Spending reforms empower agencies to ignore earmarks

Members of Congress quietly have been calling federal agencies demanding their pet projects still be funded weeks after they swore off pork-barrel spending, the Bush administration says.

In response, administration officials have signaled they ignore many of those requests -- a move that thrills fiscal conservatives who have called on the president to take that step. But it's likely to irk congressional spending committees because it may threaten 95 percent of pork-spending projects, or "earmarks."

"Some of your offices have begun to receive requests from some congressional offices asking that the department continue to fund programs or activities that received earmarked funds in prior years," the Department of Energy's chief of staff, Jeffrey Kupfer, wrote in a Feb. 2 internal memo. A check by The Washington Times of other agencies turned up similar reports of phone calls -- from congressional offices of both parties.

But now, Mr. Kupfer wrote, they will no longer feel bound by earmarks and will follow through only on those "with meritorious proposals or programs that effectively support and advance the department's missions and objectives."

Want More - click here

We Are Going To Run A Fair House - nah just kidding

Why is it the Democrats don’t want to debate or allow a debate with the Republicans in the House of Representatives? Are they just trying to get back at the Republicans for the last twelve years? Or could it be that the Democrats are afraid that if a debate took place, certain Democrats would jump ship and join the opposition? Many will tend to go with the later. Why?

It is not a secret that the Democrats are trying to embarrass Bush at every turn, however, if the Republicans were allowed to present a alternative resolution many Democrats in the House just might support it. The fear is that a Republican resolution might expose the messy divide within the Democratic Party over whether to cut off or to restrict funding for troops on the ground. The Democratic Whips are reigning in their constituents and not giving them the chance to flip on the issue.

The fact of the matter is this, many rank and file members are wary of ending the funding for the mission. A good example of how the Ranking members are trying to hold things together was displayed by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer on Sunday’s Meet The Press. Hoyer had earlier said that the Republicans would have a chance to offer their own measures but recanted his statement over the weekend by stating that was “not necessarily” the case.

Another Democratic Rep., Ed Perlmutter, first timer said that he plans to back his party’s measure to reject the troop increase, but added he would be in favor to support a resolution committing to funding of the troops. Perlmutter added, “I don’t want to cut off funding. Our troops are performing magnificently.” Perlmutter added that the Republicans are trying to “trip us up” by proposing such a measure now, considering the fact that there is “no consensus on funding” among the Democrats.

If you wanted further proof as to how divided the Democrats are, here is what Democrat Rep. Michael Arcuri had to say, “We feel that we want to do what is best for the troops, but we have some differences in terms of how you do that.” The Republicans know that a resolution expressing a commitment to funding the troops would put the Democrats in a bind.

The Democrats ran on a platform against the war in Iraq. They also said that the need for transparency in Congress would be a primary issue when they took control. However, when asked about this their reply was this, “We’re going to run a fair House, but we are not going to be naïve about it. We’re just trying to give the American people a clear debate and a clear answer” on Iraq. Then answer me this if you would please, how can you have a clear debate and answer without having that debate? Is this more double talk coming from the Democrats? The fact is simply this, and put well by Will Marshall of the DLC, “there is broad unity on the fact that we have to start winding the occupation down, not doubling down on it, but after that, I think it’s harder to find a consensus.” In other words they have no solution to the War in Iraq, but are hell bent on trashing Bush for it, and wanting him to resolve it before 2008.

La Drang Hero Finally Gets Medal of Honor

Major Bruce P. Crandall

My congradulations to Major Crandall, it has been a long time coming (42 years) and if the movie "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young" did him any justice, he deserves much more than this.

A Company, 1, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile)

MAJ Bruce P. Crandall will receive the Medal of Honor during a White House ceremony February 26, 2007 for his heroic actions in the Battle of Ia Drang.
Spouse: Arlene Crandall of Kent, Washington

Children: R. Donovan; Steven; Michael

Hometown: Olympia, WAEducation: BA University of Nebraska, 1969; MPA Golden GateUniversity, 1977

Drafted: U.S. Army, 1953Commissioned: Engineer Officer Candidate School, Ft. Belvoir, VA, 1954Deployments: Dominican Republic Expeditionary Force; two tours of Vietnam

Aircraft: U-1 Otter fixed wing; L-20 Beaver fixed wing; L-19 Birddog fixed wing; H-23 Raven "couldn't get off the ground on a hot day"; H-13; H-19; UH-1 Huey "best helicopter ever built"

Biography: LTC (Ret.) Crandall is a veteran Master Army Aviator in both fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters. He led over 900 combat missions during two tours in Vietnam.

