The Cool Blue Blog

Lance Corporal Justin McLeese

Throughout 2004, U.S. forces in Iraq battled an increasingly lethal enemy. The Marine Corps maintained a large presence and engaged itself in hotspots throughout central Iraq. Numerous acts of heroism emerged from the conflict, such as the actions of Lance Corporal Justin McLeese. During the fall of that year, McLeese distinguished himself on duty and in battle, and earned the Bronze Star for his gallantry.         

On September 16, McLeese rode in a convoy traveling to an Iraqi compound, when his vehicle flipped off the road after passing over rough, gravel terrain. Thrown 20 feet from the humvee, McLeese ignored his own pain and tended to those still trapped in the vehicle. After pulling his platoon sergeant from wreckage, McLeese rescued another Marine trapped beneath a large amount of gear. McLeese, with help from his platoon, then lifted the humvee off the ground to save a third Marine stuck under the vehicle and pinned underneath a Kevlar ballistic plate.         

High-intensity urban combat engulfed Fallujah in November. McLeese and his fellow Marines cleared numerous buildings in the middle of the city. On November 11, his team entered one of the compounds and killed four enemy combatants. An insurgent, after faking his death, tried to engage the Marines from a nearby room. McLeese recognized the impending attack and eliminated the threat with a shotgun blast. Two days later, McLeese entered another building in Fallujah, where enemy fire struck him. Despite multiple gunshot wounds, McLeese fought until the end, before an IED explosion fatally wounded him.       

For his dedication to his comrades and courage under fire, McLeese posthumously received the Bronze Star Medal.

         

Obama v. the First Amendment

Senator Obama's campaign has now racked up multiple instances where they are engaging in thuggish tactics to silence critics.

In Missouri

Gov. Matt Blunt today issued the following statement on news reports that have exposed plans by U.S. Senator Barack Obama to use Missouri law enforcement to threaten and intimidate his critics.

“St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch, St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce, Jefferson County Sheriff Glenn Boyer, and Obama and the leader of his Missouri campaign Senator Claire McCaskill have attached the stench of police state tactics to the Obama-Biden campaign.

“What Senator Obama and his helpers are doing is scandalous beyond words, the party that claims to be the party of Thomas Jefferson is abusing the justice system and offices of public trust to silence political criticism with threats of prosecution and criminal punishment.

“This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose of Messrs. McCulloch, Obama and the others is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

In Virginia

Mr. Obama, the Democratic nominee for president, is scheduled to speak at a rally at the university today. The public is invited to this forum, on property it, the public, owns. However, signs and banners will not be allowed, according to the organizers and compliant campus officials. Suddenly, UMW is a First Amendment-Free, or at least a First Amendment-Crippled, Zone, subject to the self-serving preferences of politicos. Why does an Obama rally--or a McCain rally or a Nader rally--justify taking a little off the top of Americans' most fundamental rights?

In Pennsylvania and Ohio:

I have already pointed out Senator Obama's contempt for the Second Amendment (not to mention that his running mate is in complete agreement) but when people call him on it, his campaign threatens a lawsuit

The Obama campaign sent cease and desist letters to news outlets in Pennsylvania and Ohio, denouncing the ads and demanding their removal from the airwaves. All stations where NRA-PVF has purchased or plans to purchase ads have been provided with documented evidence of Sen. Obama's anti-gun record.

Obama Campaign Cease and Desist Letter

NRA-PVF Response Memo

NRA-PVF Response to Washington Post “fact check”

Senator Obama also targets individuals who challenge his credibility

On August 27, respected radio talker  Milt Rosenberg invited National Review journalist and Ethics and  Public Policy Center Senior Fellow, Stanley Kurtz, on to his nightly program in Chicago. For months, Kurtz had been conducting thorough research into Barack Obama’s extensive ties to the radical Left, including the fraudulent get-out-the-vote group, ACORN. Kurtz’s latest project involved investigating Obama’s connection with unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers; specifically, their collaboration on a left-wing education “reform” organization called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge.

