It took me a while to start watching Criminal Minds because I’m embarrassed to admit I listened to Matt Roush of TV Guide, who has this inexplicable hatred of the show. Now that I’ve seen every episode – most of them more than once, thanks to ion and A&E syndication – I honestly don’t understand his rather harsh criticism.

I can’t remember why I decided to watch a random Season 2 episode. Probably because it started off with a trio of high school soccer players, and I love soccer. It paid my bills for five or six years.

Anyway, I’m so glad I kept watching. Not only is it, in my opinion, one of the best episodes of the entire series, but it remains my favorite. It’s haunting and chilling and tragic and stomach-turning, but it is excellent.

This is one of the very, very few cases where I would argue against any type of prosecution of the two girls because they were clearly driven out of their minds by the days of sensory deprivation and psychological torture to which they were subjected. They cannot be blamed for choosing self-preservation.

I found this video on YouTube not long after I saw “North Mammon,” and it is an excellent tribute to the episode. Breaking Benjamin’s “Breath” is the perfect backdrop, matching the haunting tragedy of the story.

Great post today over at Conservatives4Palin. As usual, the “non-biased” media is foaming at the mouth over Governor Sarah Palin’s forthcoming book, Going Rogue: An American Life, out Tuesday. It’s becoming embarrassing. For them. But they’re too arrogant and inflicted with Palin Derangement Syndrome (certainly similar to the Bush Derangement Syndrome that still plagues so many liberals) to notice.

Fact-checking the fact-checkers
File this one under “Quit Making Stuff Up.” It took us all day, but we assembled the definitive debunking of the 11 Associated Press “fact-checkers.” Might we suggest a new profession for these folks?

As the always brilliant Mark Steyn pointed out:

That’s 11 writers for a 695-word report. What on? Obamacare? The Iranian nuke program? The upcoming trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?

No, the Associated Press assigned 11 writers to “fact-check” Sarah Palin’s new book…

Hey, don’t be too hard on the AP. CNN is also into fact-checking… SNL skits that are “mean” to Obama.

Here’s some real fact-checking. Fasten your seat belts…

On Governor Palin’s 2006 Campaign Financing

AP “FACTS”: “Of the roughly $1.3 million she raised for her primary and general election campaigns for governor, more than half came from people and political action committees giving at least $500, according to an AP analysis of her campaign finance reports. The maximum that individual donors could give was $1,000; $2,000 for a PAC.

Of the rest, about $76,000 came from Republican Party committees.”

THE TRUTH: Had the AP looked more closely at those “Republican Party” contributions, it might have discovered that most of the money came from eight different Alaska Republican women’s clubs – in other words, grassroots donors. The Republican women’s groups conduct year-round grassroots fundraising, from monthly luncheons to garage sales, and it was completely understandable that they would support a Republican woman gubernatorial candidate.

The Alaska Federation of Republican Women and seven different state women’s clubs (in Ketchikan, Sitka, Juneau, Kenai, Mat-Su, Fairbanks, and two in Anchorage) contributed $44,500 total. The remainder of the AP’s quoted $76,000 was money returned to the party chairman, contributions from district Republican organizations, and $20,000 from “in-kind” contributions/support from the state party.

The Governor’s campaign filed 31 financial reports with the Alaska Public Office Commission – all accurate and on time. It’s telling that the AP has the time to pour through tens of thousands of individual transactions line by line in the various reports, but fails to note these facts.

On Governor Palin’s Position on Bailouts and the Stimulus

AP “FACTS”: “Palin is blurring the lines between Obama’s stimulus plan — a $787 billion package of tax cuts, state aid, social programs and government contracts — and the federal bailout that Republican presidential candidate John McCain voted for and President George W. Bush signed.

Palin’s views on bailouts appeared to evolve as McCain’s vice presidential running mate. In September 2008, she said ‘taxpayers cannot be looked to as the bailout, as the solution, to the problems on Wall Street.’ A week later, she said ‘ultimately what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy.’

During the vice presidential debate in October, Palin praised McCain for being ‘instrumental in bringing folks together’ to pass the $700 billion bailout. After that, she said ‘it is a time of crisis and government did have to step in.’”

THE TRUTH: Apparently she is being slammed for supporting something that most people supported at the time because we were all told by almost every economist that if we didn’t support it the sky would fall and the country would look like that 2012 movie trailer. Oh yeah, and she was McCain’s running mate at the time too — would have been just ducky to have his VP on TV saying, “Maverick Two disapproves of what Maverick One is supporting.”

