Theodore's World

Charlton Heston – 1989 NRA Annual Meeting

He speaks of the Bill of Rights, our Founding Fathers as well, this is a great speech.

Gathering of Eagles to hold press conference supporting Iraq mission and U.S. military
Monday, April 7, 2008 at 10:00 am, members of Gathering of Eagles will hold a press conference at the west lawn of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C.
This rally will showcase patriots from all over the country standing up in support of our military and their missions in Iraq and the War on Terror.
The conference is timed to coincide with Gen. David Petraeus’ return to Capitol Hill. Chris Hill, National Director of Operations, said:

“The purpose of our actions on April 7th is to encourage our elected officials to provide full funding for the military’s current mission in Iraq, and to continue to support the current mission of stabilization there.”

After the conference, Gathering of Eagles will hold meetings with Representatives and Senators. Larry Bailey, the organization’s chairman and cofounder, will be available for interviews along with Mr. Hill. Headquartered in North Carolina, Gathering of Eagles is a non-profit organization of everyday Americans united by a common love and respect for the United States and her military.
For more information, visit their website at www.gatheringofeagles.org. For more information, contact: Coby W. Dillard Assistant to the National Director Gathering of Eagles
The Band of Mothers will be on the corner of the Cannon Bldg in Washington, DC (Where Nancy Pelosi supposedly works) from April 7th, 8th and 9th to remind her and the Congress to support our Soldiers and the General. We will be among other supporters with Support our Troops signs.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
How sad that in the United States of America that anyone has to remind our elected officials to support our Soldiers and Gen. Petraeus, the mission and the war. It is an outrage!
Thank God for Gathering of Eaglels, our Veterans, Band of Mothers and other groups that will be there to let them know how the rest of us feel about our awesome troops.

Congressional Democrats Warn Petraeus, Crocker Not to Minimize Seriousness of Situation in Iraq
VOA
Congressional Democrats are warning U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, not to attempt to minimize the seriousness of the situation in Iraq when they testify to Congress next week. VOA’s Dan Robinson reports from Capitol Hill.
A few days before General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker appear before House and Senate committees to deliver their latest update on Iraq, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi makes clear what she hopes they will not say.
In a news conference together with the chairmen of the House committees on Armed Services and Foreign Affairs, she refers to the recent fighting in Iraq’s southern port city of Basra, saying Petraeus and Crocker should not attempt to put a positive spin on events.

“We have to know the real ground truths of what is happening there, not put a shine on events because of a resolution [of the situation in Basra] that looks less violent when it has in fact been dictated by someone [Iraqi Shiite cleric Moqtada] al-Sadr who can grant or withhold that call for violence or not,” said Nancy Pelosi.

Thursday’s news conference came in the wake of seemingly critical comments by Ambassador Crocker in a New York Times interview about the Iraqi government’s handling of military operations in Basra.
Elaborating during a Baghdad news conference, Crocker indicated again that Iraqi military decisions caught U.S. forces by surprise. But he described Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as having acted decisively, and praised the Iraqi military for its ability to plan, execute and adjust its operation.
Whatever versions that emerge between now and next week, lawmakers are making clear they don’t intend to accept a picture that candy coats (minimizes) the military, political or reconciliation situation.
Democratic House foreign affairs chairman Howard Berman says the Iraqi government appears, in his words, to have largely frittered away chances for political reconciliation:

“The purpose of the [U.S. military] surge was to create political space for Iraqis to make meaningful strides toward national reconciliation, but sectarianism sadly remains the dominant force in Iraq and the sacrifices involved in getting us to this point don’t seem to have put us much closer to the goal,” said Howard Berman.