Hours before the show aired, Rosenberg’s producer, Zack Christenson, called Obama’s Windy City headquarters to offer airtime to challenge Kurtz’s claims. The Obama campaign declined, opting instead to fire off a hysterical Obama Action Wire email to supporters, encouraging them to inundate Rosenberg’s station with complaints and demands that the Kurtz interview be axed. The email branded the mild-mannered, Harvard-educated Kurtz a “right wing hatchet man,” and a “slimy character assassin.” Almost immediately, enraged callers began bombarding the radio station’s switchboard. Their prevailing message was summed up by one woman, who angrily stammered, “We just want this to stop!”

A few weeks later, author David Freddoso was a featured guest on the same Chicago radio show. This time, the offending guest was actually paired with a liberal sparring partner, yet the Obama campaign nonetheless saw to it that its army of cyber-goons disrupted the interview. This time, the Obama Action Wire email dug deeper into its barrel of melodramatic verbiage: Freddoso, author of the meticulously-researched book The Case Against Barack Obama, was nothing more than a “vicious” partisan hack who peddled in “baseless lies” and “hate-mongering.” Obamabots were urged to “confront” Freddoso before “this goes any further.” Yes, enough with the scrutiny and research! Once again, the phones lit up.

In both cases, Obama’s followers  were instructed to report their guerrilla tactics back to the campaign through a  special dedicated page  on the campaign’s official website. (By all means, inform us of your thuggish  behavior perpetrated on Barack’s behalf! We’ll add you to our “nice” list.) 

Is this what we are in for with an Obama Presidency? A systematic attack on the Bill of Rights?

They told me that if George W. Bush were re-elected there would be brazen efforts to suppress free speech on political grounds -- and they were right!

Killed in Committee

Now what I can understand of the current economic situation is that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's directors encouraged the lending of sub-prime mortgages nu banks and others to people of dubious means in order to increase their bonuses, promising the lenders that these mortgages would be fully backed by the Federal Government. Then Fannie and Freddie repackaged these loans and sold them to investment banks and others who bought them figuring they were good because they were backed by the Federal Government. These financial packages contained both good and bad loans. And what they really were was financial poison wrapped in financial candy. For years the packages were bought and sold until no one knew who had what and, of course, no one knew where the poison was. But what is known is that the poison was now widespread throughout the financial circulatory system.

And once that became known, no one wanted to lend to anyone since they had no idea if the collateral contained poison or not.

So it is clear that this started with Fannie May and Freddie Mac.

On September 11, 2003 the New York Times reported

The Bush administration today recommended the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.

Under the plan, disclosed at a Congressional hearing today, a new agency would be created within the Treasury Department to assume supervision of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored companies that are the two largest players in the mortgage lending industry.

The new agency would have the authority, which now rests with Congress, to set one of the two capital-reserve requirements for the companies. It would exercise authority over any new lines of business. And it would determine whether the two are adequately managing the risks of their ballooning portfolios.

The plan is an acknowledgment by the administration that oversight of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- which together have issued more than $1.5 trillion in outstanding debt -- is broken. A report by outside investigators in July concluded that Freddie Mac manipulated its accounting to mislead investors, and critics have said Fannie Mae does not adequately hedge against rising interest rates.

''There is a general recognition that the supervisory system for housing-related government-sponsored enterprises neither has the tools, nor the stature, to deal effectively with the current size, complexity and importance of these enterprises,'' Treasury Secretary John W. Snow told the House Financial Services Committee in an appearance with Housing Secretary Mel Martinez, who also backed the plan.

Huh. So what happened to that? Well, members of Congress shot it down, most vocal was Representative Barney Frank

''These two entities -- Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- are not facing any kind of financial crisis,'' said Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee. ''The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing.''

Representative Melvin L. Watt, Democrat of North Carolina, agreed.

''I don't see much other than a shell game going on here, moving something from one agency to another and in the process weakening the bargaining power of poorer families and their ability to get affordable housing,'' Mr. Watt said.