As for the stimulus, Governor Palin has consistently voiced her disapproval of the “porkulus” and she got hammered relentlessly for turning down stimulus dollars. Her veto of those dollars was eventually overturned by the legislature. She took a principled stance all along, and no one can re-write history on that.

In regards to bailouts after TARP, this is what Governor Palin told Wolf Blitzer on November 14, 2008:

“…the federal government must play an appropriate role in shoring up some of these industries that are hurting and will ultimately hurt our entire economy and the world’s economy if there aren’t some better decisions being made. But we also have to start shifting some debate here in our country and start talking about personal responsibility and responsibility of management in some of these corporations and companies so that from henceforth it’s not assumed that the federal government is going to be bailing out everybody who is going to soon line up, Wolf, for more taxpayer assistance.”

On Governor Palin’s Assertion that Reagan Faced A Worse Recession and Reagan’s Prescription for Getting Out of Recession

AP “FACTS”: “The estate tax, which some call the death tax, was not repealed under Reagan and capital gains taxes are lower now than when Reagan was president.

Economists overwhelmingly say the current recession is far worse. The recession Reagan faced lasted for 16 months; this one is in its 23rd month. The recession of the early 1980s did not have a financial meltdown. Unemployment peaked at 10.8 percent, worse than the October 2009 high of 10.2 percent, but the jobless rate is still expected to climb.”

THE TRUTH: According to Richard Rahn, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth, “President Reagan inherited an economic situation even worse than the one President Obama has. When Reagan took office, the economy had been in recession for about a year, the unemployment rate was almost identical to today’s, but the labor force participation rate was smaller, and inflation was out of control.”

Mr. Rahn has also noted: “Both President Reagan and President Obama inherited an economy suffering from a year of no growth, along with rising unemployment. (The numbers are almost identical.) But Mr. Reagan faced a far direr situation in that inflation was in the double digits and the prime interest rate was at 20 percent. In contrast, Mr. Obama inherited an economy in which inflation was falling (in fact, inflation has been close to zero for this year) and interest rates were very low.”

The unemployment rate in November 1982 was 10.8%. Our current unemployment rate is 10.2%.

The first quarter of 1982 was the worst of the Reagan recession as the economy shrank 6.4%. So far, the economy has shrunk 6.3% in the fourth quarter of 2008 and 5.7% in the first quarter of 2009.

Governor Palin believes in Reagan’s supply side policies of cutting taxes and reining in spending. She never said anything about Reagan and the death tax. She was speaking about solutions to today’s economic troubles using the supply side lessons of the Reagan years.

On Governor Palin’s Natural Gas Pipeline (AGIA)

AP “FACT”: “Palin characterized the pipeline deal the same way before an AP investigation found her team crafted terms that favored only a few independent pipeline companies and ultimately benefited a company with ties to her administration, TransCanada Corp. Despite promises and legal guidance not to talk directly with potential bidders during the process, Palin had meetings or phone calls with nearly every major candidate, including TransCanada.”

THE TRUTH: This AP story from the last election was completely debunked by Alaska media and rightfully referred to as a “hit piece” by a Democrat lawmaker who supported the Alaska Gasline Inducement Act (AGIA). AGIA was a bi-partisan effort that passed by a 58-1 vote. It was open, transparent, and the guidelines were very clear.

On Governor Palin’s Administration

AP “FACT”: “Palin ignores her own ‘revolving door’ issue in office; the leader of her own pipeline team was a former lobbyist for a subsidiary of TransCanada, the company that ended up winning the rights to build the pipeline.”

THE TRUTH: Many of the Governor’s gasline team drew upon private sector experiences to bring great insight to their roles in government – whether through economic, legal or development issues. The suggestion here is that the previous jobs held by the Governor’s staff influenced decisions. They did not. And in fact the Governor and her gasline team ensured a thoroughly objective process by providing researched recommendations made with public input while leaving all decisions in the hands of the legislature. Those decisions were overwhelmingly approved.

Additionally, the Governor personally witnessed from the previous administration the dangerous pattern of having state employees go immediately from handling state negotiations into private sector jobs concerning the same subjects, and she moved to put an end to that practice among staff, including those who worked on the gasline.

On Governor Palin’s Days on the Wasilla City Council

AP “FACT”: “As Wasilla mayor, Palin pressed for a special zoning exception so she could sell her family’s $327,000 house, then did not keep a promise to remove a potential fire hazard on the property.

