Thursday, July 31, 2008

Help Our Wounded Troops!

Our troops have given their all and more to keep us safe and free. It has not been an easy thime for them or their families. Now, for some of our troops and their families, things have gone from bad to worse. Many of our troops, especially the one's that have been severely wounded, are in danger of losing their homes.

Now it is our turn to step up and protect those that have been protecting us from losing their homes. The Coalition to Salute America's Heroes needs our help to fill their Wounded Troops Foreclosure Fund, so they can help prevent these foreclosures. I know things are tough out there, what with the price of fuel and food, but these are our heroes. They have sacrificed more than many of us can imagine. I am asking you to give up a couple of movies, that case of beer, that dinner out or night out with the boys or girls. I cannot say this enough, these severely wounded troops and their families have made sacrifices we can never fathom. I am asking you to dig deep and help with all you can. Thank you! - Sailor

Coalition to Salute America's Heroes

Wounded troops hit by foreclosure crisis need your help to avoid losing homes!

Dear Patriotic American,

The number of calls have skyrocketed.

"Ever since I got out of the hospital, I've been unable to work. My wife can't work because she has to take care of me and the kids."

"Now, I'm holding a foreclosure notice on my home and I don't know what I am going to do."

It started out as a trickle. Just a few of the hundreds of calls the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes receives every week.

Wounded troops, many paralyzed, brain-damaged, burned or blinded asking for someone to help them save their homes and keep their families from being tossed out into the street.

Now, that trickle has turned into a flood and it is threatening to drown many of these wounded warriors.

Please click here to help prevent them from losing their homes.

My name is General Chip Diehl (Ret.) and I'm writing to you on behalf of the Coalition to Salute America's Heroes. The Coalition is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization founded to help troops who have been severely wounded in Iraq or Afghanistan.

So far, the Coalition has rushed over $11 million in emergency aid to more than 6,000 of our severely wounded troops and their families.

Because of this surging need, we've just launched the Wounded Troops Foreclosure Fund, an effort to raise $1 million to help as many wounded troops and their families as possible who are facing foreclosure or eviction.

By clicking here you can make a generous, tax-deductible donation to the Coalition's Wounded Troops Foreclosure Fund.

I also want to ask you to take just a few seconds to sign a special THANK YOU and GET WELL card for a severely wounded young Marine, Soldier, Sailor or Airman.

When you make a donation, a special THANK YOU and GET WELL card with your name on it will be hand-delivered to a severely wounded hero who needs some cheering up. You can even type in a personal greeting if you like!

Click here to send your greeting to a disabled hero.

Your greeting card and donation may be helping someone just like Frank G.:

"On November 28, 2004, while on patrol in Iraq, I was wounded by an IED. I lost some of the use of my left lower leg and have partial paralysis. Soon after retiring, my wife and I discovered we couldn't make ends meet on the pension I was receiving.

"I sold personal belongings on E-bay and tried to find work. For the first time in my life,I had bill collectors calling me. I felt incredible shame and anger that I wasn't able to provide for my family, and I was afraid of losing everything I had worked for.

The day I called CSAH was the best move I have made for my family. The Coalition has given us the chance to keep our home. And because of all the people out there who donate to this incredible organization, we have time to find the solution."

So far, the Coalition has been able to help every single wounded troop who has placed an emergency call to the Coalition.

But this latest surge has completely busted our budget.

We've had to cap our emergency aid grants for foreclosures at $25,000 a week.

That's all we can afford to send.

But for the past couple of months, we have been averaging $36,000 a week in emergency aid payouts!

So, you can see, we are facing a shortfall of $11,000 a week . . .

. . . just as the need has risen to historic levels.

Two recent headlines on the front page of USA Today caught my attention, and they may have caught yours as well.

The first headline was, "Soldiers risk ruin while awaiting benefits checks." The article described how government red tape was holding up benefits checks for so long that many soldiers were winding up in homeless shelters.

The second article was headlined, "More U.S. troops battle foreclosure." It pointed out how America's foreclosure crisis is having a devastating impact on our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A little extra help may be all many of these wounded heroes need to turn their financial situation around, so please click here to make a generous donation right now.

These wounded heroes have protected our freedom, our families and our homes. Now it's our turn to protect theirs.

Please click here to make a generous, tax-deductible donation to the Coalition's Wounded Troops Foreclosure Fund.

Thank you,

Brigadier Gen. Arthur F. "Chip" Diehl

U.S. Air Force (Ret.)

P.S. The skyrocketing number of disabled servicemen and women facing foreclosure has wiped out our ability to help every single paralyzed, burned, blinded or brain-damaged soldier who needs help saving their home.

Many of these troops are unable to work, and nearly half their spouses have been forced to leave the work force and become full time caretakers for their injured spouse and kids.

Can you imagine how you'd pay your rent or mortgage under those circumstances?