In 2005 came yet another opportunity to fix the problem with the introduction of Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005. It intent was to supervise Fannie and Freddie. It was sponsored by Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and co-sponsored by Senators McCain, Dole and Sununu. But it never passed either the House or the Senate. In fact it never made it out of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs.

Despite this history, Senator Obama has been using the current financial crisis for political gain. New to his stump speech is rhetoric that blames the Bush Administration and Republicans in general for the current problems

"The challenges facing our financial system today are more evidence that too many folks in Washington and on Wall Street weren't minding the store," Obama said in a statement. "Eight years of policies that have shredded consumer protections, loosened oversight and regulation, and encouraged outsized bonuses to CEOs while ignoring middle-class Americans have brought us to the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression."

And according to the Institutional Media, the public is buying it.

...a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey of registered voters released Monday, 47 percent blamed Republicans for the current financial crisis the stock market. By contract, only 24 percent blamed the Democrats, with 20 percent saying both parties were to blame and 8 percent not blaming either party.

The problem is, that it is not true, of course.

It is clear that Bush and McCain tried to put a stop to it. And it is clear that most Democrats opposed it. And it is also clear that Senator Obama did nothing to identify or help fix the problem.

John Stephenson of NewsBusters writes

Since the current financial crisis is taking place under a Republican administration it is easy for people to automatically blame Republicans. The media have happily pushed this misconception too. Facts the media ignore are things such as the very groundwork for today’s problems being rooted in legislation created by Jimmy Carter , or that in 2003 President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis that was blocked by Democrats on party lines. However, the media don’t report these very important and significant facts and so it is no wonder that the GOP takes the brunt of the blame in this recent CNN poll.

So it goes...

Sgt Jack Bodani

On a mission in Afghanistan, then-Specialist Jack Bodani was in an up-armored humvee column when a massive explosion ripped through his vehicle, engulfing it in a fireball. Simultaneously, automatic weapons fire and well-aimed mortar rounds began hitting dangerously close to the convoy. Bodani, burned on the face and neck from the conflagration, got out of the vehicle and immediately helped another trapped soldier escape.

                   

Safely evacuating the first soldier away from the vehicle, Bodani realized there was another unaccounted for, so he disregarded his own wounds and again ran back to the burning vehicle. At the humvee, the heat of the fire reached a critical temperature and ordinance and rifle ammunition began exploding in every direction. From the east, insurgent attacker became increasingly accurate with their weapons fire. Ignoring all of this, Bodani, and with the aid of another, extracted the dazed soldier.

                   

Still in the height of the ambush and far from safety, Bodani reached for a rifle at the casualty collection point and provided vital security from the brazen enemy fighters. Because of Bodani’s brave acts, the wounded soldiers survived to receive a medevac and receive the urgent care they needed.

                   

Then-Specialist Jack Bodani was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor for his courageous actions.

                   

The Big Story

Now that things have calmed down in Iraq, it is no longer foremost on the minds of voters. And it is no longer on the hit list of The New York Times. Now it is safe for the Grey Lady to print stories about how we are succeeding there.

Two years ago, when I last stayed in Baghdad, Karada Mariam was like the whole of the city: shuttered, shattered, broken and dead.

Abu Nawas Park — I didn’t recognize that, either. By the time I had left the country in August 2006, the two-mile stretch of riverside park was a grim, spooky, deserted place, a symbol for the dying city that Baghdad had become.

These days, the same park is filled with people: families with children, women in jeans, women walking alone. Even the nighttime, when Iraqis used to cower inside their homes, no longer scares them. I can hear their laughter wafting from the park. At sundown the other day, I had to weave my way through perhaps 2,000 people. It was an astonishing, beautiful scene — impossible, incomprehensible, only months ago.

When I left Baghdad two years ago, the nation’s social fabric seemed too shredded to ever come together again. The very worst had lost its power to shock. To return now is to be jarred in the oddest way possible: by the normal, by the pleasant, even by hope....

