The Second Banana

Earlier this week, Vice President Joe Biden attended a fundraiser for Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.). During the course of his predictably bizarre and occasionally worrying (This is the guy the Democrats feel comfortable allowing within a heartbeat of the Oval Office?) remarks, Biden claimed: “Republicans have changed the law so you get arrested if you do vote.” To be fair, anything that falls out of Ol’ Plugsy’s blowhole has to be taken with a grain of salt the size of the Superdome; but he’s not exactly breaking new rhetorical ground for the Democrats. All he’s really doing is giving the Biden treatment to a talking point the Democrats have deployed in order to frighten the less — ahem — aware among us back onto the liberal plantation.

But Biden’s latest verbal miscue — which the liberal-constructed pool reports suggested was “apparently” a joke — is miniscule in comparison to the Democrats’ miscue in letting him mingle with unprotected citizens unsupervised. If the endless parade of scandals, failures and outright crimes that have defined President Barack Obama’s tenure to date don’t give voters a case of the shivers, the fact that Biden’s name will probably remain on the ticket ought to. Biden is Dan Quayle with worse hair, or John Edwards with worse hair and fewer “baby mamas.”

There’s an old saw in American politics: “Your running mate can’t help you, but he can hurt you.” Ask George H.W. Bush, whose decision to promote then-Indiana Senator Quayle from the golf course to the Naval Observatory actually made the ridiculous Michael Dukakis seem slightly less like a practical joke. What the saw leaves out is the modern corporate media’s virtually absolute obedience to the Democratic Party. Biden is the biggest public train wreck to even sniff the Vice President’s digs since Senator Thomas Eagleton (George McGovern’s running mate for just over two weeks in 1972) endured his last round of shock treatment. And yet, Biden’s buffoonish antics — be they racist remarks, half-witted attempts to explain away academic fraud, public profanities in grossly inappropriate moments or even his notoriously poor grasp of basic spelling and history — are seldom reported by the corporate media. When they are, they’re usually treated as pure entertainment, like a sideshow at an old-school carnival.

The 2008 election featured the most witheringly misogynistic assaults on a major party Vice Presidential candidate in my lifetime. Even Geraldine Ferraro, who couldn’t have damaged the already laughable Walter Mondale’s Presidential aspirations, was subjected to fire over her politics, not her gender nor her children; a statement which certainly can’t be made about the Democrats’ repugnantly anti-woman treatment of Governor Sarah Palin (jokes about her grandson’s Down syndrome? Where’s the punch line?). And the person presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney taps for the second banana spot should prepare himself to run a gauntlet that makes a visit to the proctologist seem like a dinner date by comparison.

To be honest, Biden isn’t so much frightening as he is embarrassing. He’s a living testament to the abject lack of respect Obama and the Democrats have for America and Americans. The idea that such an oaf would be allowed anywhere near the “nuclear football” without a visitor’s badge and an armed guard ought to embarrass the Democrats — not the rest of us. Romney can’t do worse; but he can do much, much better. He can choose a running mate who doesn’t make us pine for Quayle — or, God save us — Mondale. Sometime in the near future, I’m going to examine the field of potential Romney running mates in my own inimitable style — presuming Mr. Livingston doesn’t replace me with some syndicated gossip columnist. In the meantime, enjoy Biden’s floor show. Maybe he’ll do another one of those “duets” with Neil Kinnock.

–Ben Crystal

Red, White And Ugly

Last week, the abominable Fred Phelps and his miserable band of Westboro Baptist Church minions made noises about bringing their caravan of crazy to College Station, Texas, in order to let their freak flags fly near the funeral of fallen Lt. Col. Roy Tisdale. As word leaked out, some enterprising Texas A&M students took to social networking sites to organize a gathering to counter the Westboro lunatics’ planned desecration of the solemn event.

The students’ plan worked with flying colors. Hundreds of Aggies lined the road to shield mourners from whatever verbal manure Phelps and his cretins might try to spew. A “maroon wall” of Aggies of all shapes and sizes showed up. One participant tweeted that there were more than 650 people in attendance. The Texas A&M response was so successful that Phelps pulled the plug on his planned sideshow and skipped the Tisdale funeral entirely.