That's why the Coalition has created a Wounded Troops Foreclosure Fund to help these families, and I hope I can count on your support!

Please click here to make an emergency donation.

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Iraq’s Interior Minister Thanks U.S. Troops for Liberating Iraq

Unlike the Commander-in-Chief wannabe, Barrack Obama, who seems to have been too busy on his "World Victory Tour", Iraqi Interior Minister, Jawad Karim al-Bolani, made the time to visit and thank our wounded troops at Walter Reed for liberating Iraq. You have read that correctly, liberating, which dumps a lot of cold water on the leftists that have been calling our troops occupiers.

Minister al-Bolani also thanked the families of our troops for their sacrifices. In the meantime Obama could not find the time to enter into a town hall style debate with John McCain, that was to be sponsored by military family and veterans groups. Sort of tells you who appreciates our troops more. - Sailor

“We have come … to express our gratitude and appreciation for the sacrifices made by these great warriors, soldiers, in freeing the Iraqi people and in helping us in Iraq recover from tyranny and dictatorship,” Jawad Karim al-Bolani, Iraq’s minister of the interior, said through a translator to a handful of journalists in the lobby of the medical center.

“We also want to express our gratitude to the families of all these great men and women and express how important their sacrifices are for our nation,” he added.

Bolani’s visit with troops comes on the heels of Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) recent trip to the Middle East, where the Democratic presidential candidate caused a stir when he canceled a planned visit to wounded American soldiers.

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Barrack Obama: Socialist

While you would never know it from the puff pieces in the MSM, Obama is letting his socialist roots come to the forefront. He keeps droning on and on about how he has worked all his life for economic justice, which is a code word for socialism. Is it any wonder that the likes of the editors at Der Spiegel have already anointed Obama as the 44th President? Gerhard Spörl, the chief editor of Der Spiegal's foreign desk, has coronated Obama 44. Erich Follath, also of Der Spiegel, weighed in with another puff piece on Obama in which it is very possible Erich had an orgasm writing.

Why is it that these two have decided the election? It is rather simple, they want a socialist in the White House. I do have a little bit of cold water to throw on their party. We here, in America, really do not give a rat's rear end what the European socialists think or want for that matter. Reality is that the only time these socialists want us around is when they are in trouble., or they need their low growth economies pumped up by the military bases we have there.

Investors Business Daily makes a great case on Obama being a socialist. Remember, the rich that Obama wants to tax so badly, already pay more then 50% of the taxes in this country. To pay for his socialist programs, Obama will need far more tax revenue then that. Guess where that money will come from? You, the middle class! - Sailor

Of course, Obama is too smart to try to smuggle such hoary collectivist garbage through the front door. He's disguising the wealth transfers as "investments" — "to make America more competitive," he says, or "that give us a fighting chance," whatever that means.

Among his proposed "investments":

• "Universal," "guaranteed" health care.

• "Free" college tuition.

• "Universal national service" (a la Havana).

• "Universal 401(k)s" (in which the government would match contributions made by "low- and moderate-income families").

• "Free" job training (even for criminals).

• "Wage insurance" (to supplement dislocated union workers' old income levels).

• "Free" child care and "universal" preschool.

• More subsidized public housing.

• A fatter earned income tax credit for "working poor."

• And even a Global Poverty Act that amounts to a Marshall Plan for the Third World, first and foremost Africa.

His new New Deal also guarantees a "living wage," with a $10 minimum wage indexed to inflation; and "fair trade" and "fair labor practices," with breaks for "patriot employers" who cow-tow to unions, and sticks for "nonpatriot" companies that don't.

That's just for starters — first-term stuff.

Obama doesn't stop with socialized health care. He wants to socialize your entire human resources department — from payrolls to pensions. His social-microengineering even extends to mandating all employers provide seven paid sick days per year to salary and hourly workers alike.

You can see why Obama was ranked, hands-down, the most liberal member of the Senate by the National Journal. Some, including colleague and presidential challenger John McCain, think he's the most liberal member in Congress


Thursday, July 24, 2008

Obama Disses Our Troops Again

Once again, Barrack Obama has dissed our troops. First, he ducked the opportunity to have a Town Hall style debate with John McCain, near Fort Hood, Texas, that was to be sponsored by veterans' and military family support groups. The head of the group, Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, even asked the Obama campaign for a suitable date, they never gave her one. Now, Obama has canceled a trip to visit our wounded troops in Germany. The very lame excuse is that Obama did not think it was appropriate to visit them on a campaign sponsored trip. There is never an inappropriate time to visit our wounded troops, unless, of course, you are just playing lip service to the claim of supporting them. I guess using the troops for photo ops on a Congressional sponsored trip was okay then.