But if this is not peace, it is not war, either — at least not the war I knew. When I left Iraq in the summer of 2006, after living three and a half years here following the collapse of Saddam Hussein’s regime, I believed that evil had triumphed, and that it would be many years before it might be stopped. Iraq, filled with so many people living so close together, nurturing dark and unknowable grievances, seemed destined for a ghastly unraveling.

And now, in the late summer of 2008, comes the calm.

But as the nation turns their eyes towards economic crises, it is useful to remember who was right about Iraq and who was wrong.

So too with the current economic problem. McCain tried to muster support for regulation that would have revealed the problems at Fannie May and Freddie Mac three years ago, while Obama was silent on the issue: He was too busy taking campaign money from them. Clearly McCain was for sensible regulation before Obama (and his surrogates) said he was against it.

Obama, though, is still against the Surge.

Sgt. 1st Class Pedro A. Munoz

Family accepts Soldier's Silver Star

By  Pfc. Benjamin Watson, 49th PAD (Abn.)

FORT BRAGG, N.C.(USASOC News Service, Sept. 10, 2008) – The widow of a Special Forces Soldier with the 1st Battalion, 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne), accepted her fallen husband’s Silver Star Medal during a ceremony Sept. 9 near the unit’s headquarters.
 
Gisela and Dalia Munoz, surviving wife and daughter of Sgt. 1st Class Pedro A. Munoz, participated in the ceremony honoring his sacrifice on Jan. 2, 2005, when he was fatally wounded at Shindand, Afghanistan, in support of Operation Enduring Freedom.

Munoz was previously awarded the Bronze Star Medal with Valor device; however, the award was recently upgraded to the Silver Star. The ceremony recognizing the upgrade was held in a commemorative rock garden designed by his daughter.
 
While clearing a compound in pursuit of a mid-level Taliban commander, a Taliban fighter opened fire from inside a room containing women and children, said Col. Mark J. Gorton, deputy commander of 7th SFG(A). Although he was wounded, Munoz returned fire and killed the Taliban fighter, enabling those in his detachment to proceed in clearing the building.
 
“Sergeant First Class Munoz continued to support his detachment,” Gorton said, “firing selectively, engaging only armed combatants without harming any non-combatants. His dedication and his courage are evident through his actions: protecting innocent life, staying in the fight without thought for himself while supporting his teammates—allowing them to successfully accomplish their mission.”
 
Munoz entered the Army in February 1986 as an automated logistical specialist. He graduated from the Special Forces Qualification Course in 1990 and was assigned to the 3rd Special Forces Group (Airborne). Soon after assignment, he deployed in support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. He later deployed to Haiti for seven months in 1994 in support of Operation Uphold Democracy.
 
In 1999, he was assigned to the U.S. Army Parachute Team, the Golden Knights. After completing over 300 static-line and 4,000 free-fall parachute jumps, Munoz returned to the Special Forces community in 2002, serving with the 7th SFG(A).
 
“You look at a picture of Munoz,” said Lt. Gen. Robert W. Wagner, commander of the U.S. Army Special Operations Command, “and you see a 47-year-old senior Soldier who has served our nation with extraordinary honor, distinction, pride and accomplishment. I suspect that some of the things that he’s most proud of are his wife and his daughter, two incredible people who have served our nation.” 
 
Over the course of his career as a Soldier, Munoz received the Silver Star Medal, the Bronze Star Medal, the Purple Heart, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Joint Meritorious Unit Award, the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, the Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, the Armed Forces Service Medal, the Humanitarian Service Medal, the Noncommissioned Officer Professional Development Ribbon, the Army Service Ribbon, the Overseas Service Ribbon, the Kuwait Liberation Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge with 2nd Award Star, the Special Forces Tab, the Master Parachutist Badge and the Master Military Free Fall Badge.

Economic sedition

Senator Obama, in discussing the recent problems with the financial markets, diverts attention from his own culpability

Sen. Barack Obama said Tuesday that the country is facing the "most serious financial crisis in generations" and argued that rival Sen. John McCain would only make it worse....