She asked the city council to loosen rules for snow machine races when she and her husband owned a snow machine store, and cast a tie-breaking vote to exempt taxes on aircraft when her father-in-law owned one. But she stepped away from the table in 1997 when the council considered a grant for the Iron Dog snow machine race in which her husband competes.”

THE TRUTH: When the Palins purchased their prior home in Wasilla, it was already in violation of the “special zoning” rule. Such rules have always been only loosely enforced in Alaska. The home wasn’t in violation of any zoning regulation when it was originally built, but subsequent construction around it changed that. The Palins applied for a setback variance in order to sell their home. This is very common in Wasilla and elsewhere. There was nothing at all out of the ordinary about it, and it certainly did not involve any favoritism. The “potential fire hazard” in question was a carport that the Palins offered to tear down, but the new owner wanted it left alone.

Todd Palin’s old snowmachine store was located in Big Lake, which is 20 miles outside of the Wasilla city limits. Governor Palin’s father-in-law lives in Dillingham, which is about 450 miles away from Wasilla. The plane in question was not even registered in his name.

On Obama’s Cap-and-Tax Plan

AP “FACT”: “She correctly quotes a comment attributed to Obama in January 2008, when he told San Francisco Chronicle editors that under his cap-and-trade climate proposal, ‘electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket’ as utilities are forced to retrofit coal burning power plants to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Obama has argued since then that climate legislation can blunt the cost to consumers. Democratic legislation now before Congress calls for a variety of measures aimed at mitigating consumer costs. Several studies predict average household costs probably would be $100 to $145 a year.”

THE TRUTH: As even the AP notes, Governor Palin correctly quoted Obama’s statement that “electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.”

And despite how the AP would like to spin it, the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill would make prices skyrocket. As Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation notes:

“…the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill’s provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000.

But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600.”

On the Exxon Valdez Decision

AP “FACT”: “That response is at odds with her reaction at the time to the ruling, which resolved the long-running case by reducing punitive damages for victims to $500 million from $2.5 billion. Environmentalists and plaintiffs’ lawyers decried the ruling as a slap at the victims and Palin herself said she was ‘extremely disappointed.’ She said the justices had gutted a jury decision favoring higher damage awards, the Anchorage Daily News reported. ‘It’s tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision,’ she said, noting many had died ‘while waiting for justice.’”

THE TRUTH: Governor Palin writes in her book: “As governor I directed our attorney general to file an amicus brief on behalf of plaintiffs in the case, and, thanks to Alaska’s able attorneys arguing in front of the highest court in our land, in 2008 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the people. Finally, Alaskans could recover some of their losses.”

That is correct. Alaskans were able to recover some of their losses. However, it was also a tragedy of delayed justice. Alaskans had waited for nearly 20 years, and the Court reduced the amount of punitive damages for the victims.

Governor Palin voiced her support for the $2.5 billion in punitive damages in a press conference with the victims of the Exxon Valdez spill the day before oral arguments were heard. Naturally, she was disappointed that the Court reduced the amount to $500 million – which was especially painful coming as it did after many years of litigation in which some of the victims passed away without ever receiving justice. Even after the Court gutted the punitive damages award, Exxon argued that they shouldn’t have to pay interest on it.

However, it is a matter of record that the Supreme Court did, in fact, rule “in favor of the people.” The “disappointment” was in the reduction of the award and in the delay in justice.

Governor Palin’s immediate reaction to the decision expressed this frustration and disappointment. She said: “I am extremely disappointed with today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. While the decision brings some degree of closure to Alaskans suffering from 19 years of litigation and delay, the Court gutted the jury’s decision on punitive damages. It is tragic that so many Alaska fishermen and their families have had their lives put on hold waiting for this decision. My heart goes out to those affected, especially the families of the thousands of Alaskans who passed away while waiting for justice.”

On Alaska’s Earmarks

AP “FACT”: “Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington.”

THE TRUTH: There is no question that as a very young state Alaska requires more help with infrastructure funding to catch up with the rest of the Lower 48. However, Governor Palin was not governor in 2005. As governor, she reduced Alaska’s earmark requests by nearly 85%.

On Governor Palin’s Frugality in Her Personal Expenses While in Office

AP “FACTS”: “Although travel records indicate [Governor Palin] usually opted for less-pricey hotels while governor, Palin and daughter Bristol stayed five days and four nights at the $707.29-per-night Essex House luxury hotel (robes and slippers come standard) overlooking New York City’s Central Park for a five-hour women’s leadership conference in October 2007. With air fare, the cost to Alaska was well over $3,000. Event organizers said Palin asked if she could bring her daughter. The governor billed her state more than $20,000 for her children’s travel, including to events where they had not been invited, and in some cases later amended expense reports to specify that they had been on official business.”

