The women's post is still coming but I wanted to squeeze this in.
This is from the Washington Times, read it all, you'll see a weird coincidence about ethanol being added to our gas and the prices going through the roof!
Ethanol and its unintended consequences
By Deroy MurdockFebruary 4, 2007
Many Democrats and some Republicans applauded President Bush's State of the Union proposal for a 20 percent reduction in gasoline use over the next 10 years, largely through greater reliance on ethanol. Mr. Bush's idea, however, is adding corn-based fuel to protests in Mexico City. Existing federal laws that mandate ethanol in U.S. gasoline have diverted trainloads of corn from America's food supply-chain to ethanol factories. This boosted U.S. corn prices nearly 80 percent in 2006. That's bad enough if you buy corn on the cob for a weekend barbecue. But it's much worse if you are a poor Mexican surviving on corn tortillas. A kilo (2.2 pounds) of tortillas recently has shot up 55 percent, from 5.5 to 8.5 pesos. Poor Mexicans are not taking this sitting down. In fact, some 75,000 of them stood up Wednesday in Mexico City's giant Zocalo Plaza. More than 200 unions and social-action groups organized protests to denounce the rising price of this basic Mexican staple. "[Felipe] Calderon stole the elections, and now he's stealing the tortillas," screamed one banner, chiding Mexico's narrowly elected new president. According to the Associated Press, the normally free-market Mr. Calderon has been trying to get manufacturers to follow a gentlemen's agreement to keep tortilla prices flat. How has American energy policy inspired political instability in Mexico? This is a pristine example of the Law of Unintended Consequences. When big government does big things, all sorts of wacky stuff happens, and rarely for the good. Uncle Sam gives ethanol manufacturers a 51-cent-per-gallon subsidy. Anyone who wants to import ethanol is welcome to do so, provided he pays the 54-cent-per-gallon tariff slapped on ethanol imports. This is one reason for another unintended consequence: Gasoline prices shot up last summer since ethanol, largely produced in the Midwest, had to be shipped south and to both coasts to be blended, by law, with gasoline. Importing Brazilian ethanol into Atlantic and Pacific ports would have made sense, but then-House Speaker Dennis Hastert, Illinois Republican, hated the idea, since that would put competitive pressure on his corn-farming constituents. "I don't see an economic plus in it right now," Mr. Hastert sniffed. What other unintended consequences could the federal government's ethanol-mania propel? First, poor Mexicans will feel even poorer as tortilla prices stay high or climb even higher. At the margin, watch for more of them to throw up their hands and head north, to a neighborhood near you. Second, as fuel companies buy more and more corn, prices will rise for corn flakes, corn bread, popcorn, corn syrup and other food items. Grocery bills should grow, at least marginally. Third, humans eat corn, but so do cows, pigs and chickens. Meat prices will rise, hurting U.S. consumers and making American meat exports less competitive on world markets. Fourth, if they have not already, members of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee will notice these increases in consumer and producer prices. Fearing inflation, they could start increasing interest rates. That would slow the economy and push into foreclosure more Americans with variable home mortgages.
Only in America would someone suggest BURNING FOOD to make tree huggers happy. You know I bet we could make fuel out of people... SAVE THE CORN!!!
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Monday, February 26, 2007
Buried Stories that need sunlight...
OK so in the past few weeks we have had a rash of horrible things happening in this Country that the media (including foxnews) has buried.
1) There was a shooting in a crowded mall in Utah, multiple people died, the shooter was a MUSLIM!
I have searched the web and can find little to nothing on this story.
2) A MUSLIM cab driver got into an argument with his passengers over God, he drops off the men then proceeds to run them down with his car!
Again, little to nothing in the news, hate-crime?
3) A 13 year old boy is kidnapped at gunpoint by an ILLEGAL Alien.
The "mainstream (joke) media" ignores this and moves on.
4) Two Border Patrol agents are thrown in jail (12 years) for doing their jobs, one is beaten while in general population.
A drug dealer with $1,000,000 worth of drugs is shot in the BUTT. He is given immunity and CITIZENSHIP to testify against our Agents.