As I discussed Phelps and his creepy congregants with acquaintances, it occurred to me that I don’t know a single person, even among the most redoubtably liberal, who hold Phelps in higher regard than they do something truly vile — like a puddle of vomit or Al Sharpton. One pal offered: “Just kill this psycho and be done with it. (President Barack) Obama and (Attorney General Eric) Holder (are allegedly accomplices of the narcoterrorists who) killed a border agent; you think they’d have any trouble offing these nutjobs?”

I’m willing to admit, his idea has merit. After all, it’s hard to imagine anyone pining away for Phelps after he’s gone; and the human species won’t suffer from the pinching off of Freddie’s badly diluted bloodline. In fact, my own thoughts tend toward sealing the Westboro building with plastic wrap and then locking Phelps and his shrieking, lawyer-harpy daughter along with the rest of his twisted followers inside the building with a year’s supply of chili, deviled eggs and Mountain Dew™ and a television that shows only “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Planning the demise of someone like Phelps is pure folly. He’s interesting — in the way a five-car pileup on the interstate is “interesting.” But in a Nation that takes political advice from Oprah Winfrey, Phelps is strictly Branson, Mo., in a Hollywood world. Phelps possesses enough charisma to convince some truly pathetic souls to follow him down the road to perdition. Put Freddie onstage at the next Netroots Nation hate-speech gathering, and he’d fade like Tom Cruise’s hopes for Suri to be named the second coming of L. Ron Hubbard. Consider it: Phelps is almost universally despised. Meanwhile, Sharpton has a television show, Nancy Pelosi is a 13-term Congresswoman and Michael Moore (the Leni Riefenstahl of liberalism) is an Oscar-winning multimillionaire. Louis Farrakhan has an army of devoted followers. George Soros’ tentacles reach into a wide array of Democratic-adjunct hate groups who serve as rhetorical bludgeons for what used to be the fringe left and is now the power of the Democratic Party. Dan Savage is hailed as an anti-bullying expert. Holder thinks he’s above the law. Obama thinks he’s above us all.

Since we can’t simply bump off people we collectively recognize would benefit the world by not being on it, how do we deal with the truly loathsome among us? Specifically, how do we respond to the bottom-feeders who are just as repugnant as Phelps but more charismatic? As I mentioned before, killing is ruled out. In addition to the fact that even Phelps (not to mention the others) has the Constitutional right to act like an absolute jackass, murder (even the murder of supremely annoying and/or repulsive people) is illegal — unless you’re the Attorney General. Instead, we can and should all take a lesson from the Aggies. We should acknowledge the scum that floats on the American pond, wall it off and wave as it fades from view. Call it “Skimming the Pool of Patriotism” (or whatever). We’ll start this November.

–Ben Crystal

Moving At The Speed Of Government

Now that Obamacare is (at least for the time being) the law of the land, the Federal government has for the first time acquired the authority to penalize — er… tax — the citizenry for behavior the government deems unhealthy.

Except the government has long held the ability to penalize people for acting in a manner that runs contrary to accepted norms for healthy living. You aren’t allowed to shoot heroin, smoke crack or even light up a joint on your back porch on a smooth summer’s night. But those examples are interwoven in our quixotic “War on Drugs,” the effect of which is a discussion for another time. Besides, I don’t really need the government to tell me that shooting heroin is a bad idea. An occasional look at Tommy Lee is all the reminder I need.

But Obamacare opens the door for a far more invasive kind of government involvement in my behavior. If the government can penalize — er… tax — me for not buying health insurance, how long before they can penalize — er… tax — me for not buying enough broccoli? And how long before they decide that I drink too much Scotch? And what happens if I refuse to buy more roughage and less of the Highland’s finest? Certainly, the government can’t track my habits (dietary or otherwise) and employ some sort of sinister technology that could give it a way not only into my kitchen, but into the grocery cart and even the liquor store? To paraphrase increasingly imperious and imperial President Barack Obama: Yes, they can.

The French already have. Beginning in November, all French automobiles must be equipped with a Breathalyzer. In France, alcohol-related incidents are purportedly responsible for one-third of all road fatalities. Rather than focusing on the individuals who break the law by getting pickled and sliding behind the wheel, the French government is proceeding on the assumption that all Frenchmen are drunken morons who think they can channel Jacques Villeneuve every time they turn the ignition. Given the French people’s relationship with wine — they start them young in France — and the fact that a vast majority of the French seem to sport the same me-first attitude we Americans reserve for second wives and Democratic politicians, perhaps the French government should simply take away everyone’s car and make them walk off that case of bitchiness they contracted around 1946.

