Give The Man His Due

With President Bush-bashing still a national pastime, it's notable how much international terrorism has been forgotten, and how little credit the president has received for keeping Americans safe.

Hear hear.

Remember

To all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice, to those who served and came home, to those who served and didn't have to go anywhere, to those who are still serving.. Thank You.



President Bush: Sacrifice for Liberty

Jaan Pehechaan Ho!

Oh YEAHHH!


h/t: MiaKulpa

First Pitch

My son Josh proudly represented the 1463rd Transportation Company by throwing out the first pitch at the W. Michigan Whitecaps game tonight. The Company is shipping to Iraq soon and the 'Caps honored them with this thrill. Josh has been going to Whitecaps games since the team's inception (1994, he was 7) and was more nervous about throwing out that ball than he is about shipping to Iraq I think.

Here's a few pics:



The pitch!




Walking off the field he was thinking "Whew, I made it to the plate!"




Pitcher Rudy Darrow played catcher for Josh and signed the ball afterward. Happy boy!







Whitecaps 2, Dragons 0

*applause*

From The RNC

Effect of Climate Change Legislation

The Senate's leading climate-change bill, while aiming to combat global warming by reducing carbon dioxide in the air, actually poses "extraordinary perils" for Americans and the economy, according to a new study from The Heritage Foundation.

The study, produced by Heritage's Center for Data Analysis (CDA), forecasts severe consequences—including crushing energy costs, millions of jobs lost and falling household income—if Congress enacts the so-called Lieberman-Warner bill.

What follows are 50 state-by-state breakouts of the impact the bill would have on jobs and the economy.

To see your state's breakdown, click here.

Boycotting Terror

Gas rationing in the 80's worked even though we grumbled about it. It might even be good for us! The Saudis are boycotting American goods. We should return the favor.

An interesting thought is to boycott their GAS.

Every time you fill up the car, you can avoid putting more money into the coffers of Saudi Arabia. Just buy from gas companies that don't import their oil from the Saudis.

How horrible is the knowledge that every time you fill-up the tank, you are sending your money to people who are trying to kill you, your family, and your friends?

It's interesting to know which oil companies are the best to buy gas from and which major companies import Middle Eastern oil.

These companies import Middle Eastern oil:

Shell.. .......................... 205,742,000 barrels
Chevron/Texaco.................... 144,332,000 barrels
Exxon/Mobil....................... 130,082,000 barrels
Marathon/Speedway................. 117,740,000 barrels
Amoco...............................62,231,000 barrels


Citgo gas is from South America , money spent there supports Hugo Chavez's fascist government. If you do the math at $30/barrel, these imports amount to over $18 BILLION! (oil is now $90 - $100 a barrel and rising)


Here are some large companies that do not import Middle Eastern oil:

Sunoco..................0 barrels
Conoco..................0 barrels
Sinclair................0 barrels
BP/Phillips.............0 barrels
Hess....................0 barrels
ARC0....................0 barrels


If you go to Sunoco.com, you will get a list of the station locations near you.

This information is available from the Department of Energy and each company is required to state where they get their oil and how much they are importing.

Just what price has Saudi Arabia paid for their connections to the 19 highjackers? I don't mean the King paid for the operation on 9/11, I mean the brand of Islam taught predominently (if not exclusively) has wrought much terror on our world. It's time we do what WE can.

BOYCOTT TERROR.



h/t: ezwinner

Stop Being Mean To Hill

This has got to hurt.

Barack Obama may be building an insurmountable lead in the Democratic primary race, but the public is sending a strong message to journalists and pundits: It is too early to declare, as some already have, that the race is over.

Fully 72% of the public - including comparable percentages of Democrats, Republicans and independents - say that journalists should not be anointing Obama as the Democratic nominee at this stage in the race. Just 20% say that journalists should be doing this.

Opinion among Democrats about what the press should do in this regard may well reflect their view that Hillary Clinton should stay in the race. Recent surveys by Gallup and ABC News/Washington Post find that most Democrats believe that Clinton should stay in the race. In the ABC News/Washington Post survey, released May 12, 64% of Democrats, including 42% of Obama supporters, said Clinton should remain in the race.

Does the media care?

March 2008 Recruits

Don't let anyone tell you we can't recruit any more because of the evil George W. Bush, the Republicans, or the war in Iraq. They are lying if they tell you that.

