War powers

article 2 section 2
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; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.....

The Democrats think they run everything in Washington right now.
They are discussing the direction of the war, Should we surge? or not?
Well, as usual, they hate the constitution! They have no respect for it.


Federalist paper #74
Alexander Hamilton wrote;

The President of the United States is to be "commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States WHEN CALLED INTO THE ACTUAL SERVICE of the United States." The propriety of this provision is so evident in itself, and it is, at the same time, so consonant to the precedents of the State constitutions in general, that little need be said to explain or enforce it. Even those of them which have, in other respects, coupled the chief magistrate with a council, have for the most part concentrated the military authority in him alone. Of all the cares or concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms a usual and essential part in the definition of the executive authority.

Global warming hoax update

Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists



It's been a bad year for Global Warming Alarmists. Researchers are finding more and more evidence of natural warming events in the earth's past, events that were far more rapid and dramatic than first thought. Several scientists, disgusted with the media's refusal to carry their mesage accurately, have begun writing letters and books. Even the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which has long been the most vocal supporter of climate alarmism, has finished its Fourth Assessment report, which lowers worst case estimates sharply, and cuts in half long-term predictions for sea level rise. Evidence of the beneficial aspects of continues to mount, with arctic seal populations increasing, longer growing seasons, and less extreme temperature swings.

Is it any wonder environmentalists are getting even more emotional in the debate? In public, they state they simply want "truth to out," but the reality is a bit different. Recently, Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen made a strong bid to silence the opposition, calling for the removal of AMS certification for meteorologists who challenged the belief in catastrophic human-induced global warming. In it, she compared global warming denial to "going on air and saying that hurricanes rotate clockwise," apparently herself unaware that in the southern hemisphere hurricanes do indeed rotate in this direction. Cullen's statement immediately provoked outrage from meteorologists around the nation, with one of them angrily proclaiming, "I don't know a single meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype."
via-Daily tech

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE ANTI WAR LEFT?
This makes me sick.

"That poll about Iraq...
came out last week and it posed various
questions about whether folks
thought the 'surge' was a good idea
or not. Including the following:
'Do you personally want the
Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?'
And here's how the American people answered:
63 percent said yes,
22 percent said no,
15 percent said they didn't know.
Let me see if I understand that.
For four years, regardless of this
or that position on the merits of the war,
almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.'
Some of us have always thought
that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting
them in their mission is not entirely credible.
But here we have 37 percent of
the American people actually urging defeat on them.
They 'support our troops' by wanting them to lose.
This isn't a question about
whether you think the plan will work,
but whether you want it to work.

And nearly 40 percent of respondents either don't know or
are actively rooting for failure...

What were the numbers like for D-Day?"
---Mark Steyn

What Thomas Jefferson learned
from the Muslim book of jihad



By Ted Sampley
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007

Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book.

It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the
"Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we will fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put an end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.



via- Sean Bell (no- not the one who was shot by the cops)