…Because she loves meat so much!

In Palin’s newly released memoir, she has confessed her love for consuming meat. Her philosophy is that, “If God had not intended for us to eat animals, how come He made them out of meat?” This is a real excerpt from her book; she really wrote this. The intertextuality with Jessica Simpson and “Chicken of the Sea” is uncanny. At least Simpson did not pursue a career in politics. Ms. Palin then continues to say, ” there’s plenty of room for all Alaska’s animals– right next to the mashed potatoes.”

It is easy to laugh at the lack of intelligence in her statement, but the context in which she uses it is quite funny. Ms. Palin’s statement is poking fun at hosting a vegan for dinner at her home. She says, “I could whip them up a salad, then explain my philosophy on being a carnivore.” Most people can appreciate the humor, however she surely has angered a few PETA activists who “would rather go naked.” She continues, “I love meat… I eat pork chops, thick bacon burgers… But I especially love moose and caribou.” At least she didn’t say she likes to hunt and eat polar bear. She might, but she didn’t say it.

This Thanksgiving, Palin and her family will gather around a feast, celebrating gratitude, and she will be thankful that God made turkeys our of meat… so that we can eat them. Happy Thanksgiving to all!

“What’s so crazy about that?” Lou Dobbs replied, when asked about the possibility of a presidential bid. Earlier this month, Mr. Dobbs amicably parted ways with CNN “to pursue new opportunities,” Mr. Dobbs says, “It’s one of the discussions that we’re having.” The last of the original CNN anchors, Lou Dobbs was released from his contract after 29 years. However, he continues to anchor The Lou Dobbs show, his daily radio broadcast.

A loyal supporter launched loudobbsforpresident.org last January, in an effort to rally supporters for a potential bid in 2012. The creator of the website, William Gheen says, “Lou Dobbs would make a good president because he is truly a man of the people.” In nearly three decades as anchor , Mr. Dobbs has cast himself as a “tough, relentless, independent,” however a possible presidential bid may require him to endure “partisan nonsense” and lean right or left. He says, “I just don’t even know what to tell you in terms of where I’m leaning.” He said, “For the first time I’m actually listening to some people about politics,” rather than being listened to.

Mr. Dobbs is a strong advocate for legal immigration which could make him a favorable candidate in conservative circles. Run, illegal immigrants, run! Three years left to find a path to citizenship with Obama in the White House. Legal immigration and the broken borders of the U.S. are issues for which Mr. Dobbs is most wholehearted. Maybe Dobbs will remain loyal to his Independent political position, however the likeliness of success for an Independent candidate is marginal.

Is there really any chance at long term success for bribing the Taliban to join our forces?

Apparently President Barack Obama “hopes” there is a chance, since last week he signed a $680 billion defense appropriations bill to fund the military operations in fiscal 2010. The strategy of paying Taliban members to join American forces against the radical Taliban is an element of this bill to receive a piece of the payout. There is a popular Afghan phrase, “You can rent an Afghan, but you can’t buy him,” but the U.S. Government is willing to spend billions of dollars and try anyway.

The defense of the strategy reveals the Taliban members of Afghanistan are dissimilar to those in Iraq. They are less motivated by the extreme ideologies and religious fervor, and more motivated by employment or income. To them, their loyalty to the Taliban is conditional and can be reversed if their conditions from American forces are better. Senator Carl Levin said, “They believe an effort to attract these fighters to the governments side could succeed, if they are offered security for themselves and their families,” as well as granted amnesty. The offering of amnesty is not a new concept to separate Taliban members from their leaders, however offering monetary compensation is.

A similar tactic was applied in Iraq, however these “bribes” we called “employment opportunities.” Of the Taliban in Afghanistan, General McChrystal says, “Most are operating for pay; some are under a commander’s charismatic leadership; some are frustrated with local leaders.” Certainly, there is a lot of truth to this statement. However, relying solely on bribing the Taliban to join positive forces has little promise for long term stability for Afghanistan.