THE TRUTH: The AP proves Governor Palin’s point by noting that she “usually opted for less-pricey hotels.”

The First Family’s travel was processed by the Administrative Services Department, whose director served under the previous governor. Governor Palin followed the same protocol that past governors had followed. The one obvious difference, however, is that Governor Palin and her family spent less than her two predecessors. In fact, she spent over $913,000 less on personal expenses in her first two years than former Governor Frank Murkowski did his last two years.

“Amending” the reports was not done to hide anything. It was standard practice for Governor Palin’s security personnel to submit the initial trip requests with the basic details of the trip to the Administrative Services Department. Later, the rest of the trip details would be added by the Governor’s personal staff.

And, by the way, perhaps someone could tell us how to find a cheap and safe hotel in New York City. And does anyone think she took a 9 hour flight to the east coast and didn’t do any other business. Riiight. Maybe we can ask Andree McLeod for the Governor’s calendar for that day, seeing as how Andree wasted hundreds of hours of work time of state personnel for her FOIA requests of the Governor’s emails, calendars, and, ah… we don’t know… Piper’s finger paintings.

The simple fact is that Governor Palin and her family spent significantly less than the prior two administrations despite having a much larger family. That is a fact. Clearly frugality was important to her.

On Governor Palin’s Interview with Vogue

AP “FACT”: “Says she tried to talk about national security and energy independence in her interview with Vogue magazine but the interviewer wanted her to pivot from hydropower to high fashion.

THE FACTS are somewhat in dispute. Vogue contributing editor Rebecca Johnson said Palin did not go on about hydropower. ‘She just kept talking about drilling for oil.’”

THE TRUTH: Governor Palin wanted to talk about resource development. The Vogue contributing editor confirms this. Hydropower is one of many alternative sources of energy used in Alaska. “…hydropower to high fashion” is used as a turn of phrase. Are they really this obtuse?

On Governor Palin’s “Ambitions”

AP “FACT”: “Few politicians own up to wanting high office for the power and prestige of it, and in this respect, Palin fits the conventional mold. But ‘Going Rogue’ has all the characteristics of a pre-campaign manifesto, the requisite autobiography of the future candidate.”

THE TRUTH: We didn’t realize writing a book was a declaration of anything other than the desire to tell one’s story.

Oh yeah, and one more thing…

We got a tip from our very own reliable anonymous source. Apparently the McCain campaign racked up legal costs in Alaska and said repeatedly it would pay for them. When the bill was discussed and submitted, according to the campaign’s wishes, it was turned down after the election and officials said the campaign would have paid if the campaign had won. Among the dollars – nearly $50,000 for vetting. Charming. Again, we ask you folks to consider this: When has the McCain staffers ever behaved honorably or honestly to this woman? Never.

We’ll keep you posted of more facts.

Oh yeah, be sure to read her book. We believe in letting her speak for herself without these McCain “staffers” playing their CYA games. They ran the worst campaign since… well, Bob Dole (nah, Dole was better. At least he had Kemp). The only bright spot during the last election was Sarah Palin. We voted for her, and only for her.

The Obama Administration’s decision to allow 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to stand civilian trial in New York City is disgusting, insulting, and a slap in the face to all of the families who lost loved ones in the worst terrorist attack on US soil.

I guess we shouldn’t be surprised due to the fact that the word “terrorism” or any variation thereof cannot be spoken in official White House rhetoric or by its lapdog press corps.

My utter disdain for this man and his contingent of sycophants grows in leaps and bounds by the day. We’ve already had one terror attack on his watch — I shudder to think what’s to come.

If you harbor even the slightest bit of patriotism and love for this country, you will join with the families of the 9/11 victims and voice your outrage to this administration.

November 9, 2009

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Obama:

On September 11, 2001, the entire world watched as 19 men hijacked four commercial airliners, attacking passengers and killing crew members, and then turned the fully-fueled planes into missiles, flying them into the World Trade Center twin towers, the Pentagon and a field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. 3,000 of our fellow human beings died in two hours. The nation’s commercial aviation system ground to a halt. Lower Manhattan was turned into a war zone, shutting down the New York Stock Exchange for days and causing tens of thousands of residents and workers to be displaced. In nine months, an estimated 50,000 rescue and recovery workers willingly exposed themselves to toxic conditions to dig out the ravaged remains of their fellow citizens buried in 1.8 million tons of twisted steel and concrete.