Democrats will also underscore what they call the heavy strain on U.S. troops from the five-year conflict in Iraq, damage to U.S. capabilities to respond to other challenges, and diverting energy from the fight against al-Qaida and Taliban forces in Afghanistan.
Congressman Berman and House armed services chairman Ike Skelton also expressed new concerns about Iranian involvement in Iraq.
SKELTON: “Iran is the ‘bull in the china shop’. In all of this, they seem to have links to all of the Shiite groups, whether they be political or military.”
BERMAN: “The most disturbing aspect of the war is the inarguable strengthening of Iran, the most dangerous state in the Middle East.”
Neither man provided information about any new details they might have obtained about Iranian actions in Iraq.
However, Berman says Iran’s role in the events in Basra is something he and others will explore with General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker next week.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
Who the heck do these people think they are anyway. This is not England, they are not a KING or a Queen, this is America and they have the nerve to give a warning to the U.S. Iraq commander General David Petraeus, and the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
This must look great to the enemy!!! Thanks a lot for helping out in the war effort Democrats!!! NOT!
And as far as it appears to our troops and they will know about this because they get the news there too. They must wish they could tell these jerks to shut up!! I know I would!

Hill Dems petition Bush on Iraq – Democrats Letter to President Bush April 4, 2008
Washington Times
A group of senior house Democrats today urged President Bush to overhaul current Iraq policy and encourage leaders of that country to bolster its political and military infrastructure.
The leaders said the recent troop buildup in Iraq had not achieved its purpose and urged Bush to direct troops to play a more limited role in Iraq and divert freed up resources to other regions such as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

“The current Iraq strategy has no discernible end in sight and requires the United States to spend additional hundreds of billions of dollars despite urgent national needs in education, health care, and infrastructure improvement, and when high oil prices have provided the Iraqi government with billions in additional revenue that could pay for their own redevelopment and security,” states the letter, signed by 18 senior Democrats, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

You can read the full letter here.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Kentucky Republican, responded to word of the letter, saying it was prematurely sent in advance of testimony on Capitol Hill by Gen. David Petraeus and Iraq Amb. Ryan Crocker, who are slated to testify on Capitol Hill next Tuesday.

“Rather than hear from our ambassador about the political and economic progress in Iraq, and rather than listen to the Petraeus plan for safely drawing down troops in Iraq, the Democrat leadership is relying on a letter to paper over the disparate views in their party,” McConnell said. “While Democrats are divided on how best to assuage MoveOn, the military has described the safe way to return troops to the U.S. without abandoning an ally or our regional interests.”

Wild Thing’s comment……..
Well those names signing the letter are the usual list of suspects .
Wouldn’t it be neat if Bush could just write across the Petition Screw you and send it back to them. heh heh
I have always been a firm believer that the military should be the one to decide the when, and how a mission should be halted or changed. Give input to the Commander in Chief yes but not be at the mercy or attacks of input from some career politicians that have made a point of wanting never to win this war.
And from the letter look who has signed it and why the heck are they still allowed to be on these particular committees????????? GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Nancy Pelosi Harry Reid
Speaker of the House Senate Majority Leader
Steny H. Hoyer Richard J. Durbin
House Majority Leader Senate Assistant Majority Leader
Ike Skelton Carl Levin
Chairman, House Armed Services Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee Committee
Howard Berman Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Committee
Silvestre Reyes John D. Rockefeller IV Chairman, House Permanent Chairman, Senate Select
Select Committee on Committee on Intelligence Intelligence
John Murtha Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman, House Defense Chairman, Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Appropriations Subcommittee
Nita Lowey Patrick J. Leahy
Chairwoman, House State Chairman, Senate State and
and Foreign Operations Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee Appropriations Subcommittee

Democrat: Report on Iraq ‘too rosy’
CNN
Senior Democratic senators challenged a new intelligence report’s assessment of President Bush’s “surge” strategy Friday, saying the troop increase in Iraq has failed to achieve its strategic goals.
The classified National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which was distributed to key lawmakers this week, sets the stage for the latest public progress report on Iraq that will be delivered Tuesday and Wednesday to congressional committees by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the top U.S. diplomat in Baghdad.

“In my judgment, it’s too rosy, but there are parts of it that are not so rosy, and both pieces need to be declassified,” Sen. Carl Levin said, pointing in particular to the portion of the report describing Iraq’s political progress.

Levin chairs the Armed Services Committee, one of the panels Crocker and Petraeus will testify before next week.

The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, however, said the Democrats were complaining about the report because they did not like the report’s finding and were trying to “politicize it.”