Obama said what's happened in the past few days is "nothing less than the final verdict on an economic philosophy that has completely failed."

But what philosophy is he talking about? The philosophy that allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to engage in unsound financial transactions while members of Congress were paid to look the other way, and in some cases, even block reform? That practice?

Well how is Senator Obama going to be able to reform a pratice that he himself was engaged in?

David Hogberg of Investors Business Daily reports

Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE) may not have managed their mortgage investments wisely, but the loan-funding giants used a savvy strategy of campaign contributions, based on an Investor's Business Daily analysis.

The Federal Election Commission data, compiled by the watchdog Center for Responsive Politics, include contributions from Fannie and Freddie political action committees, now shut down under the Treasury Department's takeover.

Records show that since both PACs were set up in 2003, they have contributed just over $3 million to federal candidates. The money went to candidates' campaigns and their leadership PACs, which politicians use to enhance their influence by giving donations to their peers.

And the two top recipients of this money, according to OpenSecrets.org are Senators Christopher Dodd, John Kerry and Barack Obama.

One of the architects of the companies efforts to buy influence is former head of the Obama Vice-Presidential selection committee and fund raiser Jim Johnson.

A spokesman for the Obama campaign declined to comment, noting only that former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson stepped down from his campaign post in June. His resignation came in the wake of charges that he collected more then $7 million in home loans at special, below-average rates....

Johnson spearheaded an aggressive campaign to create a local grass-roots network of company advocates. Under his leadership, Fannie opened more than 50 partnership offices in cities and rural communities. At the same time, the Fannie Mae Foundation, a private nonprofit financed by the mortgage giant, contributed generously to local charities, arts institutions and housing organizations, giving Fannie influence in lawmakers’ home districts....

Johnson headed Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998, leaving with a $21 million payout. Even after he left, Fannie continued to pay him an annual fee of at least $300,000 a year for consulting services and a $71,000 monthly pension, according to filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

And while Obama would like to claim that both Bush and McCain are responsible for the current problem, the Congressional Record tells a different story. On May 25th of 2005, Senator McCain took to the Senate floor and argued for reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac

Mr. President, this week Fannie Mae's regulator reported that the company's quarterly reports of profit growth over the past few years were "illusions deliberately and systematically created" by the company's senior management, which resulted in a $10.6 billion accounting scandal.

The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight's report goes on to say that Fannie Mae employees deliberately and intentionally manipulated financial reports to hit earnings targets in order to trigger bonuses for senior executives. In the case of Franklin Raines, Fannie Mae's former chief executive officer, OFHEO's report shows that over half of Mr. Raines' compensation for the 6 years through 2003 was directly tied to meeting earnings targets. The report of financial misconduct at Fannie Mae echoes the deeply troubling $5 billion profit restatement at Freddie Mac.

The OFHEO report also states that Fannie Mae used its political power to lobby Congress in an effort to interfere with the regulator's examination of the company's accounting problems. This report comes some weeks after Freddie Mac paid a record $3.8 million fine in a settlement with the Federal Election Commission and restated lobbying disclosure reports from 2004 to 2005. These are entities that have demonstrated over and over again that they are deeply in need of reform.

For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--known as Government-sponsored entities or GSEs--and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. OFHEO's report this week does nothing to ease these concerns. In fact, the report does quite the contrary. OFHEO's report solidifies my view that the GSEs need to be reformed without delay.

I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole.

I urge my colleagues to support swift action on this GSE reform legislation.

Not bad for a guy who Senator Obama likes to characterize as not knowing anything about the economy. This bill never became law. It "passed the House but was never brought up for a vote in the Senate, largely because of Democratic opposition to change in the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulatory structure that remained in place until the Treasury takeover...." What is clear is that of the 3 sponsors of this bill, Barack Obama was not one of them.

What is also clear is that

In the aftermath of the U.S. government takeover, attention has focused on three Democrats with close ties to Obama who served as Fannie Mae executives: Franklin Raines, former Clinton administration budget director; James Johnson, former aide to Democratic Vice President Walter Mondale; and Jamie Gorelick, former Clinton administration deputy attorney general.