The American people were rightly outraged by this act of war. Whether the cause was retribution or simple recognition of our common humanity, the words “Never Forget” were invoked in tearful or angry rectitude, defiantly written in the dust of Ground Zero or humbly penned on makeshift memorials erected all across the land. The country was united in its determination that these acts should not go unmarked and unpunished.

Eight long years have passed since that dark and terrible day. Sadly, some have forgotten the promises we made to those whose lives were taken in such a cruel and vicious manner.

We have not forgotten. We are the husbands and wives, mothers and fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and other family members of the victims of these depraved and barbaric attacks, and we feel a profound obligation to ensure that justice is done on their behalf. It is incomprehensible to us that members of the United States Congress would propose that the same men who today refer to the murder of our loved ones as a “blessed day” and who targeted the United States Capitol for the same kind of destruction that was wrought in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, should be the beneficiaries of a social compact of which they are not a part, do not recognize, and which they seek to destroy: the United States Constitution.

We adamantly oppose prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in Article III courts, which would provide them with the very rights that may make it possible for them to escape the justice which they so richly deserve. We believe that military commissions, which have a long and honorable history in this country dating back to the Revolutionary War, are the appropriate legal forum for the individuals who declared war on America. With utter disdain for all norms of decency and humanity, and in defiance of the laws of warfare accepted by all civilized nations, these individuals targeted tens of thousands of civilian non-combatants, brutally killing 3,000 men, women and children, injuring thousands more, and terrorizing millions.

It is morally offensive to offer Constitutional protections to individuals charged with murdering 3,000 individuals, in essence, to jeopardize justice for war crimes victims, in order to make an appeal to the Muslim world. The use of Article III courts after the 1993 World Trade Center attack didn’t stop any of the subsequent terrorist plots, including the attack on Khobar Towers, 19 Americans killed, the 1998 East African Embassy bombing, 212 killed, the USS Cole bombing, 17 sailors killed. The attacks of 9/11 were a resounding rebuke to the view that federal courts were an appropriate counterterrorism strategy. Afterward, we didn’t send law enforcement personnel to apprehend the perpetrators, we sent the United States military, who captured them and held them pursuant to the 2001 Authorization of the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The American people do not support the use of our cherished federal courts as a stage by the “mastermind of 9/11″ and his co-conspirators to condemn this nation and rally their fellow terrorists the world over. As one New York City police detective, who lost 60 fellow officers on 9/11, told members of the Department of Justice’s Detainee Policy Task Force at a meeting last June, “You people are out of touch. You need to hear the locker room conversations of the people who patrol your streets and fight your wars.”

On May 21, you stated that military commissions, promulgated by congressional legislation and recently reformed with even greater protections for defendants, are a legal and appropriate forum to try individuals captured pursuant the 2001 AUMF, passed by Congress in response to the attack on America. Nevertheless, you announced a new policy requiring that Al-Qaeda terrorists should be tried in Article III courts “whenever feasible.”

We strongly object to the creation of a two-tier system of justice for terrorists in which those responsible for the death of thousands on 9/11 will be treated as common criminals and afforded the kind of platinum due process accorded American citizens, yet members of Al Qaeda who aspire to kill Americans but who do not yet have blood on their hands, will be treated as war criminals. To date, you have offered no explanation or justification for this contradiction, even as you readily acknowledge that the 9/11 conspirators, now designated “unprivileged enemy belligerents,” are appropriately accused of war crimes. We believe that this two-tier system, in which war criminals receive more due process protections than would-be war criminals, will be mocked and rejected in the court of world opinion as an ill-conceived contrivance aimed, not at justice, but at the appearance moral authority.

The public has a right to know that prosecuting the 9/11 conspirators in federal courts will result in a plethora of legal and procedural problems that will severely limit or even jeopardize the successful prosecution of their cases. Ordinary criminal trials do not allow for the exigencies associated with combatants captured in war, in which evidence is not collected with CSI-type chain-of-custody standards. None of the 9/11 conspirators were given the Miranda warnings mandated in Article III courts. Prosecutors contend that the lengthy, self-incriminating tutorials Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others gave to CIA interrogators about 9/11 and other terrorist operations–called “pivotal for the war against Al-Qaeda” in a recently released, declassified 2005 CIA report–may be excluded in federal trials. Further, unlike military commissions, all of the 9/11 cases will be vulnerable in federal court to defense motions that their prosecutions violate the Speedy Trial Act. Indeed, the judge presiding in the case of Ahmed Ghailani, accused of participating in the 1998 bombing of the American Embassy in Kenya, killing 212 people, has asked for that issue to be briefed by the defense. Ghailani was indicted in 1998, captured in Pakistan in 2004, and held at Guantanamo Bay until 2009.