I am putting out a call on all who read this to look for more information about any or all of these stories. Get it to me and I will add it to this post. Lets see how much more we can find and EXPOSE this insane BIZZARO world.
Also if you have any other stories like these, send them my way, I'll post them here.
I know it's alot of reading, but we have to stay informed. Tell as many people that will listen, suicide bombers will be next if something isn't done... MARK MY WORDS.
Updates: For Border Patrol Story
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/131058/border_patrol_agents_jailed_for_doing.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54110
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/2/150052.shtml (this one says the 4th amendment covers illegals!)
Mall Shooting
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/02/13/News/Six-Dead.In.Utah.Mall.Shooting-2715660.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17124042/ (identifies him as "bosnian" not mooselimb)
http://kdka.com/homepage/topstories_story_046114916.html (no muslame here)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54247 (FINALLY)
Cab Driver
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253038,00.html
Next Posting will be on women's rights in mooselimb world. Where is the N.O.W.?
1) There was a shooting in a crowded mall in Utah, multiple people died, the shooter was a MUSLIM!
I have searched the web and can find little to nothing on this story.
2) A MUSLIM cab driver got into an argument with his passengers over God, he drops off the men then proceeds to run them down with his car!
Again, little to nothing in the news, hate-crime?
3) A 13 year old boy is kidnapped at gunpoint by an ILLEGAL Alien.
The "mainstream (joke) media" ignores this and moves on.
4) Two Border Patrol agents are thrown in jail (12 years) for doing their jobs, one is beaten while in general population.
A drug dealer with $1,000,000 worth of drugs is shot in the BUTT. He is given immunity and CITIZENSHIP to testify against our Agents.
I am putting out a call on all who read this to look for more information about any or all of these stories. Get it to me and I will add it to this post. Lets see how much more we can find and EXPOSE this insane BIZZARO world.
Also if you have any other stories like these, send them my way, I'll post them here.
I know it's alot of reading, but we have to stay informed. Tell as many people that will listen, suicide bombers will be next if something isn't done... MARK MY WORDS.
Updates: For Border Patrol Story
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/131058/border_patrol_agents_jailed_for_doing.html
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54110
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54132
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/2/2/150052.shtml (this one says the 4th amendment covers illegals!)
Mall Shooting
http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/02/13/News/Six-Dead.In.Utah.Mall.Shooting-2715660.shtml
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17124042/ (identifies him as "bosnian" not mooselimb)
http://kdka.com/homepage/topstories_story_046114916.html (no muslame here)
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54247 (FINALLY)
Cab Driver
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,253038,00.html
Next Posting will be on women's rights in mooselimb world. Where is the N.O.W.?
Friday, February 2, 2007
William M. Arkin, SCUMBAG
Some LOSER, ass faced, hateful, scumbag, POS blogger for the Washington Post (wapo) wrote this crap about the BRAVE MEN who are fighting & DYING for our freedom. It's time to boycott the WaPo and let that pravada BURN. Following the losers rant is fun poem written by a Vietnam Vet.
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
By William M. Arkin
WaPo Weasels II Contributed
by Russ Vaughn
Want to slam our soldiers, Arkin?
Well here is one to slam.
I got used to Lefty slamming
When I came back from Vietnam.
So you want to put a muzzle
On our brave fighting men?
Well try muzzling me you jerk,
Just tell me where and when.
Your profession needs a lesson
In basic free speech rights,
For those you worms all hide behind,
For those who fight your fights.
Like all your soft and smarmy kind,
You really have no clue,
Who American warriors truly are,
What our warriors truly do.
How many times in your four years
As a chair-borne analyst,
Were you within an ocean’s width
Of combat’s hard mailed fist?
How many medals did you earn
In those warrens at Fort Meade?
In four years of four-eyed service,
Just what was your bravest deed?
FOX news has combat warriors
To help us understand the score,
While MSM uses clerks like you,
Who have never been to war.
Your resentment of your betters,
Seeps through your bitter writing,
And shows you have no clue or care
Of those who do the fighting.
Like your ivy-cloistered Comrades,
Your war’s between the classes,
Dialectics, speeches, theory,
Your heads firmly up your asses.
