Top 3 Political Turkeys

In honor of Thanksgiving, I thought it would be fun for everyone to list their top 3 political turkeys of 2009. So in the comments, list 3 people (or groups), and why they made your "political turkey" list. Here's my top three (or 4), in ascending order:

3. Mark Sanford/Sarah Palin

What? 2 Republicans made Devin's list? Yes folks, that's right. Gov. Mark Sanford is a no-brainer. His political star burned out just about as quick as it caught fire. While lying to his staff earlier this summer about going on a supposed hike on the Appalachian trail, Sanford really was meeting up with his Argentine "soul mate." Sanford walked out on his wife, his four sons, and his state. Sadly, it seems like sex scandals are the only bipartisan phenomena in politics these days.

While she has stayed true to her husband and family, Palin makes my list for quitting right in the middle of her term and for her incredibly embarrassing exit press conference. I think this move will come back to haunt her if she decides to throw her hat in the ring for 2012. I like Palin, but she needs to spend less time selling books, magazine covers, doing interviews, and playing the victim, and more time sharpening her political teeth - something a governor of a state does.

2. Nancy Pelosi

Ah yes, Queen Nancy, Speaker of the House. She makes the list for breaking her promise to post huge spending initiatives online like the so-called stimulus package and now the health care reform bill at least 72 hours before voting to give not only the public time to read it, but those who actually vote on it as well! She also makes the list for accusing the CIA of lying to her and actually getting away with that kind of an accusation with no consequences or investigations. I wouldn't be surprised if she made Joe Biden's list for jumping up and down like a jack-in-the-box everytime Obama delivers a "prime time" speech either!

1. Barack Hussein Obama

Mmmm, mmmm, mmmmm. My reasons for putting him #1 on this list are well-documented on this blog. You name it, anything from the endless campaign promises broken (I don't feel that betrayed - I didn't vote for him), to cramming unpopular policies down our throats, to tripling the national deficit, to incessantly hijacking the airwaves and tv channels, to repeatedly bowing to foreign rulers, to nationalizing the auto industry, to leaving out troops and generals hanging on Afghanistan, to arguing with dictionaries about definitions, to perpetuating the "too big to fail" lie, and the list goes on and on. While there have been some decisions he's made that I'm ok with, they have been very few and far between. 2012 can't come soon enough!

Happy Thanksgiving everybody.

Why All the Craziness?

This was old but I thought it was an interesting interview.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 1
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 2
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Exclusive - Lou Dobbs Extended Interview Pt. 3
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

So what do you guys think? Are all the so-called "tea-baggers" right to be afraid of "losing their country" or is it just extremist conspiracy theories from "divisive" figures?

Alice Holder

I can't help myself.

1. Holder wants KSM tried in Federal District Court

2. To restore our image in the world as just and fair and open

3. By affording KSM the rights of any criminal defendant in an Article III court

4. Including the presumption of innocence

5. But without even the possible risk of an acquittal

6. Because the evidence is so strong and the prosecutors so wonderful that

7. "Failure is not an option."

Way to achieve your goal, Holder!

The world probably already loves our Wonderland justice:

"Sentence first. Verdict later."

Eric Holder Gets Owned

The Congressional hot seat completely melted the Attorney General Eric Holder today. Asked to defend his moronic, unprecedented, nonsensical, and reckless decision to try the 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) in a NY federal court as if he were a garden-variety criminal, Holder uh, well, he umm, uh, well, watch for yourself:



Andy McCarthy, a former U.S. Attorney who knows a thing or two about this topic (he successfully prosecuted the Blind Sheik in the aftermath of the WTC bombings) responded to Holder's performance in front of the Committee today:

"What made the United States most vulnerable in the Nineties was our enemies' perception that they were at war and we were not. They gave us bombs and death, we gave them rights. That encouraged them to attack us more often and more audaciously — which is exactly what they did. If we are at war, and the Attorney General said this morning that we are, we have to treat it like a war. Pressed by Sen. Graham, the AG could not name a single time when, during war, we captured an enemy combatant outside the U.S. and brought him into the United States for a civilian trial — vesting him with all the rights of an American citizen. That's because that hasn't happened. That's not how you treat wartime enemies.

Further, if we are going to have military commissions at all (and Holder says we will continue to have them), it makes no sense to transfer the worst war criminals to the civilian system. Doing so tells the enemy that they will get more rights if they mass-murder civilians."

