Jimmy Carter is at it again. After finally winning his lifetime underachievement award, the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize, and joining Michael Moore in the presidential box at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Carter has decided to monitor the scheduled Jan. 9, 2005, "Palestinian elections." Carter did such a great job in the 1996 "Palestinian elections" that Yasser Arafat won 85 percent of the vote. Carter labeled the elections "open and fair." The only electoral problems, Carter said, were caused by Israel. Carter was happy with the results as well; he and Arafat were friends. At one point, Carter even penned a speech for the terrorist leader.
For Carter to monitor the newest "Palestinian election" takes a silo-full of gall. But it has been a year of gall. And so, in honor of the worst president of the 20th century, I have decided to initiate a new award: the Jimmy Carter Honorary Golden Peanut of Gall.
The 2004 nominees:
Louise Arbour, United Nations high commissioner for human rights. While representing an organization that has been repeatedly complicit in mass murder, Arbour had the incredible chutzpah to morally equate coalition forces in Iraq with "insurgents": "The High Commissioner considers that all violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be investigated and those responsible for breaches ... must be brought to justice, be they members of the Multinational Force or insurgents." When the storm troopers come, you can be sure the United Nations will be there to condemn anyone who resists them.
Harry Reid (D-Nevada), incoming Senate minority leader. Asked about the possibility that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas could fill Justice William Rehnquist's seat as chief justice, Reid called Thomas "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don't think that he's done a good job as a Supreme Court justice." Reid didn't cite a single decision Thomas had written. If Reid wanted to find an embarrassment sitting on the Supreme Court, all he had to do was look to Ruth Bader Ginsburg; her decisions are often unintelligible (e.g. Gasperini v. Center for Humanities Inc., 1996). But it's always easier to get away with calling a conservative black man unintelligent.
Washington Bureaucrats Issue New Policies Limiting Use of Deadly Force by Border Agents on the Ground | Katie Pavlich
Jon Stewart Attempts to "Slay" Food Stamp Fraud Allegations; Misses Real Point | Christine Rousselle