Russ Vaughn2d Bn,
327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
William M. Arkin on National and Homeland Security
I've been mulling over an NBC Nightly News report from Iraq last Friday in which a number of soldiers expressed frustration with opposition to war in the United States.
I'm sure the soldiers were expressing a majority opinion common amongst the ranks - that's why it is news - and I'm also sure no one in the military leadership or the administration put the soldiers up to expressing their views, nor steered NBC reporter Richard Engel to the story.
I'm all for everyone expressing their opinion, even those who wear the uniform of the United States Army. But I also hope that military commanders took the soldiers aside after the story and explained to them why it wasn't for them to disapprove of the American people.
Friday's NBC Nightly News included a story from my colleague and friend Richard Engel, who was embedded with an active duty Army infantry battalion from Fort Lewis, Washington.
Engel relayed how "troops here say they are increasingly frustrated by American criticism of the war. Many take it personally, believing it is also criticism of what they've been fighting for."
First up was 21 year old junior enlisted man Tyler Johnson, whom Engel said was frustrated about war skepticism and thinks that critics "should come over and see what it's like firsthand before criticizing."
"You may support or say we support the troops, but, so you're not supporting what they do, what they're here sweating for, what we bleed for, what we die for. It just don't make sense to me," Johnson said.
Next up was Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun, who is on his second tour in Iraq. He complained that "one thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
Next was Specialist Peter Manna: "If they don't think we're doing a good job, everything that we've done here is all in vain," he said.
These soldiers should be grateful that the American public, which by all polls overwhelmingly disapproves of the Iraq war and the President's handling of it, do still offer their support to them, and their respect.
Through every Abu Ghraib and Haditha, through every rape and murder, the American public has indulged those in uniform, accepting that the incidents were the product of bad apples or even of some administration or command order.
Sure, it is the junior enlisted men who go to jail. But even at anti-war protests, the focus is firmly on the White House and the policy. We don't see very many "baby killer" epithets being thrown around these days, no one in uniform is being spit upon.
So, we pay the soldiers a decent wage, take care of their families, provide them with housing and medical care and vast social support systems and ship obscene amenities into the war zone for them, we support them in every possible way, and their attitude is that we should in addition roll over and play dead, defer to the military and the generals and let them fight their war, and give up our rights and responsibilities to speak up because they are above society?
I can imagine some post-9/11 moment, when the American people say enough already with the wars against terrorism and those in the national security establishment feel these same frustrations. In my little parable, those in leadership positions shake their heads that the people don't get it, that they don't understand that the threat from terrorism, while difficult to defeat, demands commitment and sacrifice and is very real because it is so shadowy, that the very survival of the United States is at stake. Those Hoovers and Nixons will use these kids in uniform as their soldiers. If it weren't about the United States, I'd say the story would end with a military coup where those in the know, and those with fire in their bellies, would save the nation from the people.
But it is the United States, and the recent NBC report is just an ugly reminder of the price we pay for a mercenary - oops sorry, volunteer - force that thinks it is doing the dirty work.
The notion of dirty work is that, like laundry, it is something that has to be done but no one else wants to do it. But Iraq is not dirty work: it is not some necessary endeavor; the people just don't believe that anymore.
I'll accept that the soldiers, in order to soldier on, have to believe that they are manning the parapet, and that's where their frustrations come in. I'll accept as well that they are young and naïve and are frustrated with their own lack of progress and the never changing situation in Iraq. Cut off from society and constantly told that everyone supports them, no wonder the debate back home confuses them.
America needs to ponder what it is we really owe those in uniform. I don't believe America needs a draft though I imagine we'd be having a different discussion if we had one.
By William M. Arkin
WaPo Weasels II Contributed
by Russ Vaughn
Want to slam our soldiers, Arkin?
Well here is one to slam.
I got used to Lefty slamming
When I came back from Vietnam.
So you want to put a muzzle
On our brave fighting men?
Well try muzzling me you jerk,
Just tell me where and when.
Your profession needs a lesson
In basic free speech rights,
For those you worms all hide behind,
For those who fight your fights.
Like all your soft and smarmy kind,
You really have no clue,
Who American warriors truly are,
What our warriors truly do.