Seems some of our troops are not buying into Obama's so called concern. They have been e-mailing comments on the staged activities in Afghanistan and Iraq (hat tip rbees at ChronWatch). Here is a typical comment;

“Dude showed up in a suit”, one email reads describing clothes Obama wore. Generally visits - as with McCain are in some type of Kaki or other uniform. Obama and all his entourage looked like they were going to a dinner party, or perhaps just trying to project that “authority” thing he’s always talking about.

This sort of leads into a commentary by Ralph Peters, in the NY Post today. Mr. Peters points out the hypocrisy of the left and their mantra of support the troops, bring them home.

So here are three straightforward questions for all the march-in-step lefties who howled, "Support our troops, bring them home!" before their new messiah decided that war's not so bad, after all:

* Given that your candidate acknowledges the need for more combat troops in Afghanistan, will you enlist and do your part? Or do you expect other young Americans to continue to bleed in your place?

* If your man is elected president and orders ground troops into Pakistan - which could lead to a much wider conflict - will you enlist and do your part? We'll need a lot more troops to occupy those badlands.

* If the next president yanks our troops out of Iraq, all the progress disintegrates, Iran moves in and we have to re-invade to clean up the mess, will you enlist and do your part?

I know, I know: Educated people like you are too smart and too important to serve in uniform. The military's for dummies, for losers. Serious players stay home and blog and bitch over double espressos.

Inhabitants of the left-wing blogosphere, have you no shame? Was your pacifism nothing more than a hipster pose? Bush is on the way out - are your principles leaving with him? Have you stopped to wonder if BHO might not be your LBJ?

As far as I am concerned, Barrack Obama and his leftist supporters could give a rat's ass about our troops. All these claims of supporting our troops is just so much political posturing. - Sailor

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Fat Jack Murtha on His Way Out?

I am sure you remember Rep. John Murtha (D, PA), the one who went over the top when Marines were accused of a massacre at Haditha. Murtha said back then that "overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood." Since then, seven Marines have been either cleared or won dismissals in that case. You may also recall that Murtha was on tape considering accepting bribes during the Abscam sting. Looks like the chickens have come home to roost in the person of William Russell, a Gulf War veteran, who survived the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon, is challenging Murtha in November. Michelle Malkin has written a great article on this. Too bad the MSM his trying to keep it out of the public eye. I have already made a small donation to Mr. Russell's campaign. Oh, here is the really amazing thing, the Russell campaign raised 670,000.00 last quarter and Russell has not been able to campaign until he active duty commitment ends on 1 August! - Sailor

The 18-term congressman's challenger, staunch conservative Republican newcomer William Russell, raised nearly $670,000 in the second quarter. Earmark king Murtha scraped together a measly $119,000.

Russell's underdog campaign bested Murtha without the perks of incumbency, national name recognition, big PAC donations or mainstream media support.

Even more amazing: The challenger, a Desert Storm veteran and Army reservist who survived the 9/11 Pentagon attack, wasn't even publicly campaigning during the quarter. Russell, 45, is on active duty with the Army until after Aug. 1 and is barred from actively campaigning until then.

If all that didn't make this enough of an inspiring story: In February, a Pennsylvania judge ruled that Russell had failed to collect enough signatures to make the primary ballot. But he refused to give up on his goal of defeating Murtha. The GOP neophyte persevered on a shoestring budget and won more than 4,000 write-in votes in the spring to earn a spot on the general-election ballot. Russell's campaign manager, veteran GOP activist Peg Luksik, says most second-quarter donations were less than $50.

Russell's clear on where he stands. "I am a conservative," he says in his defining campaign statement. "I believe in the sovereignty and security of this one nation, under God. I believe the primary role of government is to provide for the common defense and a legal framework to protect families and individual liberty."

Monday, July 21, 2008

The New York Times Censors John McCain

On 14 July of this year, Barrack Obama wrote an Op-Ed piece in the New York Times, presenting his plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. John McCain wrote and offered a rebuttal as an Op-Ed piece for publication by the Times. Drudge and other media outlets are reporting that this has been rejected by the Times, claiming it was not acceptable as written and should have "mirrored" Obama's piece. The Times Op-Ed page editor, David Shipley, apparently wants editorial input and control of the McCain opinion. It should be noted that Shipley was part of the Clinton Administration from 1995 to 1997.

Is it any wonder that the Times has taken a beating in circulation? This can be described as nothing less than partisan censorship. The American people a wising up to tactics such as this. In a recent Rasmussen poll, 49% of voters believe reporters will try and help Obama with their reporting, 14% believe they will help McCain, but a mere 24% believe they will be unbiased. These numbers are quite frightening, considering the influence media outlets such as the Times have.

McCain and his campaign are refusing to make any changes to the Op-Ed piece. The rival NY Post has approached the McCain campaign about publishing the piece. I will beat the Post to it and post McCain's piece here.