This decision is wrong on so many levels, and I would invite anyone who reads this who thinks this is a smart move to try and do a better job defending it than the AG himself did today.

Stimulus Fantasy Land

I had to laugh (to keep from crying) when I saw the title of this ABC News article: "Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts that Don't Exist." Everyone knows that the administration is falling all over itself trying to further the facade that the "stimulus" package has created or saved tens of thousands of jobs, a position that becomes harder to defend now that the unemployment rate has surpassed 10% and continues to climb. Unsurprisingly, it is well-documented that the numbers on recovery.org for jobs "created or saved" have been wildly inflated and over-exaggerated. But the government has one-upped itself, citing these 'created or saved' stats (borderline fantasy in their own right) in fantasy congressional districts to drum up support for the failed spendulus package on recovery.org.

This has rubbed powerful democrats on the Hill the wrong way. Rep. David Obey, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, had this to say: "The inaccuracies on recovery.gov that have come to light are outrageous and the Administration owes itself, the Congress, and every American a commitment to work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes."

You want to know the saddest part of this whole story? A taxpayer-funded grant of $18 million was given to fund recovery.org. I'm thrilled to know taxpayer dollars are being spent to perpetuate "waste, fraud, and abuse." And we want these guys to run our health care system?

On Hasan, Conclusions, and Political Correctness

For those who have been living in a cave: Last Thursday, a Muslim-American named Major Nidal Malik Hasan *allegedly* stood up on a desk at Fort Hood, TX, bowed his head, said "Allah Akbar" ("God is great" in Arabic), before firing off more than 100 rounds, murdering 12 soldiers, 1 civilian, and sending 28 others to the hospital. The emerging details of this tragic terrorist act, largely reported by the British press, have been difficult for me to swallow . . .

It's been reported that Hasan reached out to Al-Qaeda recruiters as many as 20 times; vociferously opposed the war; had close contact with a radical Anti-American cleric who has since praised Hasan as a hero; saw the current war not as one on terror, but a war on Islam; and gave radical Power Point lectures (at Walter Reed Hospital for crying out loud!) urging the audience to "fight those who do not believe in Allah;" that the "infidels should have boiling oil poured down their throats," and then "be lit on fire," and the list of red flags continues.

As shocking as these facts may seem, I am even more shocked to hear the mainstream media sympathize with Hasan and apologize for his actions - apparently hoping to ward off the inevitable anti-Muslim backlash from "the Right Wing hate machine." MSNBC's Chris Matthews asked: "so he tried to contact Al Qaeda - is that the point at which you say 'ok, this guy's dangerous?' It's not a crime to contact Al Qeada is it?" Others have said that it's "tragic" the Hasan was a Muslim. You hear that he was just a "stressed-out nut job" who was not a religious fanatic. Major news outlets initially did not even want to report Hasan's name. Janet Napolitano, the DHS Secretary, has promised to devote resources to "prevent [Muslims] from being painted with a broad brush."

Ironically, President Obama warned all of us to "not jump to conclusions." Hmmmm, sounds like "do as I say, not as I do." Didn't he hastily conclude that the Cambridge Police Dept. "acted stupidly" when a white cop arrested his black, elitist, college professor friend, and then had to awkwardly patch things up with the beer summit fiasco? Isn't that what he did immediately after the recent murder of the abortion doctor in Kansas, when he said "I am shocked and outraged at the murder of Doctor Tiller." The fact is this: Obama has no problems "jumping to conclusions" if an abortion doctor gets murdered, or an elite African-American Harvard Prof falls victim to what he concludes is racial profiling, but if a Muslim jihadist commits an act of terrorism, gunning down 13 people at an American Army Base, he is reticent, not wanting us to connect the dots. Coincidence?

Am I saying Obama is a Muslim terrorist? NO. Are all Muslims violent jihadists, hell-bent on killing innocent Americans? OF COURSE NOT. Do I have problems with peaceful Muslims serving in our military? NOPE. It is no secret that Obama is desperately trying to "repair" U.S. - Muslim relations, so I'm not the least bit surprised at his handling of the Fort Hood massacre. To his credit, I did appreciate his comments at the memorial service, "No just and loving God looks at these acts with approval." Well said, but notice that he is just implicitly admitting that these acts were indeed religiously motivated.