How many times in your four years
As a chair-borne analyst,
Were you within an ocean’s width
Of combat’s hard mailed fist?
How many medals did you earn
In those warrens at Fort Meade?
In four years of four-eyed service,
Just what was your bravest deed?
FOX news has combat warriors
To help us understand the score,
While MSM uses clerks like you,
Who have never been to war.
Your resentment of your betters,
Seeps through your bitter writing,
And shows you have no clue or care
Of those who do the fighting.
Like your ivy-cloistered Comrades,
Your war’s between the classes,
Dialectics, speeches, theory,
Your heads firmly up your asses.
Russ Vaughn2d Bn,
327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66
Sunday, January 21, 2007
Pimping a 12yr old for an Oscar!
In her new movie Dakota Fanning will appear semi-naked and will simulate a violent rape. How can the Liberals claim to care about children when movies like this are honored and real child rapist are given fluff sentences. I personally believe Dakota's parents should be brought up on charges. Thanx to http://www.wnd.com for the story.
'Hounddog': Fanning the flames of perversion
Posted: January 22, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ted Baehr
Throughout the last 20 years, young actresses have fallen victim to the terrorism of the mass media by being swept up into the hedonism and moral decay that Hollywood and celebrity too often offers. Young actresses like Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Sara Rose Karr, Nicole Kidman, and most recently Dakota Fanning, have been lured by promises of celebrity and awards for starring in lewd, tasteless movies.
What these actresses, directors and agents do not understand is that movie goers tune out in increasing numbers after seeing their favorite stars disrespecting themselves on camera.
The Los Angeles Times recently polled a group of teens (ages 12 to 17). Fifty-eight percent of boys and 74 percent of girls said they were offended by material they felt was disrespectful to women and girls. Furthermore, the respondents who said they were offended often change the channel after viewing offensive material.
Caving to Hollywood pressures to take demeaning parts is career suicide for these young women. Looking at the career of Demi Moore exemplifies this. Young Demi had a very promising career, starring in successful movies like ''St. Elmo's Fire,'' ''Ghost'' and ''A Few Good Men.'' However, for whatever reason, in 1996 she decided to star in the controversial movie ''Striptease'' about a single mother who is a stripper.
The movie made her look silly, tanked at the box office, and Moore's career faded quickly. She no longer had drawing power among teenagers and the huge family audience. Not even a strong feminist role in ''G.I. Jane'' under popular director Ridley Scott could lift her career back to what it was. However sad Demi Moore's story seems, there is an even more heartbreaking one currently involving one of Hollywood's brightest young stars.
Today the movie ''Hounddog,'' starring Dakota Fanning, will premier at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie tells the story of a sexually and physically abused young girl who becomes sexually promiscuous. At the urging of her agent and parents, Dakota appeared semi-naked and filmed a simulated child rape scene. Her agent told the New York Daily News that the role in the movie challenged her as an actress, and ''not just the rape scene ... [but] in every scene she gets better and better.'' Her mother insists that her ''gritty performance'' will win her an Oscar.
What a tragedy that this bright, young, 12-year-old girl has been sacrificed to the golden statue of the Academy Awards!
During the Golden Age of Hollywood, the entertainment industry understood the value of a star's reputation. Especially young stars like Shirley Temple and Elizabeth Taylor. Good wholesome young stars were groomed to appear that way in every movie so that they would be seen as celebrities that moviegoers would admire and want to see again and again. Now, Hollywood chews them up and spits them out like the used prostitutes on Hollywood Blvd. in L.A. or the streets of Bangkok. This is reprehensible.
The sexualization of young children like Dakota is part of the sick ideology of Freudian Marxists, radical feminists, homosexual activists, and perverts who believe in the pseudo-scientific evolutionary theory that all children are born with an innate lust for sexual fulfillment.
Most of these politically correct moral degenerates tolerate sexual promiscuity, including sometimes pedophilia. They show little or no concern for protecting the innocence of children, much less the sexual purity of teenagers and young adults. It is truly a shame when young girls are led to evil by those who should be protecting their innocence.
