by most definitions, the toast of Hollywood’s career was all but dead and he would never truly receive a second chance.

Fast-forward to 2008 when a young Senator named Barack Obama ascended to the very tippity-top of Hollywood adulation and won the highest office in the land. Everyone in left-wing Hollywood wanted to be like Barack. And then, right after his out-of-nowhere rise to the top, while still flushed with the power of his own invincibility, President Obama went on an unprecedented spending spree to produce the ill-conceived Heaven’s Gate of economic plans which would become the biggest financial debacle in generations and the Waterworld of health care plans which would prove to be more unpopular than some diseases. Overnight, the net result of both would all but destroy the hard-earned gains of the Democrat Party in a single midterm election.

And thus ended Hollywood’s love affair with Barack Obama.

It’s been almost a week since the election, the President is obviously licking his wounds over the “shellacking” he took, and where are all his Hollywood pals? Where’s the public Hollywood support, especially when the President needs it most…?

Where’s the “We’re Still With You!” Will.I’Am video?

Where’s Ashton Kutcher’s “We Still Post-Midterm Pledge Our Allegiance to Barack Obama” Celeb-u-Tard-YouTube-a-thon? 

When will those creepy Venice, California neighbors Mao their kids together again to buck up the Precious One?

“Funny or Die” can’t produce one quick, painfully self-conscious unfunny ”Die” to buck their guy up some?

While I’m sure his ego appreciated it, Obama certainly didn’t need a bunch of shallow preeners attaching their little pinko wagons to his star while he was on the rise and especially after he had reached the top. Now is when he could use some public support, but thus far Hollywood’s nowhere to be found. Unfortunately for the President, he’s no longer boffo at the box office– in fact, he’s box office poison — and standing by the Chief Executive of Epic Failure is not a Hollywood resume enhancer.

Most confusing for Obama must be the fact that he did absolutely everything Hollywood asked him to when it came to exponentially expanding the size of the federal government and socializing our health care system. But doing what Hollywood expects of you is not enough. Failure will still strip you of your mojo and the result is always the same: the left-wing celeb community flees from you like a Brownie Troop from Roman Polanski … which is far from a perfect analogy. After all, even though he’s a child rapist, Polanski still enjoys plenty of Hollywood public support because he’s successful — successful at getting films made and winning his actors awards.

Poor Barack, in Hollywood today he doesn’t even rate above a child rapist.