“Old adage from the Midwest: When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, you know who’s been hit by who hollers,” said Sen. Kit Bond of Missouri. “All I can say is, the people who are bitching obviously didn’t like the results. I happen to have confidence in the analysis that’s now being conducted.

“From everything I know, it is a fair representation on what is going on in Iraq, and people will have the opportunity to question Gen. Petraeus and others,” he said. “But the fact that it has not been released and you see some violent anti-war, anti-Iraq war people complaining about it lets you know what the general tone of it is.”

For their part, Bush administration officials have declined to characterize the findings of the intelligence estimate, largely because they do not want to get ahead of the public testimony from Petraeus and Crocker.
The previous report on Iraq, issued last summer in advance of the first progress report from Petraeus and Crocker, suggested that progress was more uneven and the situation more precarious.
Democrats are raising concerns that the new report is downplaying recent violence on the ground to strengthen the president’s hand in advance of the Petraeus-Crocker testimony.

One Democratic aide said the latest report “is not inconsistent with public statements on Iraq” made in recent Bush speeches casting the war in a more positive light by highlighting security and political gains in Iraq.

A second Democratic aide criticized the intelligence estimate for not delving much further than recent news reports on Iraq, charging that it is “not a very useful or innovative intelligence analysis overall.”

Violence in Iraq recently increased after Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki launched a military operation in Basra on March 25 meant to root out criminals who had been carrying out indiscriminate attacks, burglaries and oil smuggling.
The operation sparked fighting against the Iraqi troops and the multiple Shiite militias that control parts of the city, despite Iraqi and U.S. authorities’ repeated insistence that militias weren’t targeted.
Much of the fighting occurred in strongholds of the Mehdi Army militia, loyal to radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Firefights occurred in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City as well as in Basra.
On Friday, al-Maliki ordered a stop on the raids against the militias to “give time to those who are repentant” to lay down their weapons after al-Sadr offered to purge the Iraqi security forces of militia members.
Democrats familiar with the report are also saying the 50-plus page document does not adequately delve into what impact U.S. troop reductions may have on the situation in Iraq.

“It just seems to indicate that there is almost no consideration of alternatives to the status quo going on in government right now,” one of the Democratic aides said.

Sen. Joseph Biden said Friday that the troop surge had contributed to the reduction in violence since it started last year but that the political reconciliation that the reduction in violence was supposed to facilitate had not been realized.

“The military has done its job. The violence has come down, but the Iraqis have not come together,” said Biden, chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. “That’s like going from drowning to treading water.”

“This is kind of like ‘Groundhog Day.’ We’re right back to where we were before the surge,” he added.

Petraeus and Crocker are also scheduled to appear before Biden’s committee next week.

Levin also said he expected Petraeus to recommend an indefinite pause in the withdrawal of troops from Iraq this summer, which he described as an “open-ended pause that compounds the problem of an open-ended policy.”

Levin and Sen. Edward Kennedy have called for John McConnell, the director of national intelligence, to declassify the report’s key conclusions before Crocker and Petraeus testify.

“This information is critical to the public debate in the coming weeks and months,” Levin and Kennedy wrote in a letter to McConnell.

The pair noted that unclassified versions of Iraq intelligence estimates have been released.

“There is no compelling reason not to release an unclassified version of this latest NIE that summarizes the major conclusions and judgments of the classified report, while still protecting the sources and methods of our intelligence community,” the two wrote.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
The Democrats just can’t wait to surrender! I am so sick of their doom and gloom, their endless hate America, anti-troop defeatism.
The Rats wouldn’t understand the founding of this country being they’re all from a different Galaxy.
And another thing, how DARE they go to see our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. That REALLY ticks me off. They are NOT going there to thank them, to do anything positive. These Democrats don’t deserve to breath the same air our troops breath.

Includes investments in companies with DOD contracts of $5 million or more, according to 2006 data on FedSpending.org. Members of Congress must report their personal finances annually. Holdings shown here were as of December 31, 2006.