'Hounddog': Fanning the flames of perversion
Posted: January 22, 20071:00 a.m. Eastern
By Ted Baehr
Throughout the last 20 years, young actresses have fallen victim to the terrorism of the mass media by being swept up into the hedonism and moral decay that Hollywood and celebrity too often offers. Young actresses like Demi Moore, Sharon Stone, Sara Rose Karr, Nicole Kidman, and most recently Dakota Fanning, have been lured by promises of celebrity and awards for starring in lewd, tasteless movies.
What these actresses, directors and agents do not understand is that movie goers tune out in increasing numbers after seeing their favorite stars disrespecting themselves on camera.
The Los Angeles Times recently polled a group of teens (ages 12 to 17). Fifty-eight percent of boys and 74 percent of girls said they were offended by material they felt was disrespectful to women and girls. Furthermore, the respondents who said they were offended often change the channel after viewing offensive material.
Caving to Hollywood pressures to take demeaning parts is career suicide for these young women. Looking at the career of Demi Moore exemplifies this. Young Demi had a very promising career, starring in successful movies like ''St. Elmo's Fire,'' ''Ghost'' and ''A Few Good Men.'' However, for whatever reason, in 1996 she decided to star in the controversial movie ''Striptease'' about a single mother who is a stripper.
The movie made her look silly, tanked at the box office, and Moore's career faded quickly. She no longer had drawing power among teenagers and the huge family audience. Not even a strong feminist role in ''G.I. Jane'' under popular director Ridley Scott could lift her career back to what it was. However sad Demi Moore's story seems, there is an even more heartbreaking one currently involving one of Hollywood's brightest young stars.
Today the movie ''Hounddog,'' starring Dakota Fanning, will premier at the Sundance Film Festival. The movie tells the story of a sexually and physically abused young girl who becomes sexually promiscuous. At the urging of her agent and parents, Dakota appeared semi-naked and filmed a simulated child rape scene. Her agent told the New York Daily News that the role in the movie challenged her as an actress, and ''not just the rape scene ... [but] in every scene she gets better and better.'' Her mother insists that her ''gritty performance'' will win her an Oscar.
What a tragedy that this bright, young, 12-year-old girl has been sacrificed to the golden statue of the Academy Awards!
During the Golden Age of Hollywood, the entertainment industry understood the value of a star's reputation. Especially young stars like Shirley Temple and Elizabeth Taylor. Good wholesome young stars were groomed to appear that way in every movie so that they would be seen as celebrities that moviegoers would admire and want to see again and again. Now, Hollywood chews them up and spits them out like the used prostitutes on Hollywood Blvd. in L.A. or the streets of Bangkok. This is reprehensible.
The sexualization of young children like Dakota is part of the sick ideology of Freudian Marxists, radical feminists, homosexual activists, and perverts who believe in the pseudo-scientific evolutionary theory that all children are born with an innate lust for sexual fulfillment.
Most of these politically correct moral degenerates tolerate sexual promiscuity, including sometimes pedophilia. They show little or no concern for protecting the innocence of children, much less the sexual purity of teenagers and young adults. It is truly a shame when young girls are led to evil by those who should be protecting their innocence.
Monday, January 15, 2007
"R" & 'D" no good for the Future at NASA
First Bush promises big things for the future then the GOP held congress makes him a lair. Now Dem congress is sealing the deal... Say goodbye to MARS!
WASHINGTON — Congress' failure to approve a new annual budget for NASA could force the agency to lay off workers, gut science programs or delay the development of spacecraft to return astronauts to the moon, according to lawmakers and space experts.
The crunch comes because Congress is freezing most 2007 spending at 2006 levels through Sept. 30. NASA's budget will be held at $16.3 billion, more than $520 million short of President Bush's request as part of his vision for exploration of the moon and Mars.
"Congress votes on what size space program they want to buy," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told the agency's workers last week during a question-and-answer session broadcast on NASA TV. " ... And we will remove a half-billion dollars of content to match what they have told us to do.
"We will do what we have to do to get our programs into the budget that we are given," he said.
Griffin stopped short of saying what exactly will be sacrificed, and NASA spokesman David Steitz said the agency is waiting for guidance from lawmakers on 2007 spending and the White House proposal for the 2008 budget.