In Obama’s socialist utopia, the government — meaning Obama — would be able install a breathalyzer in your car and a “broccolyzer” in your shopping cart. Perhaps it would even be able to implant in you a device that would beam nutrition information back to a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services server. Go to the store and try to turn down the Pop-Tarts aisle, and the implant can deliver a corrective response: perhaps an electric shock or a 10-minute audio clip of Al Gore reading Earth in the Balance. The real tragicomic centerpiece is the fact that I am not exaggerating in the least. Liberals have already made shocking inroads into our lives. Fast food, soda and high-sugar content foods are already well on their way to joining narcotics on the verboten list. Of course, the government wants you to think such draconian responses are in your best interest. With the newly won legal, legislative and authoritative status of Obamacare, government can do something about it; and you had better believe it will relish the task.

Government is slow and inefficient by nature; some would say by design. Consider how long it takes to get through the line at the Department of Motor Vehicles, how long sections of Interstate 95 have been under construction and how many people with titles beginning with “deputy,” “assistant” or “deputy assistant” work at the U.S. Department of Justice. But government in the post-Obamacare era will surprise you. Consider it: Refuse to buy government-mandated insurance, and you’ll find out just how efficient government can be when it comes to taking your money — and your freedom — from you.

–Ben Crystal

Chief Justice Roberts And The Final Lesson

Ask the right Republican (I’m looking at you, Erick Erickson) and he’ll tell you that, on Thursday, Chief Justice John Roberts didn’t murder the Constitutional separation of powers that has kept this country from either falling into the sort of state that would welcome back King George III with open arms or devolving into open conflict. According to a number of self-described conservatives and Roberts apologists, he did the opposite. In declaring Obamacare a tax (as opposed to the penalty President Barack Obama proffered in lower Federal court proceedings), Roberts deftly handed the reins of authority back to Congress. By RINO logic, Roberts correctly surmised that since taxing power lies within the purview of the legislative branch rather than the executive, declaring Obamacare’s central tenet a “tax” ensured that Congress could choke off Obamacare like a Planned Parenthood butcher chokes off unborn children (and likely with similar glee).

Begging your pardon, my fine fair-weather friends, but that is a steaming load of the sort of stuff Al Sharpton smears on teenage girls. In order to save individual liberties and the fiscal future of the Republic, Roberts gave the contents of the National safe to the Stalinist thugs who broke through the door. Perhaps he thought that would spur the rest of us to rise up and collectively toss the Democratic home invaders back on the lawn. But as anyone who lives in a Democratic-majority city knows, once the bad guys get in the house, they’ll leave only with all of your belongings or a bellyful of lead. (I recommend .12 gauge buckshot for your home-defense needs.)

Presuming the RINOs are correct, we’re supposed to believe that one of our own “roofied” us and set us down amid a group of politicos which includes Bill Clinton — all in an effort to teach us a lesson about Constitutional dictates. Should that be the case, Roberts has accomplished his goal in an inappropriate manner, and he’s identified himself as the worst sort of turncoat. You don’t set your house on fire to teach the kids a lesson about playing with matches too close to the drapes.

And Roberts’ overly accommodating accomplices will have to pardon me: We don’t require the lesson. Judging by the unpopularity of Obamacare among the majority of Americans, most of us already understood that such bureaucratic behemoths threaten civil liberties the way the Internal Revenue Service is going to threaten taxpayers who defy the Imperial Presidency. (And won’t it be exciting when the first IRS strike team runs into citizens who employ their 2nd Amendment rights to defend the rest?) Those who support Obamacare vote for Democrats. So as long as those voters have no responsibilities, they’re more than happy to let an increasingly despotic government constrict their rights.

I suspect Roberts had no intention of instructing Americans on the dangers of leaving our civil liberties in plain sight of the Democratic pickpockets. Quite the opposite: He was punting. In granting his approval to Obamacare, Roberts said: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” Combine the fact that most Americans wanted little to do with Obama’s reanimation of Hillarycare’s corpse with the Democrats’ deep unpopularity that began with the 2010 Congressional elections, and you’ll see that no one asked Roberts and the Supreme Court to do so. And we’re well on the way to correcting the political mistakes we made in 2008 on a more permanent level come November.