Long term success for Afghanistan and their people does not reflect some Blockbuster movie scene where some nations chalk up the “W” and others defeat. This has more to do with Afghanistan’s ability to maintain a stable government after the separated Taliban members are no longer on the American payroll. An expert on the Afghanistan-Pakistan region, Nicholas Schmidle, said “So long as the Americans are keenly aware of this, you’re buying a very, very, very temporary allegiance… If that’s the foundation for moving forward, it’s a shaky foundation.” At this point, there is a clear effort to rent some Afghans, however there is no promise we can buy them out permanently.

After the unfortunate events Monday, where 18 Americans were killed in Afghanistan, President Obama departed D.C by Marine One to Dover Air Force Base in the late hours Wednesday night to meet the bodies. Those 18 Americans add to the death toll as the most fatal month in Afghanistan for Americans. In the current events leading up to this Dover visit, Obama has received much criticism for his actions on proceeding in Afghanistan.

In mixed responses, some praise the President’s efforts for paying respect to the American heroes upon their arrival to their homeland, and appreciate the humanity of the Commander in Chief. Sadly, others believe it is just another publicity stunt as if Obama is still campaigning to the Americans and is beating around the Bush (no pun intended) in his decision for Afghanistan. Regardless of Obama’s agenda, those fallen sons and daughters deserve the utmost respect and honor for their service to our nation.

The GOP is really laying the pressure on Obama because they believe the troops overseas are in danger if they do not get more help. The additional 18 Americans killed Monday only reinforce their beliefs. Senator John McCain (AZ) is one who has strongly criticized Obama for taking too much time in his decision making, as he believes if decisions are made more swiftly, the President has an opportunity to prevent similar events.

Even the lefts are supporting the troop surge, as Rep. John Murtha (D-Pa.) stated on the deployment of more troops, ” In my mind, you should pay for the cost whatever way.” This is a valid statement from chairman of the House Appropriations Defense subcommittee, in control of funding operations in Afghanistan. Murtha says, “You can take it out of other programs or you can raise taxes.”

From the White House press secretary Robert Gibbs, who accompanied Obama to Dover Air Force Base, stated the President’s decision proceeding in Afghanistan is near its end. But has it already been to long?

In the opinion of former Vice President Dick Cheney, President Obama appears “afraid to make a decision” on the proceedings in Afghanistan. Thank you Captain Obvious!

During a conservative gathering, President Barack Obama’s harshest critic, Cheney, is never hesitant to spare his two cents when it comes to the President’s actions. He declared, “The White House must stop dithering while America’s armed force are in danger.” Yes, it would seem impulsive for Obama to pull the trigger without much consideration (i.e. he doesn’t want to shoot his friend in the face). However, with the recommendations of General Stanley McChrystal, commander of troops in Afghanistan, this certainly is a time sensitive matter.

Obama does have an obligation to generate a solution or come to consensus for his commander. Cheney said, “Having announced his Afghanistan strategy last March, President Obama now seems afraid to make a decision, and unable to provide his commander on the ground with the troops he needs to complete his mission.” Surely, General McChrystal offered a lengthy explanation for his recommendation to deploy more troops, therefore Cheney’s statements are redundant. Cheney, have you been in a cave for the last two weeks?

Certainly, the President is playing a bit of a waiting game, however Obama’s decision truly will reflect whether he can “make good on his promise” as Cheney said. The critical element in this situation is prioritizing the support of the men and women overseas. If they need more support as General McChrystal recommends, it would be in the President’s best interest to act swiftly and responsibly.

Does the president really deserve to be titled a peacemaker?

The president, of just nine months, receiving a Nobel Peace Prize brings a lot of shock value. However, Barack Obama is not the first nor the last president to receive this prestigious prize. The real shock is what has he accomplished to receive this honor? It seems premature to award someone for their plans and ideas to win hearts and minds which don’t have much to be supported by at this point in time. Obama’s mouth has signed a check his actions can’t cash, yet. What happens if his presidential term finishes before anything positive results from his “ideas”? Does the Nobel Committee take his prize back, or give him a pat on the back and say, “Good effort, anyway”? He has received praise and congratulations from both Democrats and Republicans, but he has also drawn a lot of criticism.