"It's like planning your family's budget," Steitz said. "Until you have the paycheck in the bank, you can't figure out what bills you're going to pay."
But in an internal NASA memo, posted recently on the independent NASA watchdog Web site nasawatch.com, agency officials warned that the budget freeze could delay development of a manned spacecraft named Orion and its accompanying launch vehicle.
Orion is intended to replace the aging space shuttle fleet and carry astronauts to the international space station, the moon and beyond. The spacecraft, being developed by Houston's Johnson Space Center, is scheduled for launch by 2014, four years after the planned retirement of the nation's three remaining space shuttles.
Worrisome gapLawmakers and space fans are worried that the four-year gap, in which no U.S. spacecraft will be available for carrying humans into space, could widen.
The NASA memo also warned that funding for robotic explorers for the moon and other technology programs would be threatened because of the budget shortfall. Also in the endangered category are science and aeronautics programs that have been Griffin's favorite targets when NASA has needed money to fund the space shuttle and international space station.
Responding to questions from agency workers last week, NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said she anticipates no layoffs at the moment but added, "I think we will all have to stay tuned."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, working last year with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., tried to add $1 billion to NASA's 2007 budget. They hoped the money would shore up all of the agency's programs, help NASA recover from the 2003 Columbia shuttle tragedy and repair damage to space facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi caused by Hurricane Katrina.
But after their amendment was approved by an appropriations subcommittee, it collapsed when the GOP-controlled Congress passed only two of the 11 federal spending bills for fiscal 2007 — those for the military and homeland security.
The incoming Democrats decided to concentrate on the 2008 budget proposals due in early February rather than try to patch together a 2007 budget in a matter of weeks.
Hutchison said her biggest concern is that Griffin will have to slash scientific research to keep the agency on course to complete construction of the international space station, retire the shuttle fleet and develop new spacecraft to return to the moon.
"The core focus, I think, is correct," Hutchison said. "The (new spacecraft), getting that up and running, and the shuttle, getting the space station finished so that we can retire the shuttles. That is the right priority because it's a safety issue for the astronauts.
"But when we have this cut, he's got to find the places that are on the margins, and I fear he's going to be looking at things like scientific research."
Across-the-board cuts
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, who has long served on the House Science Committee, also is concerned about NASA's science programs. She is urging Griffin to trim budgets across the board rather than abandon some programs to pay for others.
"NASA only has to survive until October," she said. "We're having these problems across the government, but the minute we panic at NASA and begin to start shifting major funds, I think that is a disaster waiting to happen.
"It's unfair to those of us who believe in basic research and human space flight, and that happens to be the bulk of the Science Committee," she added. "I don't think they'd take kindly to a major cut in science."
Jackson Lee said she intends to work with Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, and others to see whether the departments of Defense or Energy, for instance, could help fund science research at NASA until fall. She said Bush's next budget request will be key.
"This is an opportunity for the president to make good on his commitment from his pronouncement three years ago on our mission to the moon and Mars by really putting forth a budget that we can work with for NASA — a long-term, solid budget that reflects the commitment to human space exploration and also the research aspects of NASA's work," she said.
If the White House comes through, she said, there is "sizable to enormous bipartisan support for NASA" in Congress.
Working out the details
Sean Kevlighan, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, declined to discuss plans for NASA's next budget.
"At this time we're working out the details," he said. "Final numbers will be released on Feb. 5."
Hutchison, other lawmakers and outside space policy experts agreed with Jackson Lee that if the 2008 budget for NASA is reasonable, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill will work together to pass it.
"NASA is well supported on both sides of the political aisle. This initial activity of the Democratic leadership certainly wasn't designed to single NASA out. They are simply trying to find a simple formula to move forward," said Joe Mayer with the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. "The fact of the matter is that it will hurt NASA, but I don't think it can be read as a shift of the Congress under Democratic leadership or that now Congress is somehow less inclined to be supportive."
Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, said the tension is not between Democrats and Republicans but between the White House and Congress. Bush's 2008 budget will affect NASA's fate more than congressional action — or inaction — on the 2007 budget, he said.
At stake in the budget to be released next month, he said, are not just NASA's science or aeronautics programs but also the Bush's own moon and Mars plan, announced three years ago today with much fanfare.