The main point I wanted to drive home is about political correctness. In a post-911 America, Muslims need not be wrongly targeted, profiled, or linked to terrorism. However, this does NOT mean that people at the Pentagon, FBI, or any other intelligence agency should simply look the other way, cross their fingers, knock on wood, and indulge a Muslim American who is simultaneously serving as an Army psychiatrist and ACTIVELY REACHING OUT TO AL-QAEDA!! It seems that fear of being politically incorrect or facing a frivolous lawsuit kept the higher-ups from discharging this ticking time bomb, even though they apparently knew about the red flags. 13 people are now dead. All I'm saying is that protecting American lives should trump political correctness. Talk about a double tragedy. Unbelievable. . . but hey, I don't want to "jump to any conclusions."

Governor Races

Take the poll above, and explain yourself in the comments.

Government Health Care and Roe v. Wade Don't Jibe

A necessary result of any of the major health care bills passing will be an unprecedented access to our private medical records on the part of the federal government. Surprisingly, this gross invasion of our privacy has received little press. The Dems are upset that they can't get a public option to stay on the table, and the GOP is upset that they can't get significant tort reform provisions in the bills.

But the privacy issue will become significant the moment the legislation passes because its Constitutionality will be challenged. Queen Pelosi condescendingly disregarded a challenge to the legality of the insurance mandate by predictably citing the federal government's responsibility to regulate interstate commerce. This tired argument has been used successfully to justify pretty much anything the feds fancy. A challenge to this will barely be considered before it is laughingly tossed aside by the Supreme Court.

No no. This challenge will come in a different form.

Rewind 36 years. The U. S. Supreme Court made what can arguably called the most controversial judgment in the history of our nation in Roe v. Wade. The decision struck down a Texas abortion law as unconstitutional. It did so on the grounds of the implied "right to privacy" the mother has, derived specifically from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the federal government decided that what a person does with her body, and her medical decisions, are between her and her doctor, and the government has no right to meddle in these affairs.

Uh oh.

So, the legislation will be challenged. Either the court will be forced to stand by Roe v. Wade and declare the health care bill unconstitutional, or it will uphold the bill and overturn Roe v. Wade. Is there any other option?

I've got one! This is going to sound a little crazy, but what if we actually function like a republic, and leave these matters to the states? What a novel idea! How constitutionally sound! As the good folks at the Tenth Amendment Center pointed out, "In a truly federal government, Massachusetts could allow same-sex marriages and bar the Ten Commandments from public displays. In a truly federal government, Alabama could display the Ten Commandments in state courtrooms and outlaw same-sex marriages."

Taking issues of this nature from the federal arena and placing them in the hands of the states where they belong is the best way to make the voice of the people heard. Progressives may want to argue that a 7-to-2 court decision made in a stuffy chamber in Washington, D. C. 36 years ago is the proper way to decide what a woman in Utah does with her baby, but I say let the people govern themselves in their own states, and let the federal government do what we told it to do when we created it and ratified our Founding Document.

What to do in Afghanistan?

This is a question I definitely don't have the answer for. Tonight on NPR here in Utah there was a public debate (it's usually broadcast from some Ivy League school) titled "The War in Afghanistan is unwinnable and we should withdraw troops immediately." I mean that wasn't the exact title, but it was something like that. I only caught part of it, but one of the general's that was in support of the war argued that stability in Afghanistan with both the Taliban and Al-Qaida not in control makes for a safer America. Just when he had me convinced, the other side responded "How many Americans are we going to sacrifice for Hamid Karzhai's government?" (Sorry if I spell some of this stuff wrong, but you know who I'm talking about.) I thought that was also a good point, with the election fraud recently and what not. Right now I think I'm leaning toward it's not worth it. But then part of me says that we can't let Bin Laden, Al-Quaida, and the Taliban win. But when I ask myself, would I be willing to sacrifice my own life for this cause, the answer is definitely not. So for me, I feel like this war is turning into a modern-day Vietnam. How does everyone else feel about it?

Thought of the Day

Brought to you by Thomas Sowell:

"When politicians propose some hugely expensive new program and are asked how the government is going to pay for it, a standard ploy over the years has been to claim that they will pay for it by eliminating "waste, fraud and abuse." At a recent town hall meeting, a citizen raised the obvious question: If you can do that, why haven't you done it already?"