The underlying element is Obama’s vision to end extreme ideologies isn’t his own. The desire to establish Israeli-Palestinian peace is not breaking news. Not only was it not Obama’s idea to fight extreme ideologies in Iraq and Afghanistan, receiving a Nobel Peace Prize on the same day as meeting with his war council to deploy 40,000 additional troops to a war seems worse than ironic. Did he define what winning would mean? He received an honor for something he figuratively represents. If he is in fact such a peacemaker, and worthy of this honor, why would he agree to deploy more troops? Not only is he pissing off the people who support him, he’s still pissing off the people who don’t. However, many people believe he should end the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or at least establish some success, in order to be awarded this prize. Public opinion varies as some say his prize is well deserved, and some say it is a Nobel Speech Prize.

As if the demands from General McChrystal to deploy more troops were not enough pressure for the president, he is now holding the weight of this controversial peace prize as he makes a significant decision affecting the future of the war in Afghanistan. Therefore in the wake of this prize, the United States has a commander in chief playing rocks, paper, scissors in the Oval Office.

In his speech at the Rose Garden, Obama’s statement was, “I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments”. We understand Mr. President, that’s because nothing has been accomplished. Congratulations President Obama… for not being George Bush. Only the future will tell, but for now it appears a Nobel Peace Prize can just fall out of a Cracker Jacks box.

Setting a “supreme” example for all Americans selected to jury duty, recently appointed Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, was summoned to jury duty this week. After throwing away several letters, she finally appeared when she received the threat of facing serious penalties, “whatever that means” she said. She exhausted a list of excuses to be relieved of her civil duty, fabricating an infirm grandmother, claiming she has “psychological problems”, sciatica issues, and she didn’t think she “could be fair and impartial if the defendant was white”. No, I’m not making this up. She then goes on to say, “The guy is totally guilty, by the way. You can tell just by looking at him”. Therefore, the defendant is probably white. She adds, “this all just goes to show what a huge joke the justice system is”. Has she heard that she works for the justice system?

Adding to her list of complaints, she claims the payout at $80 a day isn’t nearly enough to cover living expenses. Hopefully, her $208,100 salary as Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court can assist with her financial troubles. Sotomayor additionally complains, “It’s so boring. I’m totally daydreaming most of the time,” she continues “Honestly, I don’t know how anyone could possibly pay attention to all that testimony and evidence and legal mumbo jumbo all day long.”

Justice system aside for the moment, this interview is a joke. As President Obama’s nominated Associate Justice, Sotomayor publicly claiming psychological problems and professing racism is not going help resolve the issues in the justice system or the American civil duty as a juror for that matter. How did she qualify for jury duty, let alone the Supreme Court?

As if Sotomayor had a choice, she has accepted serving as a juror and she prays “to God this thing doesn’t make it all the way to the Supreme Court.” Is she done talking yet?

Is Arizona being run by a fundamentalist kook?

Following in the tradition of the great kings of Europe, unelected Arizona Governor Jan Brewer proclaimed her divine right of rule over the people of Arizona Wednesday night.

The Arizona Republic is reporting that in an address to a meeting of Lutheran Pastors in Phoenix, Brewer said “And I firmly believe that God has placed me in this powerful position of Arizona’s governor to help guide our state through the difficulties that we are currently facing,”

Republican Gov. Brewer took power in Arizona last January when democratically elected Gov. Janet Napolitano left office to serve in the Obama Administration. Brewer had been serving as Arizona Secretary of State previously.

Seeing that her appointment, of should we say anointment to Governor was divinely influenced, you’d think she could use her God connection to fix the states $3 Billion budget shortfall, its 9.1 unemployment rate or its horrible education system which ranks one of the lowest performing in the country.

But then again, having an educated electorate probably causes fear in the mind of someone who believes their political success is governed by magical deity in the sky.

Newly leaked Tea Party videos shows off base, uneducated and uninformed extremists rallying behind Glenn Beck and the Republican Party

Joe Wilson’s interrupting outburst last week during the President’s speech on health care reform drew sharp criticism from all sides of the political spectrum. But to the ignorant army of Glenn Beck supporters, tea party extremists and others its become a rallying cry. And this new wave of right wing radicalism has many in the Republican Party worried.