"I think the administration is caught," Friedman said. "They promised to put this lunar program forward on what they called a 'go as you pay' basis — they would go as long as they could afford it. What they did last year was renege on that. They said, 'Well, yeah, we can afford it by cutting other programs and cutting other important things that NASA does.' "
Congress has since endorsed the exploration plan, but lawmakers made clear they think NASA needs more money and needs to preserve funding for science and aeronautics.
Now, Friedman said, Congress will look to the White House for its response.
"Congress will say, 'Look, if you want to pay for (the moon plan), go for it,' " he said. " 'But if you don't want to pay for it, if you're not going to put up the money and the only way you're going to get it is to pay for it by cutting other things that are really important, then we'll wait.'
WASHINGTON — Congress' failure to approve a new annual budget for NASA could force the agency to lay off workers, gut science programs or delay the development of spacecraft to return astronauts to the moon, according to lawmakers and space experts.
The crunch comes because Congress is freezing most 2007 spending at 2006 levels through Sept. 30. NASA's budget will be held at $16.3 billion, more than $520 million short of President Bush's request as part of his vision for exploration of the moon and Mars.
"Congress votes on what size space program they want to buy," NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told the agency's workers last week during a question-and-answer session broadcast on NASA TV. " ... And we will remove a half-billion dollars of content to match what they have told us to do.
"We will do what we have to do to get our programs into the budget that we are given," he said.
Griffin stopped short of saying what exactly will be sacrificed, and NASA spokesman David Steitz said the agency is waiting for guidance from lawmakers on 2007 spending and the White House proposal for the 2008 budget.
"It's like planning your family's budget," Steitz said. "Until you have the paycheck in the bank, you can't figure out what bills you're going to pay."
But in an internal NASA memo, posted recently on the independent NASA watchdog Web site nasawatch.com, agency officials warned that the budget freeze could delay development of a manned spacecraft named Orion and its accompanying launch vehicle.
Orion is intended to replace the aging space shuttle fleet and carry astronauts to the international space station, the moon and beyond. The spacecraft, being developed by Houston's Johnson Space Center, is scheduled for launch by 2014, four years after the planned retirement of the nation's three remaining space shuttles.
Worrisome gapLawmakers and space fans are worried that the four-year gap, in which no U.S. spacecraft will be available for carrying humans into space, could widen.
The NASA memo also warned that funding for robotic explorers for the moon and other technology programs would be threatened because of the budget shortfall. Also in the endangered category are science and aeronautics programs that have been Griffin's favorite targets when NASA has needed money to fund the space shuttle and international space station.
Responding to questions from agency workers last week, NASA Deputy Administrator Shana Dale said she anticipates no layoffs at the moment but added, "I think we will all have to stay tuned."
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, working last year with Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., tried to add $1 billion to NASA's 2007 budget. They hoped the money would shore up all of the agency's programs, help NASA recover from the 2003 Columbia shuttle tragedy and repair damage to space facilities in Louisiana and Mississippi caused by Hurricane Katrina.
But after their amendment was approved by an appropriations subcommittee, it collapsed when the GOP-controlled Congress passed only two of the 11 federal spending bills for fiscal 2007 — those for the military and homeland security.
The incoming Democrats decided to concentrate on the 2008 budget proposals due in early February rather than try to patch together a 2007 budget in a matter of weeks.
Hutchison said her biggest concern is that Griffin will have to slash scientific research to keep the agency on course to complete construction of the international space station, retire the shuttle fleet and develop new spacecraft to return to the moon.
"The core focus, I think, is correct," Hutchison said. "The (new spacecraft), getting that up and running, and the shuttle, getting the space station finished so that we can retire the shuttles. That is the right priority because it's a safety issue for the astronauts.
"But when we have this cut, he's got to find the places that are on the margins, and I fear he's going to be looking at things like scientific research."
Across-the-board cuts
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Houston, who has long served on the House Science Committee, also is concerned about NASA's science programs. She is urging Griffin to trim budgets across the board rather than abandon some programs to pay for others.