Capitol Eye
Strategic Assets
As Congress gets an update next week on the Iraq war, lawmakers are personally invested in companies reaping billions of dollars from defense contracts.
By Lindsay Renick Mayer

When Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S military officer in Iraq, comes to Capitol Hill next week to brief Congress, he will be addressing lawmakers who have more than just a political stake in the five-year war.
Along with their colleagues in the House and Senate, the politicians who will get a status report from the general and the U.S. ambassador to Iraq have as much as $196 million of their own money invested in companies doing business with the Department of Defense, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics has calculated.
From aircraft and weapons manufacturers to producers of medical supplies and soft drinks, the investment portfolios of more than a quarter of Congress—and of countless constituents—include holdings in companies paid billions of dollars each month to support America’s military in Iraq and elsewhere.
According to the most recent reports of their personal finances, 151 current members of Congress had between $78.7 million and $195.5 million invested in companies that received defense contracts of at least $5 million in 2006. In all, these companies received more than $275.6 billion from the government in 2006, or $755 million per day, according to FedSpending.org, a website of the budget watchdog group OMB Watch.
The minimum value of Congress members’ personal investments in these contractors increased 5 percent from 2004 to 2006, but because lawmakers are only required to report their assets in broad ranges, the value of these investments could have risen as much as 160 percent—or even dropped 51 percent. It is also unclear how many members still hold these investments, since reports for 2007 are not due until May 15, 2008. In 2004, the first full year after the Iraq war began, Republican and Democratic lawmakers—both hawks and doves—had between $74.9 million and $161.3 million invested in companies under contract with the Department of Defense.
As the military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have expanded and transformed, so, too, has the need for goods and services that extend beyond helicopters, armored vehicles and guns. Giant corporations outside of the defense sector, such as Pepsico, IBM, Microsoft and Johnson & Johnson, have received defense contracts and are all popular investments for both members of Congress and the general public. So common are these companies, both as personal investments and as defense contractors, it would appear difficult to build a diverse blue-chip stock portfolio without at least some of them.
Lawmakers’ investments in these contractors yielded them between $15.8 million and $62 million in income from 2004 through 2006, through dividends, capital gains, royalties and interest, the Center found. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who are two of Congress’s wealthiest members, were among the lawmakers who earned the most income from these contractors between 2004 and 2006, with Sensenbrenner making at least $3.2 million and Kerry reaping at least $2.6 million.
A spokesman for Sensenbrenner, who has supported the administration’s policy in Iraq, said the congressman’s stocks were left to him by his grandparents and are managed almost entirely by his investment advisors. There has been no conscious effort on Sensenbrenner’s part to invest in companies that have received defense contracts, his representative said. Kerry, who has been particularly outspoken against the Bush administration’s strategy and policies in Iraq, is a beneficiary of family trusts, which he doesn’t control, the senator’s spokesman said.
Overseers of Defense Hold Stock in Contractors
Owning stock in companies under contract with the Department of Defense could be more problematic for members of Congress who sit on committees that oversee defense policy and budgeting. Petraeus will speak on April 8 and 9 to the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services committees. In 2006, members of these two committees had between $32 million and $44 million invested in companies with DOD contracts. Foreign Relations member Kerry’s investments accounted for most of it—between $28.9 million and $38.2 million. Members of the two committees held between $3 million and $5.1 million in defense-only companies.
Chairs of other defense-related committees are similarly invested. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, had at least $51,000 invested in these companies in 2006. Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.), who heads the House Foreign Affairs Committee, had at least $30,000, including between $1,001 and $15,000 invested in defense company Raytheon, which has one of its major facilities right outside of Berman’s district. According to Berman’s office, that holding is in a trust the congressman inherited from his parents.

“It’s a couple thousand dollars,” Berman’s spokeswoman said. “We’re not talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars. It’s a teeny investment, and he inherited it. He didn’t make it.”