It is my opinion that the Times has now forfeited it's claim to be America's paper of record, forfeited any pretense on impartiality, forfeited any journalistic integrity it may have had left and is now merely the propaganda arm of the DNC and the Obama campaign. It is obvious to me that Shipley is taking marching orders from the DNC. - Sailor

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Saturday, July 19, 2008

More Phony Energy Plans

The dems continue to be beholding to one of their special interest groups, the environmental wackos. The dems are trying to push to bills into law that are feel good measures, This does not include their drive to go after the commodities markets. The so called "Drill" bill is pure nonsense and does nothing to help increase supply. I have a press release from the Institute for Energy Research that puts this bill into perspective. John, over at the Power Line blog adds additional information on this bill. His insight is worth reading.

The dems other plan is an attempt to reduce demand. While reducing demand is not a bad thing, it will do nothing to increase supply. Any small reduction in demand in the US, will be quickly gobbled up by China and India. Here is a snippet of the plan:

According to the Environmental Defense Fund, the bill -- called the Transportation and Housing Options for Gas Price Relief Act of 2008 -- would allocate taxpayer money to:

-- expand public transportation;

-- encourage “pay-as-you-drive” auto insurance policies that reward low-mileage drivers with lower insurance premiums;

-- reduce commuting costs by providing incentives to employers and employees to take transit, bicycle, carpool, walk, or telecommute to work;

-- help local governments create "walkable, bikeable" communities;

-- help Americans make "smart" transportation and housing choices by educating them about their options;

-- create “location efficient mortgages" that would make owning a home near transit more affordable.

The bill also would require the federal government to upgrade key Web sites so Americans would have easier access to government services without leaving home or work.

Please note the folks describing what the plan would do - the Environmental Defense Fund, one of the groups the dems are beholding to. This plan will help in the large metropolitan areas, which really is the dem base. But, does nothing for those that live in rural areas. Nor does it do anything to help farmers, truckers, the airline industry or the railroads. Those that are trying to push this through, likely live in those large metropolitan areas and could care less about the rest of the country. They can go to bed at night feeling good about their efforts, however, their efforts will solve nothing. - Sailor

Consumers Need Energy, Not Political Slogans and Lawsuits

July 17, 2008
Brian Kennedy (202) 434-8200

706% inrease in lease protests threatens American energy supplies

WASHINGTON, D.C. – With consumers and the economy suffering the consequences of skyrocketing energy prices, lawmakers in Washington continue to advance sound bites instead of solutions. Daniel Kish, senior vice president of the Institute for Energy Research (IER), issued the following statement:

“While Americans struggle to pay their fuel and utility bills, their government continues to play political games that will only weaken our nation’s economy and our family budgets,” Kish said. “Today’s ‘Drill’ bill is yet another chapter in the epic disconnect between the American people – who understand that more supply is the solution to shortage driven high prices – and their elected leaders, who refuse to lift restrictions on new areas of the country to increase energy supplies.”

On those few areas the government attempts to lease for additional energy production, protests, appeals and lawsuits appear faster than politicians scrambling for a camera. According to the Bureau of Land Management, lease protests averaged 167 per year between 1997 and 2000; between 2001 and 2007, they numbered 1,180 per year. This is a 706% increase.

Yesterday in New Mexico, the Department of Interior held a 78 parcel lease sale on lands already available for drilling. 100% of them were protested by groups opposed to U.S. energy production. These protests will no doubt delay new energy supplies and increase costs to consumers.

Drilling for Real Solutions in the ‘Drill’ Bill: Section by Section, Just More Dry Holes

Section 1: Bill Title

The Act has been dubbed the Drill Responsibly in Leased Lands – or DRILL - Act of 2008. However, nothing in its following sections will increase domestic energy production beyond what is already scheduled.

Section 2. Lease Sales in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

This section requires that lease sales be conducted once a year. This is something that is currently allowed, but not done because NPR-A’s Indiana-sized area has no infrastructure. In addition, a history of dilatory lawsuits has made it an area of limited interest to energy producers. This section also seeks to expedite permits in the NPR-A, a positive step. However, it does nothing to tackle the biggest problem with developing new energy: dilatory protests and lawsuits. Any genuine effort must involve putting a stop to the legal blocking and tackling of groups opposed to American energy production. Incidentally, Congress should address this issue nationwide.

Section 3: Pipeline Construction in the National Petroleum Reserve – Alaska

Pipelines in NPRA have been held up by appeals, protests and lawsuits, not energy producers.

Section 4: Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project Facilitation

This section authorizes the president to exercise authority he already has to facilitate something he is already facilitating. In short, this section achieves nothing.

Section 5: Project Labor Agreements

A last minute bonus prize for organized labor, but creates no new energy whatsoever.

Section 6: Ban on Export of Alaskan Oil

A nice talking point, but the United States does not export any Alaskan oil, and has not since 2000. California exports more petroleum products than Alaska.