"NASA only has to survive until October," she said. "We're having these problems across the government, but the minute we panic at NASA and begin to start shifting major funds, I think that is a disaster waiting to happen.
"It's unfair to those of us who believe in basic research and human space flight, and that happens to be the bulk of the Science Committee," she added. "I don't think they'd take kindly to a major cut in science."
Jackson Lee said she intends to work with Rep. Nick Lampson, D-Stafford, and others to see whether the departments of Defense or Energy, for instance, could help fund science research at NASA until fall. She said Bush's next budget request will be key.
"This is an opportunity for the president to make good on his commitment from his pronouncement three years ago on our mission to the moon and Mars by really putting forth a budget that we can work with for NASA — a long-term, solid budget that reflects the commitment to human space exploration and also the research aspects of NASA's work," she said.
If the White House comes through, she said, there is "sizable to enormous bipartisan support for NASA" in Congress.
Working out the details
Sean Kevlighan, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, declined to discuss plans for NASA's next budget.
"At this time we're working out the details," he said. "Final numbers will be released on Feb. 5."
Hutchison, other lawmakers and outside space policy experts agreed with Jackson Lee that if the 2008 budget for NASA is reasonable, Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill will work together to pass it.
"NASA is well supported on both sides of the political aisle. This initial activity of the Democratic leadership certainly wasn't designed to single NASA out. They are simply trying to find a simple formula to move forward," said Joe Mayer with the Houston-based Coalition for Space Exploration. "The fact of the matter is that it will hurt NASA, but I don't think it can be read as a shift of the Congress under Democratic leadership or that now Congress is somehow less inclined to be supportive."
Louis Friedman, executive director of the Planetary Society, said the tension is not between Democrats and Republicans but between the White House and Congress. Bush's 2008 budget will affect NASA's fate more than congressional action — or inaction — on the 2007 budget, he said.
At stake in the budget to be released next month, he said, are not just NASA's science or aeronautics programs but also the Bush's own moon and Mars plan, announced three years ago today with much fanfare.
"I think the administration is caught," Friedman said. "They promised to put this lunar program forward on what they called a 'go as you pay' basis — they would go as long as they could afford it. What they did last year was renege on that. They said, 'Well, yeah, we can afford it by cutting other programs and cutting other important things that NASA does.' "
Congress has since endorsed the exploration plan, but lawmakers made clear they think NASA needs more money and needs to preserve funding for science and aeronautics.
Now, Friedman said, Congress will look to the White House for its response.
"Congress will say, 'Look, if you want to pay for (the moon plan), go for it,' " he said. " 'But if you don't want to pay for it, if you're not going to put up the money and the only way you're going to get it is to pay for it by cutting other things that are really important, then we'll wait.'
Friday, December 29, 2006
He Swings!
I think this took way too long, but it's done. Now we need to after that stooge in Iran and duplicate hussien's fate.
Saddam Hussein, the ex-Iraqi dictator who probably supported al-Qaida during its preparations for the 9/11 attack on the U.S. and then abandoned Baghdad in front of advancing American military forces to retreat to an underground bunker, has been executed for ordering the deaths of his own countrymen.
Al Arabiya TV reported Hussein was hanged shortly before 10 p.m. Eastern.
Saddam Hussein, the ex-Iraqi dictator who probably supported al-Qaida during its preparations for the 9/11 attack on the U.S. and then abandoned Baghdad in front of advancing American military forces to retreat to an underground bunker, has been executed for ordering the deaths of his own countrymen.
Al Arabiya TV reported Hussein was hanged shortly before 10 p.m. Eastern.
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
You won't see this in the Dinosaur (mainstream) Media
Chief Master Sgt. John Gebhardt in Iraq. He is the superintendent of the 22nd Wing Medical Group at the McConnell Air Force Base in Kansas. This picture was taken in October 2006 while stationed in Iraq. He is now back home in the United States.
His wife Mindy related the story: this baby girl’s entire family was executed by insurgents. “They intended to execute her also and shot her in the head but they failed to kill her. She was cared for by John’s hospital and healing up, but has been crying and moaning. The nurses said John is the only one she seems to calm down with, so John has spent the last four nights holding her while they both sleep in that chair. The girl is coming along with her healing.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)