–Ben Crystal

Send Obama South Of The Border

Whether you think the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration enforcement law is a victory for those on the side of American sovereignty and security or a victory for President Barack Obama and his Democratic accomplices, the losers will be the same bunch who always end up south of the border when Obama wipes his feet with the Constitution: the millions of Americans whose lives are less valuable to Obama than the potential support (read: votes) of illegal aliens and their racist enablers.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision to split the baby on Arizona’s efforts to do the Federal government’s job, Obama bestowed upon us subjects another reminder of his evolving disregard for not only the law, but the Constitution — just in case there was anyone left who didn’t already notice his royal Obamaness’ view on the subject.

An anonymous source inside the Obama Administration said: “We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities. … We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona.”

The heck with the law, the Bill of Rights and the reasonable need of the citizens of the United States to be secure. Simply violating the law is no longer a standard for deportation. In Obama’s America, an illegal alien has to meet some murky — and conveniently undefined — “defined priorities.” In an era in which the President, his Attorney General and myriad other members of the Democratic Party have turned flouting the law into business as usual, it is hard to imagine what an illegal alien could do to earn a ticket home. As both Obama and Eric Holder have demonstrated, not even murdering border agents is necessarily enough.

Last week, Obama decided to sidestep Congress and grant extra-Constitutional amnesty to nearly 2 million illegal aliens. This week, he announced that the Feds will step up their efforts to fiddle while the frontier burns. The Supreme Court ruling opened the door for Arizona law enforcement officials to check the status of arrestees if they suspect the arrestees are illegal aliens. Obama slammed it in their faces.

And Obama will be doubling down on his effort to assuage illegal alien “rights” groups by disbanding the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona that allow local law enforcement to enforce immigration law in the absence of Federal availability. That means that every time an illegal is apprehended in Arizona, the police will have to contact the Department of Homeland Security for an immigration status check. Obama has directed his minions to violate the law by refusing to carry out said checks unless the suspect carries a prior felony conviction. Anyone with an IQ higher than Rachel Maddow (that’s a lot of people) will recognize that most illegal aliens don’t earn felony convictions until after they arrive. Therefore, Arizona will either fill its jails to overflowing with illegal aliens or be forced to set them loose to commit more crimes, consume taxpayer-funded social resources and/or vote for Democrats in multiple precincts.

In an effort to punish his political enemies in Arizona and pander to liberal hate groups who demand amnesty for illegal aliens, Obama has decreed that Federal enforcement of existing, albeit underenforced, immigration statutes will essentially cease. Obama decided to stick it to Governor Jan Brewer, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the good people of Arizona for supporting their State’s effort to pick up the ball deliberately fumbled by the Feds. It’s high time to show Obama the south side of the political border.

–Ben Crystal

The Fast And The Spurious X: Oh, Yes, They Did!

Last Thursday’s White House press briefing was a fairly standard affair. Pressed by the few reporters in attendance whose primary concern was neither parroting Democratic talking points nor fixing their hair, President Barack Obama’s chief sock puppet Jay Carney awkwardly attempted to portray the Operation Fast and Furious scandal as a “fishing expedition.” Carney lied, feigned ignorance, sneered, whined and mocked the overwhelming number of Americans who want answers about Obama’s gift of weapons to Mexican narcoterrorists. In other words, it was another Thursday in the Obama White House.

And then, Carney treated observers to what his boss might have called a “teachable moment.” During his faux-casual dismissal of the disastrous OFF and its tragic consequences, Carney forgot border agent and OFF victim Brian Terry’s name.

We already know that neither Obama nor Holder has apologized to Terry’s family for the murder of their son at the hands of narcoterrorists armed by the Obama Administration. We also know from recent events that senior members of the Obama Administration have repeatedly lied to the Nation and to Congress about the development and implementation of OFF. Holder perjured himself — oops, “misspoke” — on at least three separate occasions. And in recent days, we have watched as the Democratic Party has thrown in with Obama and Holder for better or worse (much, much worse) on the whole affair. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi concocted the theory that the entire investigation is a Republican conspiracy:

They’re going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states…It is a plan on the part of Republicans. These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote.

