Attorney General Eric Holder adopted a tough guy pose when he announced that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others will be tried in federal court for the most heinous terror attack on Americans in history. "After eight years of delay," he intoned, "those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September 11 will finally face justice. It is past time to finally act."

Where to begin? The claim that the Bush administration was somehow dilatory sets a new standard for gall, particularly coming from Eric Holder. As former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy points out, "The principal reason there were so few military trials is the tireless campaign conducted by leftist lawyers (including Holder) to derail military tribunals by challenging them in the courts."

Those lawyers threw up hundreds of roadblocks. Military detentions and tribunals violated, they claimed, the U.S. Constitution, the Geneva Conventions, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Litigating all this has taken years.

At last clearing those obstacles, the government initiated Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's military trial in Guantanamo in September 2008. In December, KSM pleaded guilty and asked to be executed.

But now, the attorney general puffs out his chest and declares that by trying KSM in an Article III federal court, he has chosen the forum "most likely to lead to a positive result."

The mind reels.

This is an excruciatingly awful decision that no hanging judge talk of "the ultimate penalty" can perfume. What about the increased risk of terror attacks on New York during the trial? The city is "hardened" against attacks Holder assures us. Really? Like Fort Hood?

By granting a civil trial to KSM, while Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who bombed the USS Cole in Yemen, will receive a military tribunal, the U.S. telegraphs this message to terrorists: Wherever possible, attack our civilians. You'll get more lawyering and a better deal than if you attack our military. (And by the way, you'll get more rights than a member of our military who commits a crime.)

Attorney General Holder is keen to prove to a supposedly skeptical world that America lives up to its values (never mind that granting the full rights of citizens to enemy combatants is not part of our creed -- nor anyone else's). Yet he has also repeatedly asserted that a not-guilty verdict is unacceptable. "Failure is not an option. These are cases that have to be won." Whoa. In the first place, it isn't at all beyond imagination that the government could lose this case. KSM was waterboarded. No evidence thus obtained is admissible. A liberal judge who disliked the Bush administration might exclude other key evidence as well.

But Holder says he'll be found guilty. Isn't that a perversion of our jurisprudence? If a not-guilty verdict is impossible, then the trial is a sham. "Sentence first -- verdict afterward" said the Red Queen.

Moreover, the Justice Department has assured Sen. Jon Kyl that "we will not release anyone into the United States if doing so would endanger our national security or the American people." So in the event that KSM is acquitted, it's the position of the Obama Justice Department that we would continue to hold him? How does that outcome burnish the reputation of our justice system?

And while we're on the subject of not thinking things through, at a Senate hearing, Holder could not answer Sen. Lindsey Graham's question about how we would deal with Osama bin Laden if we caught him tomorrow. Would he be Mirandized? Would we give him a lawyer? Isn't that the precedent this decision sets?

There are dozens more reasons (including the intelligence bonanza this will confer on al-Qaida) that this decision is among the worst to emerge from a terrible presidency. What did they hope to achieve? Perhaps they have thought it through -- at least as far as how the trial would unfold. With no defense (he has boasted about his mass murder), what will KSM do? He will put the CIA and the Bush administration on trial. Prepare for lurid accounts of his and others' mistreatment.

Is that the nub? To satisfy the revenge fantasies of American leftists who have lusted to put the Bush administration on trial, the Obama administration is willing to sacrifice logic, justice, national security, and honor?

When KSM's star turn in the courtroom goes viral on the Internet and inspires thousands of new jihadis, the Obamaites can console themselves that at least they stuck it to George W. Bush.

Why don't our Republican leaders just occasionally show an ounce of courage, personality--something?

"Is Barack Obama?" That's all one of them needed to say.

Say to what? Tonight, Chris Matthews was asking his Republican guests, "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States?" Senator Judd Gregg came up with some namby-pamby reply that sort of equaled 'yes,' but Matthews was having a particularly good time showing how Haley Barbour failed to even reply on last night's show. Watch this mess:

Calling Barbour's performance "pathetic" would be far too kind. If ever there were an appropriate time to answer a question with a question, this was it.