Section 7: Issuance of New Leases

This section was crafted using synonyms to restate existing laws, including:

  • The Mineral Leasing Act (for onshore production), which stipulates that an oil company must have a producing well within 10 years or surrender the leases. Source: 30 U.S.C. 226(e)
  • The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act: (for offshore production), which stipulates that an oil company must produce energy between 5 to 10 years (in the government’s discretion) or surrender the lease. Source: 43 U.S.C. 1337(b)
  • Penalties in U.S. Code: The federal government can cancel a lease if a producer fails to live up to the terms of the lease, the law or federal regulations. Source: 30 USC 188(a) and (b) and 43 CFR 3108.3 (a) and (b).

Section 8: Fair Return on Production of Federal Oil and Gas Resources

  • This section restates current law and practice. In fact, the government increased royalties on outer continental shelf leases by 50% last year, making it more expensive to produce energy in America.

The Institute for Energy Research (IER) is a not-for-profit public foundation that conducts intensive research and analysis on the functions, operations, and government regulation of global energy markets. Founded in 1989, IER is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought for or accepted from government (taxpayers).

Al-Qaeda's Bad Investments

Ralph Peters has a great column on the sad shape al-Qaeda is in. Since Barrack Obama continues his ignorance, (or perhaps it is merely his pandering to his leftist base), on Iraq and the war on terror, this is a timely column. Obama continues to make the false claim that Iraq is not, nor never has been the central front on the war on terror. He seems oblivious to the claims of al-Qada and bin Laden that it is. By making Iraq the central front, bot Qaeda and bin Laden made a serious miscalculation, So serious, that Qaeda has been defeated in Iraq. It appears Qaeda has now decided to try their fortunes in Afghanistan, I suspect mainly because of the areas of refuge provided in Pakistan. With Iraq stabilizing, it is too late for Qaeda to make a stand any where. Even with sanctuaries in Pakistan, their defeat is inevitable. - Sailor

Where do Osama & Co. stand today? They're not welcome in a single Arab country. The Saudi royals not only cut off their funding, but cracked down hard within the kingdom. A few countries, such as Yemen, tolerate radicals out in the boonies - but they won't let al Qaeda in. Osama's reps couldn't even get extended-stay rooms in Somalia, beyond the borders of the Arab world.

And the Arab in the (dirty) street is chastened. Instead of delivering a triumph, al Qaeda brought disaster, killing far more Arabs through violence and strife than Israel has killed in all its wars. Nobody in the Arab world's buying al Qaeda shares at yesterday's premium - and only a last few suckers are buying at all.

Guess what? We won.

The partisan hacks who insisted that Iraq was a distraction from fighting al Qaeda have missed the situation's irony: Things are getting worse in Afghanistan and Pakistan not because our attention was elsewhere, but because al Qaeda has been driven from the Arab world, with nowhere else to go.

Al Qaeda isn't fighting to revive the Caliphate these days. It's fighting for its life.

Unwelcome even in Sudan or Syria, the Islamist fanatics have retreated to remote mountain villages and compounds on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. That means Afghanistan's going to remain a difficult challenge for years to come - not a mission-impossible, but an aggravating one.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Obama is Clueless

Barrack Obama has presented his plan for Iraq and Afghanistan. Essentially, he plans to surrender in Iraq and try to win in Afghanistan. Here is a guy that has been to Iraq only once and has never stepped foot in Afghanistan. He also claims that Iraq has never been the central front in the war on terror. I guess he did not hear bin Laden say it was. Obama needs a serious reality check here. We are winning in Iraq, Qaeda in Iraq is defeated and the government there is meeting most of the benchmarks set by Congress. Of course, Obama has to continue to pander to his leftist, defeatist base. Reality does not matter, as long as his base his pissed off at him.

I am simply amazed that he is about to go off on a so called "fact finding" trip, when he has ignored the facts to date. Why bother? He has no use for facts. He has already decided to surrender in Iraq.

Here is an article by people that have just returned from Iraq. They have published their assessment on the situation there. This should be must reading for Obama and his campaign advisers. This assessment was written by people that are well respected for their objectivity. Mr. Kagan is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. Ms. Kagan is president of the Institute for the Study of War. Mr. Keane is a former vice chief of staff of the U.S. Army. All have just returned from their most recent visit to Iraq.

Here are a few excerpts from their assessment. - Sailor

All of the most important objectives of the surge have been accomplished in Iraq. The sectarian civil war is ended; al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) has been dealt a devastating blow; and the Sadrist militia and other Iranian-backed militant groups have been disrupted.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi government has accomplished almost all of the legislative benchmarks set by the U.S. Congress and the Bush administration. More important, it is gaining wider legitimacy among the population. The attention of Iraqis across the country is focused on the upcoming provincial elections, which will be a pivotal moment in Iraq's development.

[The New Reality in Iraq]
A boy enjoys a ride at a park in Baghdad, Wednesday, July 9.