Pelosi didn’t offer an explanation as to how bringing the Obama Administration to justice for OFF would keep Democrats from voting as early and often as they normally do, but I’m still waiting for her to offer an explanation as to how she sneaks out of the psych ward each morning. The Democrats’ television outlet — MSNBC — said no scandal exists. Of course, MSNBC thinks filming Ed Schultz working out what appear to be some fairly serious issues makes for good television.

Most of this knowledge can be gleaned from simple knowledge of the Democratic Party. Consumed by rage at perceived “unfairness,” guided by obscenely wealthy hypocrites who buy votes and control in the form of what they call “public assistance” and we call “a taxpayer-funded hammock” they see literally everything in political terms. Their by-any-means-necessary theory of political power causes them to react to opposition with distraction, slander and/or outright fraud. But OFF is different. Unlike the other myriad scandals that have defined the Obama Administration — from Obamacare to illegally offered amnesty for illegal aliens — OFF seems ridiculous on its face. Career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agents warned against it. The shop owners forced to assist warned against it. And Obama — well, the as-yet-unnamed sap who will likely take the fall for Obama — ignored their advice and went ahead with the program anyway. It’s hardly a secret that OFF didn’t just fail; it failed like Chris Matthews on “Jeopardy.”

But why did Obama go through with it in the first place? Even if the goal was to create a crisis to which he could respond by clamping down on the Bill of Rights, why hand weapons to members of Mexican drug cartels (hardly a circumspect bunch when it comes to killing)? Moreover, why try to cover it up afterward? Anyone self-important enough to smile while trampling the Constitution as routinely as Obama does should hardly care if he gets caught doing so.

And that’s the lesson Carney offered last Thursday when he demonstrated Obama’s complete lack of concern for the real victims of OFF. They did it all for one simple reason — the reason that drives the Democrats (particularly the current crop running wild in Washington) to visit upon the rest of us virtually every scandal, every violation of our civil liberties, every imperial decree and every crime they’ve gladly committed: because they can. God save us if we don’t disabuse them of that notion in November.

–Ben Crystal

Lawyerball: The First Thing We Do

Two years ago, a woman named Elizabeth Lloyd sat down at a picnic table next to a Little League field in Manchester Township, N.J. Not long after, an 11-year-old catcher named Matthew Migliaco began warming up a pitcher in the bullpen next to Lloyd. And then, tragedy struck. Well, perhaps not tragedy. Tragedy implies human suffering on a grand scale. Had young Master Migliaco suddenly fired a rocket-propelled grenade at Lloyd, that would have been tragic. If the young backstopper had lept the fence with a bat and set to Lloyd the way Trayvon Martin — ahem, allegedly — set to George Zimmerman, that would have been tragic. No, what happened was purely an accident. An errant toss by Matthew hit Lloyd. Oops! A bad throw by an 11-year old. Bummer. The normal response would likely entail wincing, spitting out a stream of verbiage one would normally want to keep from using next to a Little League baseball field, an angry return throw and then a trip home to put a bag of frozen peas on the affected area.

But Lloyd is one of an increasingly large number of Americans who thumb their rhetorical noses at “normal” on their way to the courtroom. Two years after Matthew accidentally hit her, Lloyd and her husband are demanding $150,000 for medical costs and punitive remuneration for pain, suffering and something her husband, a party to the suit, calls a loss of “services, society and consortium.” I’m no lawyer, but I’m going to guess that means Lloyd, once viewed by her husband as the Gisele Bundchen to his Tom Brady, is now less appealing to him than a week at a nudist colony with Roseanne Barr.

Lloyd took a baseball in the kisser while sitting next to a baseball field in use by a group of 10- and 11-year-old baseball players. As anyone who’s watched The Bad News Bears is already aware, 10- and 11-year-old baseball players tend not to possess the talent — much less the aim — of Derek Jeter. Therefore, sitting next to a field on which a game between two teams loaded with the best talent the local plumbing-supply house can sponsor would carry with it what one lawyer friend of mine described as “an assumption of risk.”

Yet Lloyd believes Matthew targeted her with the malice of Randy Johnson staring down a rookie who’s crowding the plate, and she and her husband managed to find a lawyer willing to charge the proverbial mound. Their attorney is the kind of roach-with-a-briefcase who illuminates the reasoning behind Shakespeare’s famous line from Henry VI, Part II, Act IV, scene ii: “The first thing we do is kill all the lawyers.” The Lloyds’ lawyer is merely the latest in a long line of ambulance chasers who tear this country apart bit by bit — another galling example of the parasites who ply the emergency rooms and emblazon bus stop benches and phone book covers with their grinning mugs, looking for their next slip-and-fall payday.