All three Obama-related executives earned millions in compensation from Fannie Mae.

Johnson earned $21 million in just his last year serving as Fannie Mae CEO from 1991 to 1998; Raines earned $90 million in his five years as Fannie Mae CEO, from 1999 to 2004; and Gorelick earned an estimated $26 million serving as vice chair of Fannie Mae from 1998 to 2003, according to author David Frum, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

All three have been involved in mortgage-related financial scandals.

In 1998, according to the Washington Post, Gorelick, as Fannie Mae vice chairman, received a bonus of $779,625, despite a scandal in which employees falsified signatures on accounting transactions to manipulate books to meet 1998 earning targets. The moves, in turn, triggered multi-million-dollar bonuses for top executives.

The actions of these people and others within both parties of Congress and outside it amount to a gross subversion of the the US economy.

Yet Senator Obama would have us believe that someone who tried to put a stop to it at least three years ago is less qualified to fix the problem then the man who is in bed with the perpetrators of economic sedition.

Not that's arrogance.

Command Sergeant Major Michael Clemens

With darkness descending over operations for then-First Sergeant Michael Clemens, sporadic fighting turned into chaos, which Clemens led his men through.         

November 15, 2006, was day four of Operation Turki Bowl, a mission where Clemens and his fellow soldiers were tasked with clearing a volatile part of Iraq of insurgents and weapons. From his overwatch position, Clemens observed several insurgents in a village ahead and did not hesitate to launch a patrol of the area. 

Under sporadic enemy fire, Clemens led three other American soldiers and four Iraqi Army soldiers towards the insurgent position. Peering around a corner, Clemens spotted a large truck – suspected of being packed with weapons – and heard the chatter of several insurgents. Clemens held his position and “lasered” the truck, bringing down pinpoint air support, ripping the truck apart and ending the insurgents’ threat.

Over his radio, Clemens received word that his Captain, the ranking officer in the unit, was hit when his vehicle struck an IED and there were numerous other casualties. Quickly pulling back with his patrol, Clemens moved to secure the area of the attack and evaluate the situation.

Clemens boldly assumed leadership of the troops on the ground and coordinated with superiors, air support, and the medevac helicopters to continue the fight and help the wounded. Through his leadership, his company repelled two counter-attacks and killed 12 insurgents, with all but one of the wounded Americans surviving.

For his brilliant command under fire and tremendous operational success, Clemens was awarded the Bronze Star with Valor.

Pork explained

ABC News, when referring to Governor Palin's claims about canceling the "Bridge to Nowhere" says this:

She repeats this claim now despite having been a vocal advocate for the project during her gubernatorial run -- before she was against it. And her state kept the funds allocated for the project, even after it was canceled.

Now either ABC does not understand the nature of earmarks, (aka Pork) or they are betting you don't. And since there is at least some chance you don't understand Pork and the problem it represents, I will lay out the facts so you can more critically understand the issue.

What is Pork? The Heritage Foundation has a good definition so we'll start with that:

Originally, lawmakers would fund government grant programs and then let federal and state agencies select individual grant recipients through a competitive application process or by formula. Now, Congress actually determines, within the legislation, who will receive government grants by “earmarking” money to specific recipients. Earmarks are also known as “pork projects” because they bring the bacon home to districts.

More appropriately known as budgetary earmarks, Pork is when a legislator designates a certain amount of an appropriation bill to a particular project. So what you have is Congress appropriating funds to a Federal agency or to a State using the normal legislative process, and then after the fact, a legislator comes in and takes a portion of that appropriation and "earmarks" it for a particular purpose without any legislative oversight. And often, it designates a particular contractor subverting the bid process. And what's worse; this can be done in secret, without the public or Congress knowing who requested (and got) the earmark.