Additionally, federal rules risk that classified evidence protected in military commissions would be exposed in criminal trials, revealing intelligence sources and methods and compromising foreign partners, who will be unwilling to join with the United States in future secret or covert operations if doing so will risk exposure in the dangerous and hostile communities where they operate. This poses a clear and present danger to the public. The safety and security of the American people is the President’s highest duty.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal that “the challenges of terrorism trials are overwhelming.” Mr. Mukasey, formerly a federal judge in the Southern District of New York, presided over the multi-defendant terrorism prosecution of Sheikh Omar Abel Rahman, the cell that attacked the World Trade Center in 1993 and conspired to attack other New York landmarks. In addition to the evidentiary problems cited above, he expressed concern about courthouse and jail facility security, the need for anonymous jurors to be escorted under armed guard, the enormous costs associated with the use of U.S. marshals necessarily deployed from other jurisdictions, and the danger to the community which, he says, will become a target for homegrown terrorist sympathizers–like the recent Fort Hood shooter–or embedded Al Qaeda cells.

Finally, there is the sickening prospect of men like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being brought to the federal courthouse in Lower Manhattan, or the courthouse in Alexandria, Virginia, just a few blocks away from the scene of carnage eight years ago, being given a Constitutionally mandated platform upon which he can mock his victims, exult in the suffering of their families, condemn the judge and his own lawyers, and rally his followers to continue jihad against the men and women of the U.S. military, fighting and dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan on behalf of us all.

There is no guarantee that Mr. Mohammed and his co-conspirators will plead guilty, as in the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, whose prosecution nevertheless took four years, and who is currently attempting to recant that plea. Their attorneys will be given wide latitude to mount a defense that turns the trial into a shameful circus aimed at vilifying agents of the CIA for alleged acts of “torture,” casting the American government and our valiant military as a force of evil instead of a force for good in places of the Muslim world where Al Qaeda and the Taliban are waging a brutal war against them and the local populations. For the families of those who died on September 11, the most obscene aspect of giving Constitutional protections to those who planned the attacks with the intent of inflicting maximum terror on their victims in the last moments of their lives will be the opportunities this affords defense lawyers to cast their clients as victims.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his co-conspirators are asking to plead guilty, now, before a duly-constituted military commission. Mr. President, the families of their victims have a right to know, why don’t you let them?

Respectfully submitted,

Tim Sumner
Brother-in-law of FDNY Joseph G. Leavey, 45, Ladder 15, WTC

Debra Burlingame
Sister of Captain Charles F. Burlingame III, pilot, American Flt. 77, Pentagon

CLICK HERE to add your name with ours.

I am so thankful for Sarah Palin and leaders like her, who understand what true conservatism is and means, and who realize that the reason our country is falling apart as it inches closer and closer to socialist corruption is because our leaders have abandoned the principles upon which our nation was founded.

I am so glad our founding fathers aren’t alive to see what America has become.

From Sarah Palin’s Facebook:
The Pelosi Bill Was Rammed Through on Saturday, But Sunday’s Coming
Today at 12:34am

We’ve got to hold on to hope, and we’ve got to fight hard because Congressional action tonight just put America on a path toward an unrecognizable country.

The same government leaders that got us into the mortgage business and the car business are now getting us into the health care business.

Despite Americans’ decisive message last Tuesday that they reject the troubling path this country has been taking, Speaker Pelosi has broken her own promises of transparency to ram a health “care” bill through the House of Representatives just before midnight. Why did she push the 2,000 page bill this weekend? Was she perhaps afraid to give her peers and the constituents for whom she works the chance to actually read this monstrous bill carefully, if at all? Was she concerned that Americans might really digest the details of a bill that the Wall Street Journal has called “the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced”?

This out-of-control bureaucratic mess will be disastrous for our economy, our small businesses, and our personal liberty. It will slam businesses at a time when we are at double-digit unemployment rates – the highest we’ve seen in a quarter of a century. This massive new bureaucracy will cost us and our children money we don’t have. It will rob Americans of more of our freedom and further hamper the free market.