Born in 1933, Crandall grew up in Olympia, Wash., where he played baseball and became a high school All American. He was drafted into the Army in 1953.

After commissioning and graduation from fixed-wing and helicopter training conducted by the Air Force and Army, he was assigned to a mapping group based out of the Presidio of San Francisco "that at the time was the largest flying military aviation unit in the world. " From there he went to fly L-19 Birddogs and L-20 Beavers in Alaska, again for topographic studies.

Crandall's first overseas flying assignment was to Wheelus AFB in Tripoli, Libya, mapping the desert for two years flying YU-1 Otter, L-20 Beaver, L-19 Birddog and H-23 Raven aircraft as an instructor pilot and unit test pilot.

His next overseas tours were flying over thousands of square miles of previously unmapped mountains and jungles in Central and South America. For this mission, he was based out of Howard AFB, Panama, and Costa Rica. While assigned to the 11th Air Assault Division, Crandall helped develop air-assault tactics as a platoon commander. In early 1965, he joined the Dominican Republic Expeditionary Force as a liaison to the 18th Airborne Corps.

Later that year, he would command the 1st Cavalry Division's Company A, 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion at An Khe, Vietnam. Using the call sign "Ancient Serpent 6," he led a flying unit supporting eight battalions on the ground.

On Nov. 14, 1965, Crandall led the first major division operation of airmobile troops into Landing Zone X-Ray in Vietnam's Ia Drang Valley and is credited with evacuating some 70 wounded comrades with his wing man and fellow Medal of Honor recipient MAJ Ed Freeman. The two also flew in the ammunition needed for the 1/7th CAV (Custer's old battalion) to survive. The craft he was flying was unarmed.

Read the rest of the story at : http://www.army.mil/medalofhonor/crandall/profile/index.html

WHAT A WEEKEND

Well this is certainly been a long and painful weekend for me. Last Wednesday, February 7, I had to have an operation on my shoulder for a torn rotator cuff. I actually injured the shoulder last June and have been seeing a doctor since then. At first the doctor told me I had a bad case of bursitis and was giving me cortisone shots to help the pain. But the cortisone shots only helped for about 24 to 48 hours and then the pain was back.

After about a dozen trips to the doctor for these cortisone shots and gulping down at least three or four bottles of ibuprofen, the doctor finally decided that there might be something else wrong and it might not just be bursitis. So he set me up an appointment or an MRI on my shoulder. This is when they finally discovered that I had a torn rotator cuff.

I had to go in early Wednesday around 7:00 to prep for the surgery, which took place around 10:30. I had a partial tear and a complete tear along with some fluid that had built up in the rotator cuff area. I ended up staying at the hospital for almost two hours after the operation was complete trying to get my wits about me. I was told by my daughter and my wife, that it took quite awhile for me to come round. They also told me that it was quite funny watching me try to wake up. Personally, I really don’t remember much of anything.

My wife went on to work and my daughter brought me home. My daughter stated that it was quite a task getting me from the car into the house, claiming that I was bumping into just about everything in my way. I remember finally working my way to bed and pretty much collapsing and waking up about six hours later. My arm was in a sling held snug against my body so that I couldn’t move it, and the pain medication that the doctor prescribed for me pretty much get me out of things up through about Saturday. So needless to say, it was pretty hard to focus on much of anything for the better part of the weekend until the drugs and the pain finally wore off.

The doctor says that I will probably be off or out of work for about two to three months before I can go back to resuming my normal daily life. So, during this time I’ll be going to see the doctor, therapy, and pretty much sitting round watching the world go by. I guess that’s all right though, it’s not football season anyway. So I guess there’s a chance that I will be on here a little bit more often than I have in the past. Since I can’t use my left arm to type with, I purchased me one of those voice recognition programs for my computer. That’s what I am using right now. I sure hope it gets better, because right now it’s taking a long time just to get this out. I guess the more you use it, the faster it will recognize what you’re saying. Oh well, I guess I’ll have plenty of time to work the kinks out of it.

Super Bowl Commercials have Underlying War Tones

According to Stuart Elliot, of the NY Times, the tone of this years commercials for the superbowl are "perhaps reflecting the toll of War". According to his article, Elliot cited a few of the commercials that ran during the superbowl as coming "across as cruel or callous." Some of the ads that Elliot refers to were ads for CareerBuilder, Bud Light, FedEx, Sprint, GoDaddy to name a few.