In the case of Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, his stock in Pepsico, which is worth at least $1 million, is actually held by his wife, who is on the food and beverage corporation’s board of directors. Pepsico received $187 million in defense contracts in 2006, according to OMB Watch. “His wife’s separate holdings have no influence,” Rockefeller spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said. “Sen. Rockefeller, out of an abundance of caution to ensure there’s no conflict of interest, has held all his assets in a blind trust since he was the governor of West Virginia.”
Members of Congress who want to make a public statement about their opposition to the Iraq war don’t have to divest from businesses that may be profiting from the persistent conflict, some financial planners say.
As the Iraq war continues and companies supporting the effort continue to make money, lawmakers will have an easier time justifying their investments in corporations that are known for producing food and clothing—companies whose defense contracts represent a tiny fraction of their overall revenue.
Many of the Defense Department’s contracts “will likely be there whether you’re in a war or not,” said Cheryl Smith, executive vice president and senior portfolio manager at Trillium Asset Management Corporation, a firm that screens companies’ policies for socially responsible investors. “A standing army still needs soft drinks, toothpaste and clothing. If [the lawmaker’s] position is there should not be a military at all, then you might want to exclude anyone with a defense contract, but if they want to stand up against the war,” they should avoid investing in companies with weapons contracts, specifically.
And there are members of Congress invested in those companies—major defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Honeywell.
Forty-seven current members of Congress (or 9 percent of all members of the House and Senate) were invested in 2006 in companies that are primarily in the defense sector, for a total investment of between $4.2 million and $8 million. The average share price of these corporations today is nearly twice what it was in 2004.
Hawks and Doves Are Similarly Invested in Defense
While Democrats are more likely to advocate for ending the Iraq war sooner than Republicans, as a group they have more of their own money invested in America’s military efforts. In 2006 Democrats had at least $3.7 million invested in the defense sector alone, compared to Republicans’ $577,500. More Republicans, however, held stock in defense companies in 2006—28 of them, compared to 19 Democrats.
According to a spokesman for one of these investors, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), who held at least $15,000 in Lockheed Martin stock in 2006, it’s “insulting” to make a connection between personal investments and a lawmaker’s job. “Congressman Blunt does not consider his personal finances when voting for legislation, especially on issues as weighty as sending our troops into harm’s way,” Blunt spokesman Nick Simpson said. (Update: After the posting of this story, Simpson added that the stock is an investment held by Blunt’s wife, who received it from her mother as a gift.)
Rep. Sam Farr (D-Calif.), who has spoken out against the administration’s policy in Iraq and belongs to the Out of Iraq Congressional Caucus, had at least $50,000 invested in Boeing in 2006. Farr’s office did not respond to Capital Eye’s inquiries about this investment and whether he still holds the stock.
Other lawmakers have decided to sell their shares in defense companies. In 2006, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) had $1,000 in Honeywell and $1,000 in United Technologies but has since gotten rid of those holdings, which represented a tiny percentage of his net worth, according to his office. According to her presidential personal financial disclosures, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) had stock in some defense companies, such as Honeywell, Boeing and Raytheon, but sold the stock in May 2007. Neither of the remaining presidential hopefuls, Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain, reported such holdings on their filings.
Smith of Trillium Asset Management said that lawmakers who plan to divest could consider putting that money into community rebuilding, such as in hurricane-damaged New Orleans, or alternative energy projects to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. “There’s a lot of opportunities to make a double statement by taking [the funds] from one place and putting them into another,” she said.
Lockheed Martin declined to comment for this article, and a Honeywell spokeswoman said lawmakers should be free to do as they choose, but that the company provides necessary services to the military. “Honeywell provides support to develop products, services and technologies to meet the needs determined by the U.S. government and its entities that appropriate the funding, and elected officials and taxpayers who elect them into office,” said Cathy Gedvilas, media relations manager for the defense aerospace company. “We support the spirit of the U.S. democracy and free enterprise system, and in keeping our nation and our troops safe from harm.”