These are the foot soldiers in the liberal campaign to turn us into a Nation of squabbling twerps who can turn even the most innocent mishap into a battle royale of mistrust, resentment and recrimination. While the Lloyds’ decision to abduct Matthew’s innocence and dump it in a ditch is appalling, it’s hardly isolated. Of course, the granddaddy of all idiotic lawsuits would be the infamous case in which a woman sued McDonald’s after she spilled hot coffee in her lap and burned herself. That she won close to $3 million is testament only to the perverse courtroom skills of her attorney and the frighteningly high number of exceptionally stupid people in the jury pool. Perhaps the most famous of the practitioners of this sort of law would be former Democratic Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards, who made an estimated $50 million pile while convincing juries to reward his clients for all manner of questionable ills.

And the Lloyds’ lawyer, much like Edwards and the rest of their legal-beagling siblings, are sucking the life out of us all. When someone takes the case of Lloyd vs. Migliaco, America’s Pastime, et al., a little of the joy in all of us dies. Baseball fields get shrouded in protective rubber matting to protect picknickers. Then the players themselves get wrapped in the stuff as well. Baseball begins to (as an 11-year-old might put it): “like, totally suck big time.” They go home and play Xbox all day. They get fat, and then their parents sue Microsoft for making the Xbox. Little League folds, and the commissioner gets so upset that he spills his coffee in his lap and burns himself. He sues McDonald’s, and the cycle continues.

Someone sits down next to a Little League field, gets hit by a baseball and sues the ballplayer. Someone else spills hot coffee in his lap and sues McDonald’s. Someone else slips in your driveway and sues you, the driveway contractor and anyone else their attorney can hit with a tsunami of paper.

Don’t mistake my intent. I would part with The Bard and acknowledge that not all lawyers need killin’. Beyond the defenders of decency in the civil courtrooms, our justice system needs someone to stand up for society in the criminal docket as well. If we abandon the legal profession to the Johnny Cochrans of the world, who will guide the jury to recognizing that the only real choice should have been about into which of O.J. Simpson’s arms to stick the needle? In fact, the Simpson murder trial is a perfect example: Simpson had the master showmen Cochran and Robert Shapiro. And justice retorted with Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden.

We need decent people to stand in a courtroom when one of Edwards’ colleagues demands $3 million for pain and suffering caused by spilled hot coffee to respond with a legally appropriate version of: “The plaintiff is a doofus.” For every Edwards, we need an Antonin Scalia to talk the jury off the roof. For every ambulance chaser whose chosen profession has pushed malpractice insurance — hence, healthcare costs — into the stratosphere, we need a dignified jurist to remind people that “yes, the patient has a reduced quality of life following his heart surgery, but he is alive, and it’s a good thing the surgeon didn’t go to law school instead.” And for every Elizabeth Lloyd and her attorney, there must be someone with an understanding of both basic decency and the law who can stand up and remind the jury that she was sitting next to a baseball field on which 11-year-olds were playing — of all things — baseball, a sport in which baseballs are routinely used and often leave the field of play.

It would be a dereliction of duty if I didn’t note the political bent of the sort of people who sue Little League baseball players when their clients are hit by flying baseballs. They’re the same attorneys who filed the lawsuits against McDonald’s for hot coffee and the same who filed suit against McDonald’s on behalf of parents with fat kids. They’re Edwards, Cochran (were he still alive) and Shapiro. They’re also Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama. They bend, twist and deform the law to assuage their greed for money and/or power. And they crush the dreams of Little League players, force doctors into the poorhouse, deny justice to murder victims and diminish the quality of the lives of virtually everyone with whom they cross professional paths.

Even if Matthew successfully fends off the Lloyds’ abominably frivolous lawsuit, they and the lawyer who took their case have stolen a big chunk of Matthew’s childhood. We all lost a little bit when Matthew was served with the papers for this suit. We all lose a little bit every time some lawyer plays the lawsuit lottery like this. All of us, that is, except the lawyers.

Maybe Shakespeare was right all along.

–Ben Crystal