Matthews: "Is Sarah Palin qualified to be President of the United States?"

Guest: "Is Barack Obama?"
 

As the year winds to a close and the holidays approach, Congress is still locked in debates about pushing government-run health care down our throats, taxing American energy, and repeating their mistakes by passing another costly and ineffective stimulus.

This is the time for immediate action, and you can help.

But first, here are the stakes:

Historically, recessions have been times for global economic realignment, where some nations emerge as new leaders while others fall and begin a march toward decline.  The way for America to remain a world leader is not to abandon the free market principles that have been the source of our prosperity, but rather to embrace and defend them. 
The job-killing politicians in Washington, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Leader Harry Reid, and the Obama administration, are trying to guarantee the march toward decline by ignoring the true source of job creation: American economic freedom. 

Already this year, they have rammed through a $787 billion stimulus packaged, financed by taxpayers like us, that failed to create jobs as they promised.

They have rammed through the House, and are now debating in the Senate, a cap and trade plan that is nothing more than a huge new tax on energy, a tax that will kill millions of American jobs and raise all of our electricity costs by thousands of dollars.

They have rammed through the House a 2,000-page power grab disguised as "health care reform" that will cost Americans hundreds of billions of dollars in the next decade.

And now they want us to believe they are going to focus on jobs...with the same failed stimulus concept that increased the unemployment rate to a 25-year high.

These new taxes on Americans will almost certainly guarantee that once the global recession ends, our country's position as an economic world leader will be seriously compromised.

But we can fight back. Newt recently shared with us an internal memo entitled "The Way Forward: A Roadmap for Enduring Prosperity," a series of initiatives that will return power to American taxpayers from Washington bureaucrats, while also promoting job creation and economic growth.

And we need YOUR help to turn this document into meaningful change in America.  Please read the Roadmap today so we can immediately begin mobilizing a grassroots army of supporters across the country.

Here are a few additional steps you can take today to save America from more job-killing legislation:
 

• Sign our "Jobs Here, Jobs Now, Jobs First!" petition located to your right.

• Share this document with all of your friends, family members, and co-workers.

• Call talk radio and tell them about how you support real solutions for job creation, as found in the Roadmap.

• Write letters to the editor in your local newspaper outlining your thoughts.

• And, as always, you should call your Congressman and Senators (the main switchboard for Capitol Hill is 202-224-3121, too.) Tell them you do NOT support another failed stimulus (regardless of what they call it) that borrows money from future generations and puts our economic well-being at risk. Tell them you support a true Roadmap for Enduring Prosperity, which restores power to you, the taxpayer and voter, and takes power away from career politicians.

The stakes are simply too high for us to stand idly by as our elected leaders debate and pass more job-killing legislation.

We will be outlining more steps in the weeks to come, so stay tuned... 

In 2010, Republicans across the country are going to be thinking about playing offense—looking to pick up seats in both houses of Congress from today’s majority Democrats. There is one important seat in Ohio, however, which we need to defend.

The Republican comeback in 2010 requires a strong slate of Republican candidates for every office. Ohio is setting the example with U.S. Senate Candidate Rob Portman. In a bid for an open seat currently held by Republican George Voinovich, Rob Portman has recently polled ahead of the leading Democratic contenders after trailing for some time. Gubernatorial candidate John Kasich is also faring well. This is all occurring a mere year after Obama carried Ohio by 5% and Governor Ted Strickland was featured as a major player throughout the Democratic primary.

The shift in the public mood cannot be discounted as a cause for Portman’s rise in the polls, but a strong candidate is necessary to capitalize on this trend. Rob Portman is a strong and compelling candidate. Portman is the son of entrepreneurial parents. In a beginning so resonant with many Midwesterners, Portman worked amongst his siblings in the family’s small business—a forklift dealership. With his family achieving success in business, Portman attended and graduated from Dartmouth and the University of Michigan Law School. He proceeded to distinguish himself as a business lawyer. Portman worked as Associate Counsel in the first Bush White House and in 1993 was elected to Congress. In 2005, Portman was appointed U.S. Trade Representative.  This is essentially the blueprint resume for Republicans—commitment to small business, competence in the private sector, accomplishment as a public servant, and proven understanding of technical policy, such as international trade.