The result is that we have an extraordinary – but fleeting – opportunity to advance America's security and the stability of a vital region of the world.

As far as the civil war is concerned, there have been virtually no sectarian killings recorded for the past 10 weeks. Violence is still perpetrated by organized groups, but AQI, the remnant Sunni insurgents and Shiite fighters are now focused on attacking their own members who have defected to our side. This is a measure of their weakness. The Iraqi population is increasingly mobilizing against the perpetrators of violence, flooding American and Iraqi forces with tips about the locations of weapons caches and key militant leaders – Sunnis turning in Sunnis and Shia turning in Shia.

This is some thing that Obama has blissfully ignored and, quite frankly, denied has happened. Listening to his latest rant on Iraq, one would get the impression that nothing has changed there. He is still claiming it is a civil war!

The larger strategic meaning of these military and political advances must be kept clearly in mind. Iraq remains a critical front in al Qaeda's war against the U.S.

Discussions in the American media about whether AQI is "really" al Qaeda are puerile. AQI's leadership, largely foreign, is part of the global al Qaeda network operating in support of Osama bin Laden. Bin Laden and his lieutenants in Pakistan and around the world send support (including foreign fighters) to Iraq and closely follow the situation there, as their repeated public pronouncements show no less than their actions. Al Qaeda's central leadership is not prepared to lose in Iraq, and has been seeking ways to regain lost ground.

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

The Tin Foil Hat is Awarded To.........

Every now and again, I award a tin foil hat to the person that comes up with the most idiotic story or conspiracy theory, that they actually believe. This tin foil hat award goes to Congressman Edward Markey (D-Mass.), who is the chairman of the House (Select) Energy Independence and Global Warming Committee. This fellow recently told a group of teens that global warming was the cause of Hurricane Katrina and, get this, the cause of that black hawk helicopter, (made famous by the movie “Black Hawk Down”, being shot down. You cannot make this stuff up! So Rep. Markey, this tin foil hat is for you! - Sailor

But Myron Ebell, director of Energy and Global Warming Policy at CEI, told Cybercast News Service that Markey’s remarks reveal his ignorance about the science of global warming.

“Yes, that part of the world is subject to drought at times, but it has very little to do with global warming,” said Ebell. “It is subject to drought whether the global average temperature is going up, down, or staying the same. To say you know the conflict was caused by global warming is to show how really ignorant you are of the scientific issues involved.”

What Is Obama Afraid Of?

The New York Times has reported that Barrack Obama has turned down an invitation to a Town Hall style debate with John McCain that would have been sponsored by a coalition of military family and veterans groups, to be held outside of Fort Hood, Texas. John McCain, of course accepted the invitation and CBS was willing to air the event. For a candidate that claims to support our military and their families, it is beyond belief that Obama could not find a date that would work into the campaign schedule. Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, initially offered 11 August as a date. The Obama campaign claimed they had an event already scheduled. Then Ms. Picard asked the campaign to give an acceptable date, which as of this posting, the Obama campaign has not given. There is some more commentary on this matter here and here.

In my opinion, this is a slap in the face to our military families and veterans, both groups of which I am a member of. Obama is all talk about supporting the military, their families and our veterans. When it comes time to walk the walk, it seems Obama runs away! - Sailor

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, the presumptive Democratic nominee, has not agreed to participate.

“Senator Obama strongly supports America’s veterans and military families and has worked hard on their behalf in the Senate,” said Phillip Carter, director of Mr. Obama’s veterans effort and an Iraq war veteran. “While we unfortunately had a previously scheduled commitment on the date proposed, Senator Obama looks forward to continuing the dialogue he’s been having throughout the country with veterans on how we can better serve our men and women in uniform as they serve us.”

Carissa Picard, managing director of the Fort Hood Presidential Town Hall Consortium, said she had suggested Aug. 11 and asked the campaign to suggest other dates if that was not convenient, but after several conversations she had not been able to work anything out.

“I’m having extreme difficulty getting the Obama campaign to commit to this event, and we do not understand why,” said Ms. Picard, whose husband is deployed in Iraq. “We made it very clear to them that if they would commit to the event, we would work with them on dates.”

The organizers released details about the event in hopes that it would pressure the Obama campaign to agree to the event.

“This was a decision that was made with tremendous difficulty, to publicize it,” Ms. Picard said. “We were at a point where we had no other option. We got the impression that they could talk us to November.”

The meeting would be at the Expo Center in Belton, Tex., about 25 miles from Fort Hood.

Sunday, July 13, 2008


Tony Snow has lost his battle with cancer. He was 53.

Laura and I are deeply saddened by the death of our dear friend Tony Snow," President Bush said in a written statement. "The Snow family has lost a beloved husband and father. And America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character.

Snow died at 2 a.m. Saturday at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington, D.C.