Why is it that some people think that the war has to be drawn into everything that is going on. This was a major sporting event, with no underlying war tones. It was Professional Football at it best (or worst depending on who you were cheering for). Although I will agree that some of the commercials came off flat to me, I had no idea that they were transmitting underlying thoughts of the war and those thoughts never entered my mind. Maybe Elliot should take a look at what is transpiring over the internet on sites like MySpace, or YouTube. Or maybe even taking a look at some of the shows on cable like Jack Ass, or other shows on MTV. Channels that for whatever reason, seem to appeal to the younger generation. These shows have more violence or cruelty and callouosness than any commercial I have ever seen.

Could it be because of the decay in morality in our society that some of these "underlying" tones are so easily spotted by the likes of Elliot? Could it be that this nation has drifted away from its original roots, that the MSM has or is trying to dominate our every thought and action? Personally, I opt for the second one as trying to control my thoughts and daily life. I can't answer for everyone in the US, but the way I see it is like this; the government has put its nose into almost every facit of my daily life, telling me that this is bad for my health, or that this will make me live a longer life, don't drink this, don't smoke that, don't eat this, and so forth. And the MSM is the one that is in the forefront trying to shove all this down my throat by reporting on a daily basis all the "terrible" things that are going on out there.

I mean honestly, how often on CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBS, NBC, and ABC do you see reports of kindness, generosity or just plain old being a good neighbor. Not very often. So naturally you would think that the world is going to hell in a hand basket. When all you hear is doom and gloom, pretty soon that is the kind of mind set that you will have. I am sorry, I thought the football game was a good game, even though my team didn't play; and the commercials were not intended to "reflect" on the war. Life is a dog-eat-dog world, no matter how you cut it. And to me, that is what the ads were implying. You want to get ahead - try this product, you want to be noticed - buy this car, you want a better job - use this service. It is no different than the MSM is doing. One putting the other down so you will watch their channel more than the other, or coming up with some off the wall story to make the other look bad.

So, in closing, I just want to say...nice job Colts...sorry about that Bears...but there is always next year. That is unless the MSM implants it into your mind that the world will end before then.

How Do the Candidates Stack Up on Spending

Have you ever wondered how this years Presidential candidates stack up against each other when it comes to federal spending? Well, the National Taxpayers Union has figured up how much each candidate has recommended during 2005, and has graded each from 1995 thru 2005 (or their duration in congress). Surprise, surprise. Remember how the Democrats have tried to exploit the Republicans as big spenders and not for the little guy? Well here are a few interesting facts that might turn the heads of a few Democrats, and cause the jaws of others to really drop.

The dollar amounts indicated are in billions of dollars:

Democrats:

Joe Biden -----------------$90

Hillary Clinton--------------$378.2

Tom Dashle (2004)---------$222.3

Chris Dodd----------------$224

John Edwards (2003)-------$103.5

Barack Obama (2005)--------$11.7

Dennis Kuninich ----------------$1.87

Total = $1,031.57 Billion

Republicans:

Sam Brownback --------------$19

Newt Ganrich (1998)-------------$4.5

Chuck Hagel --------------------$85.7
Duncan Hunter------------------$15.8
John McCain--------------------$36.9

Tom Tancredo-------------------$13.8

Ron Paul-----------------------$34

Total= $209.7 Billion

Now the math may be off a little, but even by these figures the Democrat(ic) candidates have wanted to spend around $800 Billion more dollars than the Republican candidates. Are these not the same individuals that were screaming about the Republicans going to push the country more in debt with their careless spending than their party would? Go to National Taxpayers Union by clicking on the title of this post to find out more interesting facts about the democrat(ic) party and the republican party spending tactics and how they want to effect your taxes in the overall picture.

Also check out their blog and one item in particular. Ten Myths About the Bush Tax Cuts

Global Warming - Man Made or Natural

On certain subjects, I try not to go with the flow. I try to find out things on my own through conducting my own research. I try to look at both sides of the story and then draw my own conclusions. This article, I hope, is just the first of many in trying to define what Global Warming is and who, if anyone, is at fault. Understand that I am a simple person and will therefore try to explain it in a simple manner.

There is great a great alarm going on in the present that maybe has little or no basis for truth. That alarm is GLOBAL WARMING! Global Warming is defined as:"The progressive gradual rise of the earth's surface temperature thought to be caused by the greenhouse effect and responsible for changes in global climate patterns. An increase in the near surface temperature of the Earth. Global warming has occurred in the distant past as the result of natural influences, but the term is most often used to refer to the warming predicted to occur as a result of increased emissions of greenhouse gases."weather.ncbuy.com/glossary.html As you can see it has been going on for quite some time. It has occurred during specific periods between Ice Ages and even during some of those Ice Ages. Some say it is primarily caused by the distance of the earth from the sun, some say that it is a natural occurrences caused by trees ans plant life on the earth.