In addition to playing up his roots in Ohio and his impressive resume, Portman is emphasizing the right issues to win the 2010 election. The campaign website stresses Portman’s positions on jobs, health care, energy, and the budget. These are the meat and potato issues that Republicans can win on. In a state such as Ohio, the energy issue may be the most paramount. Any sort of cap and trade energy tax would be crippling to budding industry in Ohio and the Midwest generally. Portman’s personal experiences in small business will certainly add credibility to any discussion of that issue. Furthermore, Portman’s extensive background in trade will help him articulate policies that benefit the domestic labor force and the domestic consumer. Unfortunately, we will have to deal with the Obama trade policies for a few more years, so it would be nice to have an informed voice of dissent in the Senate.

All of these traits make Portman a candidate to watch. The public mood is forever fleeting and unpredictable, supporting compelling candidates, such as Rob Portman, is vital for Republican success in 2010.

Sometimes, the best offense is a good defense. This is one of those cases—help Rob Portman in Ohio.

Tomorrow night's vote is being portrayed by Democrats as a small procedural one that will simply allow the Senate to debate its healthcare bill, but in fact, it is much more than that.

Others have blogged about this based on an interesting note sent out yesterday by the Senate GOP caucus, but it is an important enough statistic that I wanted to share it here with our readers, too. Read this release from Senator Coburn's office:

Democrat senators are trying to portray the vote to proceed to the health care bill as being different than a vote in support of the bill itself (story here).

History demonstrates otherwise.

According to an analysis conducted for this office by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, between the 106^th and 110^th Congress, there were 41 cases in which the Senate approved the motion to proceed to a bill that the Senate eventually held a vote on final passage.  Of those 41, 40 of the bills received Senate approval (S. 1805 in the 108^th Congress was the lone exception).  Based on these numbers, when the Senate votes to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to a bill, that bill has a 97.6 percent chance of inevitably passing the Senate.

*This analysis excludes any bill that may have been pulled from the floor for whatever reason after the initial cloture votes or that may have passed by unanimous consent or a voice vote.

So, if the motion to proceed passes tomorrow night, which it will, then this thing is almost certain to pass the Senate and make its way into conference with the House. That's how important tomorrow's debate is. Depressing.

In the meantime, don't let these supposedly "moderate" Democrats like Ben Nelson play their little charade. What charade? Well, he's trying to act like this vote is of little importance, and that he could still be a "no" vote on this thing when the time comes. Read: Sen. Nelson Will Vote Yes on Saturday

In reality, he probably will be a no vote on the final bill. BUT, and this is the key, he will be a "yes" vote at the only times which matter-- when voting on cloture to end debate and shut off filibusters. He will simply never join Republicans in a filibuster against his own caucus. Don't count on the other moderates to, either.

In the end, he will get to say to his constituents that he voted no on Obamacare, which he'll be able to do when Democrats don't need his vote to obtain a simple majority, and he'll hope they won't notice that he enabled them to put the bill in position for final passage.

Don't let him get away with it. Senator Nelson, this is your healthcare bill now.

The Boy Scouts' motto is: Be prepared. Who knew it meant preparing to defend themselves against purple-shirted union thuggery over community service? Kids, pay attention. This is a teachable moment for all of you on power, politics and Big Labor's culture of corruption.

Last week at a city council meeting in Allentown, Pa., a top official of the local Service Employees International Union chapter ranted about 17-year-old Scout Kevin Anderson's park cleanup work. Anderson devoted some 200 hours to the job in order to earn an Eagle Scout badge. He picked up trash and helped clear a 1,000-foot walking path with fellow members of Boy Scouts Troop 301 of Center Valley.