Snow joined FOX in 1996 as the original anchor of "FOX News Sunday" and hosted "Weekend Live" and a radio program, "The Tony Snow Show," before departing in 2006.

"It's a tremendous loss for us who knew him, but it's also a loss for the country," Roger Ailes, chairman of FOX News, said Saturday morning about Snow, calling him a "renaissance man."

As a TV pundit and commentator for FOX News, Snow often was critical of Bush before he became the president's third press secretary, following Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan. He was an instant study in the job, mastering the position — and the White House press corps — with apparent ease.

"One of the reasons I took this job is not only to work with the president, but, believe it or not, to work with all of you," Snow told reporters when he stepped into the post in 2006. "These are times that are going to be very challenging."

Tony was an articulate voice for conservative ideals. He was a genuinely nice guy. My deepest sympathies to his family and friends.

Bobby Murcer lost his battle with brain cancer. He was 62.

Yankee icon Bobby Murcer died yesterday at the age of 62 because of complications from brain cancer. He passed away at Mercy Hospital in his hometown of Oklahoma City, surrounded by family, including his wife Kay and children Tori and Todd. He was first diagnosed with the disease on Christmas Eve, 2006.

"Bobby Murcer was a born Yankee, a great guy, very well liked and a true friend of mine," George Steinbrenner said in a statement. "I extend my deepest sympathies to his wife Kay, their children and grandchildren. I will really miss the guy."

Murcer starred in the field and in the broadcast booth and treated everyone with kindness. His death brought tears to the eyes of Yankee manager Joe Girardi, a former broadcast partner on YES.

"Bobby tried to make life better for people around him," Girardi said.

That was the essence of Bobby Ray Murcer, who played 17 years in the majors with the Yankees, Giants and Cubs, batting .277 with 252 home runs. He was a five-time All-Star, a starting outfielder four times. The final All-Star Game to be played at Yankee Stadium will be Tuesday. There will be sadness in the air with Murcer's passing.

I always enjoyed watching Bobby patrol centerfield, even though those were lean years for the Yankees. Later, as a broadcaster, Bobby brought to the viewers, a sense of being part of that game. My heart felt condolences to his family and friends. - Sailor

Saturday, July 12, 2008

12 Democrats in Pennsylvania Facing Corruption Charges

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette is reporting 12 democrats are facing charges of corruption as well as attempts to keep Ralph Nader off the ballot in 2004. State money was also allegedly used to provide a no-show job for a top ranking aide's mistress. Among those facing charges are former state Rep. Michael Veon, current Rep. Sean Ramaley. Grand jurors called this a "culture of corruption". Do take note Ms. Pelosi. Naturally, since these officials are not Republicans, you may have difficulty finding reporting on this in the MSM. Any public offical that steals from the hard working taxpayers of this country needs to be severely punished, no matter what political affiliation they have. The investigation is ongoing and other may be facing charges. - Sailor

Along with Veon and Ramaley, here are the others that have been charged.

• Michael L. Manzo, 39, former chief of staff to Majority Leader Bill DeWeese. Mr. Manzo is accused of conspiracy in connection with the bonus scandal, engineering ballot challenges using state workers and hiding a girlfriend on the state payroll in a phony state office above a cigar store on Pittsburgh's South Side.

• Jeff Foreman, 57, currently legal counsel to House Minority Whip Keith McCall. He is accused of participating in the bonus plot while chief of staff to Mr. Veon and of directing an ongoing, partisan political operation from inside Mr. Veon's Capitol office.

• Rachel Hursh Manzo, 27, an aide to state Rep. Todd Eachus and wife of Mr. Manzo. She is accused of organizing House employees to work on legislative campaigns on state time and doing so herself during Mr. Veon's unsuccessful re-election campaign in 2006.

• Scott V. Brubaker, 43, former director of administration for the House Democrats. He is accused of playing a key role in arranging the illegal bonuses, directing state workers to perform political tasks and helping to orchestrate challenges to opponents' petitions for ballot spots.

• Jennifer Brubaker, 36, who is married to Mr. Brubaker and who directs the House Democratic Office of Legislative Research, the scene of a search warrant execution last August. She is accused of directing legislative employees to do political work in her office, including opposition research.

• Brett W. Cott, 36, a top aide to Mr. Veon, who is accused of widespread corruption, including conspiracy in the bonus scandal and running an ongoing political operation out of Mr. Veon's state office. "Brett Cott's title on Veon's staff was policy analyst, but according to numerous witnesses he was hired because of his campaign skills and was one of the lead promoters of the culture of using taxpayer funds for campaign purposes," the grand jury said.

• Patrick J. Lavelle, 29, who the grand jury described as a full-time political operative in Mr. Veon's Harrisburg office who had no other duties beyond fund raising.

