FDT on Earmarks

Don't cha just love it when the party apparatchik use new words to describe old practises?

During the last elections, the House Democrats' campaign chief, Rep. Rahm Emanuel, was clear as a bell on earmarks. "For far too long," he said, "business as usual has involved individual members doling out favors in appropriations and other bills through earmarks. The American people deserve to know more than who sponsored special interest legislation. They deserve earmark reform that puts an end to special interest earmarking and provides solutions to prevent the practice of earmark abuse."

As a Republican, I was glad. It's not that earmarks are inherently bad. Some serve important public purposes. But they need to be in the open, for all to see and evaluate, and their use needs to be significantly limited.

In January, the House and Senate both separately passed earmark reform but didn't quite follow through, leaving the final wording to conference committee. As the last session ended, we finally saw the bill, worked out in secrecy by the current leadership. Republican Sen. Tom Coburn got it right when he said it "not only failed to drain the swamp, but gave the alligators new rights."

Immediately, earmark abuse reached new lows, symbolized ridiculously in the bloated children's health bill. Even the New York Times admitted that, despite "promises by Congress to end the secrecy of earmarks and other pet projects," House members "quietly funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to specific hospitals and health care providers." Somehow, hospitals in the districts of a few powerful Members of Congress are now due higher Medicare reimbursement rates than other hospitals.

Apparently, Congress has acquired god-like powers to move hospitals hundreds of miles -- at least for billing purposes. A hospital in Kingston, New York, is deemed, by law, to exist in some sort of accounting twilight zone, 80 miles away in New York City where hospitals face much higher costs. A hospital in rural Green Bay, Wisconsin, has seemingly slipped 200 miles through time and space to the south, materializing somewhere in urban Chicago.

Republican legislators, seemingly cowed by a bill with the word "reform" tacked onto it, should have had confidence that the American people would see through this nonsense -- as witnessed by Congressional approval ratings.

What we need is a stake in the ground for basic reform of the budget and spending process in Washington, and then holding to that promise. Until that happens, and we get spending under control, we'll have Congress continuing to stake bigger and bigger claims on everyone else's hard-earned tax dollars. The President should hold the line and wield his veto as he has promised to do.

To read more commentaries from Fred, click here.

Avenger

Suddenly Everyone Is A Federalist

Well, looks like the announced Republican candidates are suddenly espousing the virtues of Federalism.
Well, guess what guys?
Fred Thompson was a Federalist when a Federalist wasn't cool.

Thing is, being a Federalist, is ALWAYS cool.
Looks as if FDT has stirred some brain cells in the RINO's...

Too Late!!!!

Democracy

Courtesy of Military Motivator

Which is also my new homepage.

From Michelle's Blog

Michelle

They’re coming back to Washington, D.C. Will you stand with them? As you’ll recall, the first Gathering of Eagles in March to counter the White Flag mob drew unprecedented masses to the nation’s capital in support of the troops and their mission. In 33 days, the Eagles and a number of similar organizations plan to answer the ANSWER crowd again.

GOE is holding a Freedom Walk on September 10 and Operation Eagle Justice on September 15.

Eagles Landing “will assemble in Washington, D.C. on September 15, 2007 in support of America, our troops, and our fallen brothers and sisters.”

The New Republic Just Doesn't Get It

Companion piece at ASP
Michelle's earlier post

by Bob Parks
New Media Alliance

As many of us know, the "Baghdad Diarist" and the details of the "activities" of his American Army buddies have been, by his own recants, shown to be fictitious. However, The New Republic who published those "stories" continues to operate under assumptions borne of arrogance and ignorance….

Their latest "update" on Pvt. Scott Thomas Beauchamp ended like this….

Here's what we know: On July 26, Beauchamp told us that he signed several statements under what he described as pressure from the Army. He told us that these statements did not contradict his articles. Moreover, on the same day he signed these statements for the Army, he gave us a statement standing behind his articles, which we published at tnr.com. Goldfarb has written, "It's pretty clear the New Republic is standing by a story that even the author does not stand by." In fact, it is our understanding that Beauchamp continues to stand by his stories and insists that he has not recanted them. The Army, meanwhile, has refused our requests to see copies of the statements it obtained from Beauchamp–or even to publicly acknowledge that they exist.