Make no mistake: we’re on course to have government commandeer one-sixth of our economy. The people who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac now want to run our health care. Think about that.

All of us who value the sanctity of life are grateful for the success of the pro-life majority in the House this evening in its battle against federal funding of abortion in this bill, but it’s ironic because we were promised that abortion wasn’t covered in the bill to begin with. Our healthy distrust of these government leaders made us look deeper into the bill because unfortunately we knew better than to trust what they were saying. The victory tonight to amend the bill and eliminate that federal funding for abortion was great – because abortion is not health care. Now we can only hope that Rep. Stupak’s amendment will hold in the final bill, though the Democratic leadership has already refused to promise that it won’t be scrapped later.

We had been told there were no “death panels” in the bill either. But look closely at the provision mandating bureaucratic panels that will be calling the shots regarding who will receive government health care.

Look closely at provisions addressing illegal aliens’ health care coverage too.

Those of us who love freedom and believe in open and transparent government can only be dismayed by midnight action on a Saturday. Speaker Pelosi’s promise that Americans would have 72 hours to read the final bill before the vote was just another one of the D.C. establishment’s too-common political ploys. It’s broken promises like this that turn people off to politics and leave them disillusioned about the future of their country.

But despite this late-night maneuvering, many of us were paying close attention tonight. We’ll keep paying close attention. We need to let our legislators in Washington know that they still represent us, and that the majority of Americans are not in favor of the “reform” they are pushing. After all, this is still a country “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” We will make our voices heard. It’s on to the Senate now. Our legislators can listen now, or they can hear us in 2010. It’s their choice.

- Sarah Palin

As is the case with millions of other people with way too much free time on their hands, I love YouTube. Lately there are three specific videos I’ve discovered that I can’t stop watching.

I thought I would share them. Since I apparently have nothing of substance to say lately.

What: “Pink Triangle”
Why I love it: First of all, the song’s fun and hilarious and quite catchy. Secondly, the video is edited so well — it matches the lyrics perfectly. Poor dumb Dan. Plus the video creator managed to capture Blair Waldorf at her most awesome. Leighton Meester is masterful when it comes to facial expressions — especially that last one.

What: “Love Story” meets “Viva La Vida”
Why I love it: First of all, it involves two of my favorite songs — Taylor Swift’s “Love Story” and Coldplay’s “Viva La Vida.” Secondly, it involves two of my favorite instruments — the piano and the cello. This arrangement is genius; the musicians are excellent and also endearing; I loved that he talks at the end about his motivation for coming up with this mash-up.

What: Michael Jackson tribute medley
Why I love it: I don’t even remember how I discovered Sam Tsui and Kurt Schneider, but I’m so glad I did. They are so insanely talented, and this arrangement of some of Michael Jackson’s best-known songs is sheer perfection.

Let me preface this review by stating that Where the Wild Things Are isn’t appropriate for some children. If your child is particularly sensitive, then perhaps he or she isn’t ready for it. I took my nieces (ages 12, 7, 5) to see it and my cousin took her children (9, 6, 4), and they all loved it. I will say that my younger nieces did get a bit bored in the middle, so that’s another point to consider as well.

What is annoying me is the fact that people — mostly Christians, it pains me to say — are ripping the movie to shreds over things like MAX WASN’T PUNISHED FOR RUNNING AWAY. Can we say missed the point much?

Listen, I am sensitive when it comes to movie content. There is a lot out there — whether in the movie theater or on the television screen — that isn’t suitable for kids, and some of that masquerades as family-friendly material. I don’t think Where the Wild Things Are qualifies as inappropriate. (I also think the people who are accusing the movie of being anti-Christian are reading way, way, way too much into it.)

I found the movie to be an accurate portrayal of our fallen world. Max is a creative, lonely nine-year-old who loves commanding imaginary foot soldiers, building forts and igloos, and tormenting the family dog in his wolf costume. But his make-believe world isn’t perfect, because reality steps in to send it into disarray.

Max’s dad isn’t in the picture. His sister’s friends bully him and she does nothing to defend him. His mother loves him dearly but is harried and busy and can’t give him the attention he needs. He doesn’t know how to handle all of his turbulent emotions, and so one night, he lashes out at the one person who loves him the most — his mother. Terrified at what he has just done and by his mother’s subsequent anger, he races out of the house and into the night.

It is at a secluded, wooded lake that his imagination takes over, and we’re introduced to the Wild Things, which, aptly, mirror the characteristics, personalities, and complex, conflicting emotions of the people in Max’s life — and Max himself.