However, recently it has been determined that the earth is actually cooler today than 100 years ago. So I guess the question should be, When will the next Ice Age happen? Some scientist say that the cycles between Glacial Periods range anywhere from 10 thousand years to 80 thousand years. If this is the "norm", are we not in a Ice Age period now? According to some we are. But more toward the end. Thus the reason for the receding glaciers. It is true to a certain extent that part of the "warming" is being caused by pollution. But that part is minutely small.

Most scientist agree that the biggest part of the "greenhouse effect" is caused by the plant population and trees. As well as the location of the earth from the sun. Distance from the sun has been proven as one reason for Ice Ages, reduction in the earth's temperatures over an extended period of time have allowed existing glaciers to grow is size. If the temperatures are reduced over a long enough time frame the glaciers continuing growing in size till they cover large portions of the earth. Thus the same can be stated for the warm temperature fluctuations. The longer the warm up period, the warmer the temperature will be. So is the "Greenhouse Effect" and Global Warming caused more by man or the nature of natural occurrences?

I hope to disperse more information with links backing both sides of the argument in the near future as I do more research on this very interesting subject.

Hanoi Jane Comes Out of Hiding

Well, it seems that "Hanoi Jane" Fonda has finally resurfaced after a thirty plus year hiatus. Yes, Traitor Jane is back and in good voice I hear. During her speech at the anti-war rally in D.C. this last weekend, she made a big splash announcing that she was coming (back) out of the closet. As she stood shoulder to shoulder with the great Sean "Turncoat" Penn, and others on the platform, one could only travel back through time and have visions of the late sixties and early seventies.

What I do not understand, and haven't for some time, is why Hanoi Jane was never prosecuted for aiding and abetting the enemy during her earlier protest years. She was allowed to slide away like a snake in the night. Don't get me wrong. Protesting the war was one thing, but actually going to North Vietnam and parading around with the V.C., posing for pictures, and then after the release of the POW's she called them liars when they spoke out about their treatment by the North. Then somehow at the end of the war, she slithered back under her rock, never to be heard from (somewhat) for thirty years.

Now they anti-war groupies have two favorite daughters they can tag along with, Cindy and Jane. What effect will Hanoi Jane have, who knows. But you can pretty much rest assured that it will be negative.

We Have Returned...or How to Kiss Up to the World in Two Easy Steps

Well, the SOTUA is over. The Democrats are all rushing to get their two cents in on what the President said. However, I have yet to hear the Dems come up with a solution for Iraq, or anything else. True they, got their punches in during their fist 100 hours. But what have they really done except bypass the process for which laws are created. They have pushed their wage hikes through, except now it is being greeted with some reluctancy due to the fact that they want to exempt some employers. If it is a raise hike across the board, it must be all the way across the board, not just for some. They really can't bash Bush on the eeconomy, unemployment, interest rates, the stock market or much of anything else.

They have created their little Committee on Global Warming, or otherwise know as "the sky if falling". They have shut out the republicans on debates on the floor pertaining to some things that they are trying to pass. Then they come up with the resolution on cutting funds for the war, and then try to say that this will not send a negative message to the troops on the ground or those that are preparing to go. As a vet, speaking for myself, I find this attitude to be a defeatist attitude. If you tell someone that is out there putting their life on the line that you are going to cut spending on a effort that they are participating in, what kind of attitude do you think the troops will take. Let alone what the terrorists and insurgents are saying. Like Al Queada number two man said back in November when the Dems won back both houses, that "we" have beaten Bush. Now the Dems are trying to fullfill their intententions, by hinting heavily about going after Bush.

Even during the State of the Union speech the Dems showed how they are going to try and embarrass Bush. The, excuse the expression, "shit eating smerk" that Hillary had throughout the speech and the lack of respect for the president was definitely present. Yet the Democrats in their rebuttal have still not placed anything concrete on the table as to how things should be fixed, other than trying to express to the world that they are defeatists and do not want the war in Iraq to be won by the U.S. Wait and see, there will be a push by the Democrats in Congress to place it all under the UN's control. Your taxes will go up, the price of gas will go back up after dropping back below $1.90 (in Oklahoma). Yes the Democrats will control the Congress for another two years, God help us!

January 29 - update: In the last paragraph of this post I commented on the gas prices going back up. Guess what? They have. In Parts of Oklahoma they have jumped back up to $2.00 a gallon, a ten cent jump almost over night.