Republican media consultant Mark McKinnon. says “Neither party has an exclusive on wack jobs, unfortunately, right now the Democrats generally get defined by President Obama, and Republicans, who have no clear leadership, get defined by crackpots — and then they begin to define the Republican Party in the mind of the general public.”

And no where was this growing movement of right wing wack jobs more apparent than last weekend’s “Tea Party” in Washington D.C. Newly published video from liveleak.com shows these right wing extremist wackos in their true form. Protesters showed their uneducated and generally confused views protesting everything from health insurance reform, the IRS, abortion, global warming, and our "socialist/communist/fascist/Nazi/Muslim " president, Barack Obama to calls for a return to McCarthyism, while others called for Glenn Beck to run for President.

Is this the new face of the Republican Party?

Former communications director for the Republican National Committee, Brian Jones finds it annoying when radicals and cracks like Joe Wilson and Glenn Beck try to hijack the parties image.

“You have a little bit of tyranny of the minority with these people, it may raise their profile, it may make them more attractive in their district — but does it really help the image of the party in the midst of an important debate? I think no. Obviously, there are some who will be cheering this, but I think the cake is baked with them in terms of how they feel about Obama and health care.”

But Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the Republicans’ campaign arm in the Senate, suggests that it’s not fair to tar the GOP with its fringier elements — and that the criticism won’t last anyway.

“I think that it’s a free country,” he says. “Anybody can say what they want, they can identify themselves as a Democrat, independent, a Republican, a socialist or whatever they want to call themselves. That doesn’t mean they were representative of a political party or the mainstream of a political party.”

But with the recent rise in extremism from the likes of Sarah Palin, Joe Wilson, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, can the party really survive beyond relying on a base of uninformed, confused, uneducated and racist white people?

Watch the video and decide for yourself

Far right extremists are using another lie to spread their big health sponsored message of fear by trying to inflate the size of their march on Washington last weekend by distributing a photo of a packed National Mall. But the picture is years old.

Politifact asked the public affairs officer for the D.C. Fire and Emergency Department, Pete Piringer, ,if the rally was big enough to fill the space in the picture. He said no — and moreover, there’s no way that picture can be from 2009.

“It was an impressive crowd,” he said., but after marching down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol the crowd “only filled the Capitol grounds, maybe up to Third Street,” he said. But the photo showed the crowd reaching far beyond that to the Washington Monument, which is bordered by 15th and and 17th Streets.

But there’s a much bigger problem with the photograph which proves that it is indeed a fake and is much older than claimed. Where is the National Museum of the American Indian? A huge building that’s located on the corner of Fourth St and Independence Ave which opened over 5 years ago! (Looking at the photograph, the building should be in the upper right hand corner of the National Mall, next to the Air and Space Museum.) Apparently the organizers of these tea parties care about as much about the American Indian as they do in spreading the truth, because they missed this landmark when disturbing the fake picture. . So clearly the photo doesn’t show the “tea party” crowd from the Sept. 12 protest.

“I’ve seen bigger crowds at Montreal Expos games, but I still wouldn’t fake a photo just to justify your predictions of millions descending on Washington,” said one gleeful Democratic media strategist. “This is grade-A stupid and just plays into the argument that these were astroturf protests to begin with. They’ve always brought the noise, but the question that was supposed to be answered this weekend was, could they bring the numbers? In that respect this was an unmitigated disaster.”

Numerous conservative blogs and news agencies, including Fox News ran with this picture before removing it later in the day. Others say the circulation of the picture was a left-wing conspiracy to discredit the event. However, many of them are still claiming that at least a million people attended the march. Nate Silver estimates about 70,000 protesters showed up.

And this isn’t the first time the tea party organizers tried to lie about the size of the event. On Saturday organized Matt Kibbe announce on stage that ABC News had estimated a crowd of 1 to 1.5 million were in attendance. ABC news never reported anything of the sort.