• Annamarie Peretta-Rosepink, 45, director of Mr. Veon's Beaver County district office. She is accused of directing state employees to work on an array of political campaigns, including those of state Rep. Thomas Tangretti and state Sen. Wayne Fontana, as well as for other Democratic candidates. She also is accused of roles in the Nader and Romanelli petition challenges.

• Stephen A.H. Keefer, 38, former director of information technology for the House Democrats. He is accused of directing state employees to work on political campaigns, using state equipment to design political materials and creating a special Leaders' Communications Office with public funds to transmit political messages.

• Earl J. Mosley, 53, former director of personnel for the House Democrats. Grand jurors said he helped arrange payment of the illegal bonuses, and obtained a bonus himself for campaign work.

Wednesday, July 09, 2008

Slave Labor at the UN?

For all the high minded nonsense that spews forth from the so called UN Human Rights Commission about conditions in the US, perhaps they need to turn inward and investigate the UN. Seems the UN has been looking the other way when they or member states use what amounts to slave labor. This past Tuesday the New York Sun, published an article, about the Ambassador from the Philippines enslaving some one.

In the report, The Sun claims that Marichu Baoanan, a Filipino immigrant, had filed a lawsuit against the former Philippine U.N. ambassador Lauro Baja who served at the world body from 2003-2006.

According to the Sun, Baoanan claims that she was held as a de-facto slave during a three-month period in 2006 when she worked as a "domestic" for the Baja family in New York City.

In a complaint filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan, Baoanan claimed that her employment amounted to "involuntary servitude, forced labor, debt bondage, slavery, and psychological abuse," when she worked at the ambassador's residence on the Upper East Side.

New York City officials say such complaints are not surprising.

A key member of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's staff (who wished to remain anonymous) explained that diplomatic immunity may protect the Baja family. While diplomatic immunity normally covers only those engaged in official activities, it can cover others related to but not directly involved in such activities.

"It all depends on what kind of visa she entered the U.S. with," the source explained. It also depends on what kind of visa the Philippine government requested.

In other words, if Baoanan entered the U.S. on a diplomatic visa, there is little U.S. courts can do to help her. "The State Department is always reluctant to get involved in such situations because of the fear of retaliation against U.S. personnel serving in the country at issue," the source told Newsmax.

Back in the 1990's, the Chinese imported their own labor to construct their UN consulate in NY. They paid these workers 1.00 an hour. Mayor Rudy Giuliani took them to court and put an end to that.

It seems Giuliani convinced the court that the Chinese construction site was not occupied by diplomats and as such, did not yet enjoy diplomatic status. The site was part of a real estate swap with a local developer who had yet to turn the title over to Beijing.

Today, China's U.N. mission staff is among the lowest paid of the so-called "Perm 5" (the United States, France, Russia, Britain, and China — the five veto-wielding nations in the U.N.) yet China’s U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya enjoys the life of a modern emperor as presides over one of the largest apartments in Donald Trump's World Tower overlooking U.N. headquarters.

At China's consulate on the West Side, more than 300 staffers from the mainland run one of Beijing's largest operations overseas under little pay and questionable working conditions, but officials can do little about it.

Smaller nations, such as North Korea, literally shield their staff from outside contact preferring to move in supervised groups around Manhattan and living in communal apartments.

It is not known if their staff receive any pay at all.

All in all, it looks like there needs to be some internal investigating going on over at that cesspool of corruption, called the UN. - Sailor

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Qaeda On The Verge of Defeat

Not that you would know it if you read or view the MSM, but Qaeda is on the ropes. The final thrust in Iraq is about to defeat Qaeda and more than that, devastate it. There are those like Huffington and The Nation and most dems, terrorist ass kissers and appeasers that are still in denial. All you need do is read Huffington's post on how the surge failed. I think she has really lost it on this one. Interestingly, it was John McCain that advocated the surge about 2 years before it was implemented. Perhaps that is why Huffington, who is seriously in the tank, for Obama is in denial. To let you know how deep in the tank the MSM is for Obama, none of this news was reported any where in the American media. Andy McCarthy reports on this. One had to read it in the Times of London. Here are a few snippets. No wonder Obama is lurching to the right on Iraq! - Sailor

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul.

A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10.

Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects.

After being forced from its strongholds in the west and centre of Iraq in the past two years, Al-Qaeda’s dwindling band of fighters has made a defiant “last stand” in the northern city of Mosul. A huge operation to crush the 1,200 fighters who remained from a terrorist force once estimated at more than 12,000 began on May 10. Operation Lion’s Roar, in which the Iraqi army combined forces with the Americans’ 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment, has already resulted in the death of Abu Khalaf, the Al-Qaeda leader, and the capture of more than 1,000 suspects. . . .Major-General Mark Hertling, American commander in the north, said: “I think we’re at the irreversible point.”

Friday, July 04, 2008

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. -- Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn

Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

John Hancock

Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll
of Carrollton

George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross

Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris

Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple

Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry

Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery

Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott

Matthew Thornton