So the fact that Governor Palin did not "give back" the money is a red herring. In this case, the money for Alaska was appropriated by Congress for road construction using a legitimate process. That part isn't pork. After the appropriation by Congress, Senator Stevens then "earmarked" some of those funds for the Bridge project. That's the pork part.

The Press-Register summarizes it nicely

Here are the keys to identifying pork: It comes from individual members of Congress (not from federal or state agencies), it isn't prioritized or awarded in a competitive process, and it's inserted in the budget without hearings or even a minute of debate. 

Why is Pork bad? Pork isn't bad by itself. The process for designating pork is bad. And by bad I mean corrupting.

Clearly many good projects are funded by earmarks. It is often the case that State legislators know of companies within their districts that produce good and useful products that should come to the attention of national lawmakers. And there are good and useful research projects that should be funded specifically.

The problem comes when some company (or person) contributes to a candidate's election fund and then gets a pork barrel project in return. Like in the case of John Murtha:

In the massive 2008 military-spending bill now before Congress -- which could go to a House-Senate conference as soon as Thursday -- Mr. Murtha has steered more taxpayer funds to his congressional district than any other member....

A review by The Wall Street Journal of dozens of such contracts funded by Mr. Murtha's committee shows that many weren't sought by the military or federal agencies they were intended to benefit. Some were inefficient or mismanaged, according to interviews, public records and previously unpublished Pentagon audits. One Murtha-backed firm, ProLogic Inc., is under federal investigation for allegedly diverting public funds to develop commercial software, people close to the case say. The company denies wrongdoing and is in line to get millions of dollars more in the pending defense bill....

There's no evidence that Mr. Murtha personally profits from the hometown spending he rams through Congress. He ranked No. 333 in net worth among the 435 members of the House in a 2005 analysis by the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics. But his campaign coffers have risen since he became chairman of the defense-spending panel. In the first nine months of this year, Mr. Murtha's campaign committees have reported contributions of more than $1.05 million.

Or in the case of Barak Obama

During his three fiscal years in the U.S. Senate, the Land of Lincolner has requested more than $740 million in earmarks for Illinois--including $1 million for an expansion of the University of Chicago Medical Center, where his wife Michelle is a vice president, $8 million for a military contracting firm owned by a top donor and $3.4 million for clients of Joe Biden's lobbyist son.

Now that's pork.

The Fix. What we need is earmark reform. I have no problem with earmarks per se, just they way they are done. Earmarks need to be voted on and the requestor needs to be listed in every single case.

Daylight on the process.

Something the Democrats promised to do when they took over Congress and which they have yet to accomplish.

And Senator Obama needs a voting record to match his rhetoric, something which, as of now, he does not have.

Palin unedited

It turns out that Governor Sarah Palin's interview with ABC's Charles Gibson had more to it than what was broadcast. Now that's not really surprising. The network might want to edit for conciseness. But it seems that what was left on the cutting room floor might have had a different motive.

For instance, Gibson started a conversation about Russia and Georgia during which Governor Palin gave the opinion that Russia's invasion was unprovoked. What follows is what was broadcast:

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.

PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there.

What was edited out follows in boldface

GIBSON: You believe unprovoked.
PALIN: I do believe unprovoked and we have got to keep our eyes on Russia, under the leadership there. I think it was unfortunate. That manifestation that we saw with that invasion of Georgia shows us some steps backwards that Russia has recently taken away from the race toward a more democratic nation with democratic ideals. That’s why we have to keep an eye on Russia.

And, Charlie, you’re in Alaska. We have that very narrow maritime border between the United States, and the 49th state, Alaska, and Russia. They are our next door neighbors.We need to have a good relationship with them. They’re very, very important to us and they are our next door neighbor.

GIBSON: What insight into Russian actions, particularly in the last couple of weeks, does the proximity of the state give you?

PALIN: They’re our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.

GIBSON: What insight does that give you into what they’re doing in Georgia?