Scott Beauchamp is currently a 24-year-old soldier in Iraq who, for the past 15 days, has been prevented by the military from communicating with the outside world, aside from three brief and closely monitored phone calls to family members. Our investigation has not thus far uncovered factual evidence (aside from one key detail) to discount his personal dispatches. And we cannot simply dismiss the corroborating accounts of the five soldiers with whom we spoke. (You can read our findings here.)

Part of our integrity as journalists includes standing by a writer who has been accused of wrongdoing and who is not able to defend himself. But we also want to reassure our readers that our obligations to our writer would never trump our commitment to the truth. We once again invite the Army to make public Beauchamp's statements and the details of its investigation–and we ask the Army to let us (or any other media outlet, for that matter) speak to Beauchamp. Unless and until these things happen, we cannot fairly assess any of these reports about Beauchamp–and therefore have no reason to change our own assessment of Beauchamp's work. If the truth ends up reflecting poorly on our judgment, we will accept responsibility for that. But we also refuse to rush to judgment on our writer or ourselves.

For 18 months or so, I worked in the Public Affairs Office onboard the USS Midway so, unlike Pvt. Beauchamp and The New Republic, I have a good understanding of how these things work.

While military journalists use the same style book as mainstream journalists, they also operate under a different set of rules. Civilians answer to their editors while military journalists answer to their superiors, who are ultimately answerable to the Commander-in-Chief. While The New Republic continues to refer to Beauchamp as their "writer", the private is under contract exclusively with the United States Army, and I would doubt they would formally recognize any relationship with TNR as valid, that is unless Beauchamp was given prior approval up the chain of command.

As Pvt. Beauchamp is not an Army journalist, I sincerely doubt he received such clearance. Most military journalists aren't given carte blanche access to the civilian media, and most information distributed from the military to the press is vetted carefully for the obvious security reasons.

The New Republic may believe they have a right to speak to Beauchamp, but that illustrates their ignorance of the Uniform Code of Military justice, which for military personnel, is the U.S. Constitution. Certain rights do not apply, such as the right to free speech. This is for the obvious need to maintain discipline and morale. So the Army has no obligation to allow Pvt. Beauchamp to speak to the New York Times, let alone The New Republic. It's apparent they do not understand this.

Also, I would bet the United States Army could give a rip about The New Republic's "findings."

The main reason why the military trains people to work with the media is so news can be distributed that is approved within the chain that will not jeopardize The Mission. The Mission is all the military really cares about. The New Republic need be repeatedly reminded of this.

It is possible for service members to be approached by individuals or entities that wish to obtain information. Some of these people can be friendly; some could be the enemy. It HAS happened. That is also one of the main reasons only trained personnel are permitted limited access to the civilian press. In this case, The New Republic is an entity that may not have the best interests of the Army and The Mission at heart. The fact they were so quick to publish negative stories about the military without adequate verification with the Army may imply a motive that may not be in the best interests of the military or our nation.

Now let me be blunt.

While Pvt. Beauchamp and his fellow soldiers were in the shit, The New Republic editors were sitting in air conditioned offices, sipping hot Starbucks coffee, and saw an opportunity to exploit a naive soldier, turning him against the very Army that is not only paying, but housing, feeding, insuring, later college educating, and VA home loaning him. That, if anything, is what I'd call inciting insurrection.

It's apparent The New Republic was hoping Beauchamp would eventually violate UCMJ Article 88

Contempt towards Officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Granted, Pvt. Beauchamp is not an officer but he has made serious accusations against his fellow soldiers that can result in their imprisonment for a very, very long time. This is no longer a game.