Democrats Threaten Bush

May 8, 2008
The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

We are writing to register our strong opposition to possible unilateral, preemptive military action against other nations by the Executive Branch without Congressional authorization. As you know, Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power "to declare war," to lay and collect taxes to "provide for the common defense" and general welfare of the United States, to "raise and support armies," to "provide and maintain a navy," to "make rules for the regulation for the land and naval forces," to "provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions," to "provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia," and to "make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution ... all ... powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States." Congress is also given exclusive power over the purse. The Constitution says, "No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law."

By contrast, the sole war powers granted to the Executive Branch through the President can be found in Article II, Section, which states, "The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into actual Service of the United States." Nothing in the history of the "Commander-in-Chief" clause suggests that the authors of the provision intended it to grant the Executive Branch the authority to engage U.S. forces in military action whenever and wherever it sees fit without any prior authorization from Congress.

In our view, the founders of our country intended this power to allow the President to repel sudden attacks and immediate threats, not to unilaterally launch, without congressional approval, preemptive military actions against foreign countries. As former Republican Representative Mickey Edwards recently wrote, "he decision to go to war ... is the single most difficult choice any public official can be called upon to make. That is precisely why the nation’s Founders, aware of the deadly wars of Europe, deliberately withheld from the executive branch the power to engage in war unless such action was expressly approved by the people themselves, through their representatives in Congress."

Members of Congress, including the signatories of this letter, have previously expressed concern about this issue. On April 25, 2006, sixty-two Members of Congress joined in a bipartisan letter that called on you to seek congressional approval before making any preemptive military strikes against Iran. Fifty-seven Members of Congress have co-sponsored H. Con. Res. 33, which expresses the sense of Congress that the President should not initiate military action against Iran without first obtaining authorization from Congress.

Our concerns in this area have been heightened by more recent events. The resignation in mid-March of Admiral William J. "Fox" Fallon from the head of U.S. Central Command, which was reportedly linked to a magazine article that portrayed him as the only person who might stop your Administration from waging preemptive war against Iran, has renewed widespread concerns that your Administration is unilaterally planning for military action against that country. This is despite the fact that the December 2007 National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program in the fall of 2003, a stark reversal of previous Administration assessments.

As we and others have continued to review troubling legal memoranda and other materials from your Administration asserting the power of the President to take unilateral action, moreover, our concerns have increased still further. For example, although federal law is clear that proceeding under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance" can be conducted within the U.S. for foreign intelligence purposes, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(f), the Justice Department has asserted that the National Security Agency’s warrantless wiretapping in violation of FISA is "supported by the President’s well-recognized inherent constitutional authority as Commander in Chief and sole organ for the Nation in foreign affairs". As one legal expert has explained, your Administration’s "preventive paradigm" has asserted "unchecked unilateral power" by the Executive Branch and violated "universal prohibitions on torture, disappearance, and the like."

Late last year, Senator Joseph Biden stated unequivocally that "the president has no authority to unilaterally attack Iran, and if he does, as Foreign Relations Committee chairman, I will move to impeach" the president.

We agree with Senator Biden, and it is our view that if you do not obtain the constitutionally required congressional authorization before launching preemptive military strikes against Iran or any other nation, impeachment proceedings should be pursued. Because of these concerns, we request the opportunity to meet with you as soon as possible to discuss these matters. As we have recently marked the fifth year since the invasion of Iraq, and the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq, your Administration should not unilaterally involve this country in yet another military conflict that promises high costs to American blood and treasure.

Sincerely,
The Honorable John Conyers
Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee

Alright so we are to take from this that the Democrats in Congress consider any action against Iran without their consent to be Impeachable. Never mind that Iran has shown no moves to go along to get along, and has continued to threaten our ally Israel. Their involvement in terrorism in the region not-withstanding.

This is what a President does when he doesn't lead by polls:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - President George W. Bush will tell Israel's parliament on Thursday that letting Iran acquire nuclear weapons would be an "unforgivable betrayal of future generations."

"America stands with you in firmly opposing Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions," Bush will tell Israeli legislators on the second day of his visit to the Jewish state, according to an advance copy of a speech he was due to deliver later in the day.

In his speech to the Knesset, he planned to hammer home his view that democracy could prevail against extremism in the Middle East, where he has struggled to push his "freedom agenda."

His strongest criticism will be aimed at Iran, Israel's main foe in the region.

"Permitting the world's leading sponsor of terror to possess the world's deadliest weapon would be an unforgivable betrayal of future generations. For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon," Bush will say.