But SEIU's Nick Balzano gave them hell instead of thanks.

Balzano disparaged altruistic efforts in city parks and asserted that "there is (sic) to be no volunteers" since his union members were laid off. He then issued a witch hunt threat: "We'll also be looking into the Cub Scout or Boy Scout who did the trails. We may file another grievance on that." Citing union rules, he gave the Allentown city council, the Boy Scouts and all potential volunteers an iron-fisted ultimatum: "None of them can pick up a hoe. They can't pick up a shovel. They can't plant a flower. They can't clear a bicycle path. They can't do anything. Our people do that."

That's right. Balzano was ready to bludgeon the Boy Scout because his gung-ho volunteerism posed a threat to the SEIU labor monopoly. The outrageous display of Boss Balzano's union protectionism provoked a national furor. SEIU headquarters in Washington immediately blamed "the disreputable Fox News and other right-wing outlets like Michelle Malkin's accuracy challenged blog" for the backlash. While decrying their critics' "fiction," SEIU distanced itself from Balzano, denying that he was a top union leader and dismissing his remarks as "unauthorized."

Fact: U.S. Department of Labor records from 2008 (their most recent filing) show that Balzano is no rogue rank-and-file member. He currently serves on the SEIU local's executive board and previously served as president.

Fact: The union tried to minimize Balzano's grievance threat as "inappropriate." But the dirty open secret is that public-sector unions have routinely attacked volunteer workers who threaten their stranglehold.

Last June, union officials in Baraboo, Wis., filed a complaint against volunteer firefighters who built sandbag barricades to protect the city from record flooding. They whined that city Department of Public Works employees should have been called first and demanded overtime pay (for work they didn't do) to compensate them.

Yes, kids, the city was knee-deep in water and the government union got mad that other people scrambled to work together in an emergency to put sand in bags, save homes and help their neighbors. Public-sector unions aren't about serving the public interest. They're about serving their people, their power and their self-preservation.

In Montpelier, Vt., several years ago, the teachers union went after a superstar educator, Bill Corrow. The students, staff and supervisors at his school loved the social studies teacher and Vietnam veteran. But the Vermont Education Association hated him because he was a volunteer who did not accept payment for his elective course. Teachers unions are all for parents and schoolchildren volunteering their time to engage in political lobbying and power-expanding initiatives on the union's behalf. But God help the community service-oriented individual with a passion for sharing his knowledge in their classrooms.

In California, union heavies in the Sacramento area sued a nonprofit environmental group for using college-age volunteers on a state-funded project to clean up a canyon and build a community trail. Big Labor dusted off an old law that requires community service volunteers to be paid prevailing wages for doing the same kind of cleanup that Allentown Boy Scout Kevin Anderson was punished for doing freely. The law was finally repealed, but not without a brass-knuckles fight.

As National Right to Work Committee President Mark Mix, whose group monitors forced union abuses, pointed out during the battle: "Discerning California union bosses' real agenda … is not hard. Volunteer workers don't have to pay compulsory union dues to serve their communities, but most paid workers on public projects in California do. … (It) is yet another example of how government-authorized compulsory union dues corrupt the political process and furnish unscrupulous union officials with an enormous incentive to act against the public interest."

SEIU President Andy Stern in Washington speaks for all of Big Labor when he describes his organizing philosophy: "We prefer to use the power of persuasion, but if that doesn't work, we use the persuasion of power." President Obama, who has made national service an administration priority, has been and will continue to be silent about the Big Labor bullies who make public enemies of Scouts with trash bags and hoes.

You see, kids, Obama owes Stern (his most frequent White House visitor) and his union brethren. SEIU alone poured more than $60 million in compulsory membership dues into Obama's campaign and leaned on its workers to "volunteer" to knock on doors, place phone calls and send out mailers for the Democratic Party. No good deed goes unpunished by union bosses -- unless it benefits their political empire.