PALIN: Well, I’m giving you that perspective of how small our world is and how important it is that we work with our allies to keep good relation with all of these countries, especially Russia. We will not repeat a Cold War. We must have good relationship with our allies, pressuring, also, helping us to remind Russia that it’s in their benefit, also, a mutually beneficial relationship for us all to be getting along.

Hmmmmm. Mr Gibson also asked Governor Palin about NATO. What is in normal type was broadcast, what is in boldtype was not

GIBSON: Would you favor putting Georgia and Ukraine in NATO?

PALIN: Ukraine, definitely, yes. Yes, and Georgia.

GIBSON: Because Putin has said he would not tolerate NATO incursion into the Caucasus.

PALIN: Well, you know, the Rose Revolution, the Orange Revolution, those actions have showed us that those democratic nations, I believe, deserve to be in NATO.

Putin thinks otherwise. Obviously, he thinks otherwise, but…

GIBSON: And under the NATO treaty, wouldn’t we then have to go to war if Russia went into Georgia?

PALIN: Perhaps so. I mean, that is the agreement when you are a NATO ally, is if another country is attacked, you’re going to be expected to be called upon and help.

But NATO, I think, should include Ukraine, definitely, at this point and I think that we need to — especially with new leadership coming in on January 20, being sworn on, on either ticket, we have got to make sure that we strengthen our allies, our ties with each one of those NATO members.

We have got to make sure that that is the group that can be counted upon to defend one another in a very dangerous world today.

GIBSON: And you think it would be worth it to the United States, Georgia is worth it to the United States to go to war if Russia were to invade.

PALIN: What I think is that smaller democratic countries that are invaded by a larger power is something for us to be vigilant against. We have got to be cognizant of what the consequences are if a larger power is able to take over smaller democratic countries.

And we have got to be vigilant. We have got to show the support, in this case, for Georgia. The support that we can show is economic sanctions perhaps against Russia, if this is what it leads to.

It doesn’t have to lead to war and it doesn’t have to lead, as I said, to a Cold War, but economic sanctions, diplomatic pressure, again, counting on our allies to help us do that in this mission of keeping our eye on Russia and Putin and some of his desire to control and to control much more than smaller democratic countries.

His mission, if it is to control energy supplies, also, coming from and through Russia, that’s a dangerous position for our world to be in, if we were to allow that to happen.

Given that ABCs tease for the interview

"GOV. SARAH PALIN WARNS WAR MAY BE NECESSARY IF RUSSIA INVADES ANOTHER COUNTRY.''

Most curious was that Gov Palin's answer regarding Iran was edited mid-sentence:

GIBSON: So what should we do about a nuclear Iran? John McCain said the only thing worse than a war with Iran would be a nuclear Iran. John Abizaid said we may have to live with a nuclear Iran. Who’s right?

PALIN: No, no. I agree with John McCain that nuclear weapons in the hands of those who would seek to destroy our allies, in this case, we’re talking about Israel, we’re talking about Ahmadinejad’s comment about Israel being the “stinking corpse, should be wiped off the face of the earth,” that’s atrocious. That’s unacceptable.

GIBSON: So what do you do about a nuclear Iran?

PALIN: We have got to make sure that these weapons of mass destruction, that nuclear weapons are not given to those hands of Ahmadinejad, not that he would use them, but that he would allow terrorists to be able to use them. So we have got to put the pressure on Iran and we have got to count on our allies to help us, diplomatic pressure.

Now that is curious.

I suppose ABC could argue that what was aired was more concise, but doesn't it change the whole temperament of her answer?

You know, I do not think the media is helping Senator Obama though I truly believe that they believe they are. But the Obama campaign doesn't want to talk about Palin but everything the majority of the Institutional media does keeps the focus directly on her.

And what's worse, most of what they do is perceived as being unfair.

This doesn't help.

If Obama loses, when the postmortem on this campaign is done, I'm thinking that the media will get a lot of the blame. And I'm thinking that Democrats will fear them in the future as much as they fear Republicans because while one is a known "enemy" the other is a loose cannon that is almost impossible to control.

And keeping the media "on message" is proving to be a challenge for the Obama campaign.