Some at The New Republic would be high-fiving if they could post Beauchamp blaming his situation, as well as the deaths of innocent Iraqis and their dogs on Bush and Cheney…. Those at The New Republic wouldn't be in trouble, but today Pvt. Beauchamp is. Serious trouble.

Those at The New Republic can sit protected by the 1st Amendment while leaving Beauchamp exposed to a military that has no obligation to let him speak to anyone. The Army doesn't have to let Beauchamp talk to his mother, let alone The New Republic. Also, the Army has no obligation to say one damn word to anyone in the press about what color the drapes in the chow hall is, let alone speak to someone who has enabled one of their soldiers to violate the UCMJ.

The New Republic just doesn't get it, and they probably don't care as they don't see beyond their own narcissistic wants as a "news" organization. They have used this dispensable young man and when they are done making him a symbol of abuse by the military they obviously loathe, they will move on and seek another soldier to destroy.

Let this be a lesson to all you uniformed bloggers out there. The enemy you don't see may be worse than the ones you do.


Bob Parks is a staff writer for the New Media Alliance, Inc. (www.thenma.org). The New Media Alliance is a non-profit (501c3) national coalition of writers, journalists and grass-roots media outlets.

WHOOOPPPEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!

Back online with DSL...new modem arrived today, a 5 minute call to Verizon tech support, and we're screaming, Baby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been without high speed broadband for a month.
Lightning strike took out the modem, a tv, a water heater, and a water pipe.
Very exciting stuff.
New ground rods ARE being installed.

I've been using a broadband wireless connection, and it's marginally better than dial-up, but not by much, and forget about videos.

'A Plot to Rival 9/11'

Deadly Details Behind the Airline Liquids Ban

ABC News recently broke an exclusive report detailing the chilling truth behind the plot to explode horrendously devastating devices, which were to be mixed and detonated by terrorists using relatively small amounts of liquids that they planned to carry in innocent appearing soft drink container aboard as many as 6 to 7 jumbo jetliners bound for the U.S.

"I think that the plot, in terms of its intent, was looking at devastation on a scale that would have rivaled 9/11," Chertoff told ABC's Pierre Thomas. "If they had succeeded in bringing liquid explosives on seven or eight aircraft, there could have been thousands of lives lost and an enormous economic impact with devastating consequences for international air travel.

"I got a call telling me that it looked as if the focus had turned on an attack on the United States, specifically an attack on airliners leaving from Britain, traveling to American cities," Chertoff said. "It also became evident, within 24 hours, that the time frame within which the attack was going to take place, would not be a matter of months but … a matter of weeks or even days."

To view this frightening video of how massive the threat was go to Family Security
Matters

FreedomWorks Online GOP Presidential Straw Poll

FreedomWorks has a straw poll running.

Please take a second to vote for your favorite candidate in the FreedomWorks GOP Presidential Straw Poll.

Interview with Lt Col Buzz Patterson

From Gathering of Eagles
Link to full page.

Retired Air Force officer Buzz Patterson was Kit Lange's guest on his show last night. You may remember him as the man who carried the “nuclear football” for President Clinton. He is also the author of several books, including Dereliction of Duty and his latest book entitled War Crimes: The Left’s Campaign to Destroy Our Military and Lose the War on Terror. Here’s a sample from last night’s show:

“I was a little bit naive when I went to Iraq… I really thought the media was undermining our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan and the War on Terror. I found out it was much bigger than that; it is Democratic politicians; its academics, our professors and our deans and college presidents on university campuses across the country; its Hollywood popular culture; its anti-war organizations like Code Pink for Peace and United for Peace and Justice; its this “Wahhabi lobby,” I call it in the book, with funding from George Soros and MoveOn.org and the Ford Foundation that really wants to see America lose. I think the bottom line is the left today only wins when America loses… It’s a de facto alliance the left has with our enemies. They want to see America lose because they gain in Washington, D.C., if we do lose.”

Listen to the interview


Links to info on
code pink and more
unitedforpeace&justice
worldcantwait
Link to additional info on Buzz Patterson here