Bush has led an international campaign to isolate Tehran diplomatically over its nuclear ambitions. He says there is a danger that Iran will use nuclear technology to build a bomb. Tehran says its program is for peaceful civilian purposes.

Bush has accused Iran of fomenting violence against Israel by Palestinian militants, of using Hezbollah to try to destabilize Lebanon's elected government and of arming and training Shi'ite militias in Iraq.

Yes, a President that doesn't lead by polls isn't silenced by ridiculous "angry letters" or political partisanship. He sticks by what he believes in and has every intention of carrying out whatever is necessary, threats be damned.

Update!

President Bush just made some interesting remarks about terrorism, going so far as to describe negotiating with terrorist groups as a "foolish delusion" akin to the appeasement that failed to stop Nazi Germany from invading its European neighbors.

Bush didn't explicitly criticize Sen. Barack Obama, but CNN says anonymous White House aides "are acknowledging" that the president was referring to the Democratic presidential hopeful, who has said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Barack Obama is upset since the remarks are obviously in reference to him.

Interestingly, the Democrats haven't learned from our situation since 9/11. One wonders if they ever will.

PREPARED REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO MEMBERS OF THE KNESSET

President Bush Discusses Iraq

"I want to say a word to our troops and civilians in Iraq. You've performed with incredible skill under demanding circumstances. The turnaround you have made possible in Iraq is a brilliant achievement in American history. And while this war is difficult, it is not endless. And we expect that, as conditions on the ground continue to improve, they will permit us to continue the policy of return on success. The day will come when Iraq is a capable partner of the United States. The day will come when Iraq is a stable democracy that helps fight our common enemies and promote our common interests in the Middle East. And when that day arrives, you'll come home with pride in your success, and the gratitude of your whole nation."
President George W. Bush
April 10, 2008

HOOAH!

Be Not Afraid

Former Green Beret Michael Yon is hands-down the best and most exciting battlefield reporter working today, internationally renowned for his dispatches and photos seen by millions around the world. Yon, who has spent more time embedded with U.S. combat forces in Iraq than any journalist in the world, is totally independent and has never been co-opted by Left or Right, Military or Media. Yon’s blunt reporting often angered the top brass. But our fighting soldiers and officers trust Michael Yon and point him to the hottest spots and biggest stories.

Townhall.com is pleased to offer an exclusive look at Chapter One of Yon’s new book, Moment of Truth in Iraq. Yon’s book is FREE for a limited time for Townhall readers with a subscription to Townhall Magazine! Subscribe today to receive 12 issues of Townhall Magazine and a FREE copy of Michael Yon’s Moment of Truth in Iraq.

click here >> Chapter One of Moment of Truth In Iraq: Be Not Afraid << click here

Congratulations Jenna Hager!

More at www.whitehouse.gov

Thanks Mom

M - O - T - H - E - R

"M" is for the million things she gave me,

"O" means only that she's growing old,

"T" is for the tears she shed to save me,

"H" is for her heart of purest gold;

"E" is for her eyes, with love-light shining,

"R" means right, and right she'll always be,

Put them all together, they spell


"MOTHER,"


A word that means the world to me.



Howard Johnson (c. 1915)

Obama Will Vote To Confirm Petraeus

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama, who has called for withdrawing U.S. combat troops from Iraq, said on Sunday he will vote to confirm the top commander there for a new job as head of the military's Central Command.

President George W. Bush has nominated Gen. David Petraeus, who led the buildup of troops in Iraq, to be in charge of operations across the Middle East and Central Asia.

If confirmed by the Senate, Petraeus will still be in that job when the next president replaces Bush at the White House in January 2009. Obama hopes that person is him.

"Yes," Obama told "Fox News Sunday" when asked if, as a senator from Illinois, he would approve Petraeus. "I think Petraeus has done a good tactical job in Iraq."

That's all well and good but...

Obama has said he would start pulling out more troops as soon as he became president.

"My hope is that Petraeus would reflect that wider view of our strategic interest," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

"I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years," Obama said. "It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say."

"It would be my job as commander in chief to set the mission, to make the strategic decisions in light of the problems that we're having in Afghanistan, in light of the problems that we are having in Pakistan, the fact that al Qaeda is strengthening," Obama said.

God help us.

Reality Check

"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."

Former President Clinton
During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"
July 22, 2003

The Spirit of Semper Fidelis

h/t: mrmontez2000