The Wild Things, led by Carol, are searching for a perfect world where happiness is ever-present and nothing ever goes wrong. For a while, they think that Max will help them achieve this sense of utopia, but when they realize he is, after all, just a boy, the group dynamics begin crumbling.

Through it all, Max learns that families, even those who love each other dearly, will always have conflict. Though he wrestles with the urges present in most males, such as aggression, the thirst for adventure and power, and the longing to be loved and accepted, he learns how to moderate these feelings amongst the Wild Things.

I think the best summary I found came from the gentleman who reviewed the movie for Focus on the Family. He put it this way: “As a fan of the fairly lighthearted book, I was not prepared for the emotional complexity of the movie. Its melancholic undertone surprised me—but I can’t say that it put me off, because in many ways, Wild Things portrays a fallen world that yearns for redemption, wrestling with longing while never really giving viewers an absolutely solid place to land emotionally or spiritually. In a strange but powerful way, this made me all the happier to know with certainty that this flawed existence we call life isn’t all there is.”

Where the Wild Things Are is a beautiful, psychologically rich film, and Spike Jonze did a tremendous job.

Max Records as Max in Where the Wild Things Are

I have had no desire to blog about anything going on with me lately. I’m just really not that interesting. I mean, I really am boring. Every time I think, okay, I’m going to blog about this, I get home and sit down in front of my computer and…yeah. Nothing.

What’s been happening in my life the last three weeks? Well, I can sum it up in a few sentences: I kind of had a bit of a rock-bottom episode and am back on anti-depressants. Yay, me. I’ve spent a ton of time with my nieces and nephews. I lost 25 pounds, but I can’t go back to the gym until week after next because of the side effects I get (nausea, dizziness, no appetite = no energy) from titrating up to my prescribe dosage. I saw Cirque du Freak: The Vampire’s Assistant (decent) and Where the Wild Things Are (absolutely beautiful). I watched a lot of TV. I ate next to nothing. (Stupid meds.)

So that’s me.

Anyway, I was catching up on my TiVo today and watched last night’s episode of So You Think You Can Dance, which introduced the Top 20. One of the contemporary groups performed to Coldplay’s “Viva la Vida,” which is one of my very favorite songs. It made me think of this really awesome video someone on YouTube put together as a character study of Blair Waldorf (you know, back when Gossip Girl cared about character development).

So I went and hunted it down.

I love it. Even if it’s depressing.

My nephew seriously has to be the happiest kid I’ve ever met. No matter how many times I hear it, my heart still melts when he says my name (which sounds more like ‘candy’ than ‘Jenny.’)

Elijah sporting his sister's Hannah Montana sunglasses.

That’s pretty much the question I ask myself (over and over) every time this song (or “Waking Up in Vegas,” “Down,” and anything by Lady GaGa) pops into my head and I find myself singing along under my breath.  Or out loud. I tend to sing out loud without realizing it. It happens a lot at work. There’s this guy that works for us who’s a little backward (but perfectly nice) and I catch him lurking hanging around outside my office listening to me sing. It’s embarrassing.

Anyway, the first time I heard it, I thought it was stupid. And then I watched the video (because I had no clue Leighton Meester sang the girl’s part) and a rather horrifying thing happened: I started to like it. And then I started to like it a lot. It’s so insanely catchy and fun and makes for perfect workout music.

The video’s fun, too, although it’s a bit depressing when I consider the fact that the only way I’ll ever look like her is if I eat nothing but lettuce for the next 362 days.

Everything was great until So You Think You Can Dance moved to its regular two-hour Tuesday performance/Wednesday results lineup (until now, it’s just been one hour on Wed.)

Even then, I could easily skip the Dancing With the Stars results show, since nothing really happens. Except that November 3 marks the much-heralded, much-anticipated premiere of V. And of course it’s at 7 p.m., too. Along with NCIS, Biggest Loser (7-9), and now, SYTYCD.

I can record two shows at once on the TiVo hooked up to my bedroom TV and watch one live in the living room, but something still has to give. I opted to go with the first hour of SYTYCD because I can catch any performances I want to see either online at FOX.com or on YouTube. No way am I giving up NCIS, Biggest Loser, or V.

Stupid Tuesdays.

Or, rather, stupid 7 p.m. on Tuesdays.

(And really? Why does ABC want to pit V against ratings juggernaut NCIS? Maybe they’ll move it.)