Wild Thing’s comment…….
I don’t mind if a person invests in these things at all. It helps our troops when they do. IMO it is pro military I would think anyway. Even if we were not at war, our military needs equipment and the best supplies no matter where they are deployed and for training and so many things.
BUT what I do find sickening and a total outrage is when someone is making money from a war and they spew their hate, demoralize our military, and say horrible lies about our soldiers like Kerry has done so many times. John Kerry is notorious for his anti-war stance and personal testimony against U.S. soldiers with whom he served in Vietnam and he has been trying to do it in his own way about our troops today too.
Dec. 2005:
CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer there was no reason for U.S. soldiers to continue “terrorizing” Iraqi children.
“And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the – of – the historical customs, religious customs,” Kerry said Sunday. “Whether you like it or not … Iraqis should be doing that.”
Another time John Kerry said, “You know education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework, and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well, and if you don’t, you get stuck in Iraq”
Kerry in 1970 in his testimony before the nation
“They told stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country,” he said.

Army Staff Sgt. Shane Hansen (left), a section sergeant in Company D, 3rd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, poses for a picture with his older brother, Army Sgt. 1st Class Zane Hansen, a platoon sergeant in Troop T, 4th Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment, at Camp Taji, Iraq. Photo by Sgt. Brandon Little,

Army Staff Sgt. Shane Hansen (left), a section sergeant in Company D, 3rd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment, talks about childhood memories during a visit with his older brother, Army Sgt. 1st Class Zane Hansen, a platoon sergeant in Troop T, 4th Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

CAMP TAJI, Iraq
April 4, 2008
by Army Sgt. Brandon Little serves in the Task Force 12 Public Affairs Office
Throughout their military careers, Army Staff Sgt. Shane Hansen and his brother, Army Sgt. 1st Class Zane Hansen, have always been on opposite sides of the world.
Over the years, as they got married, had children and were stationed in different places, they haven’t had many chances to see each other. But an unexpected mission change, combined with a little good fortune, brought them together in Iraq.
Shane, who is stationed in Katterbach, Germany, deployed to Logistics Support Area Anaconda in July; Zane, who is stationed in Fort Hood, Texas, learned in November his unit also would deploy to Iraq.
When Task Force 12 received the mission of becoming the aviation task force for Multinational Division Baghdad, the Hansen brothers found their first opportunity to be stationed together.

“I was excited when I found out we would be here together, because the last time I saw (Zane), before this deployment, was at our parents’ house in August of 2004,” said Shane, a section sergeant in Company D, 3rd Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment. “We usually get to see each other about once every five years.”

Even though the brothers, natives of Wichita, Kan., live and work less than a half mile away from each other here, they still remain worlds apart.

“Right now, I’m working night shift, and (Shane) works day shift; it seems like every time my shift changes, so does his,” said Zane, a platoon sergeant in Troop T, 4th Squadron, 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment. “Since we’ve been stationed here together, we’ve only seen each other about three or four times.”

“Our different shifts and different ‘reset’ days makes it difficult to see each other unless we really put forth an effort to going over to where the other one works,” said Shane, who has been in the Army for 12 years.

Their families have mixed feelings about the brothers being stationed together in Iraq.

“Our wives are happy that we are stationed here together, because they feel we have someone to talk to,” said Shane, a UH-60 Black Hawk maintainer. “Our parents don’t like the idea of us being here together, because if something happens, it might happen to both of us; but our older sister isn’t too worried about us being here.”

Both brothers are on their second deployment; Zane previously deployed to Bosnia and Shane to Afghanistan. Zane joined the Army a little more than a year before Shane.

“When I joined the Army in 1994, I got stationed in Korea,” said Zane, an AH-64D Apache Longbow maintainer. “When he joined the Army and got stationed in Hawaii, I was stationed in the states.”

Communicating with each other was difficult for the first couple of years because there was no Internet access; but now, it’s definitely gotten a lot better, Shane said.
Zane has been in aviation for his entire career, but Shane started out as a signal soldier.

“I really didn’t like that job, and Zane would always tell me about his job and all of the cool things he did,” said Shane. “He wasn’t the only reason I chose this job, but he definitely helped me make my decision.”

The brothers are living up to a long legacy of military service in their family. Their grandfathers served in the military during World War II. Their father also served in the Army; he joined shortly after the Vietnam War.
Growing up, they had plenty of good times mixed with a little bit of mischief, they said. Although they try to stay professional, and call each other “Sergeant Hansen” when around other soldiers, childhood memories sometimes resurface.

“All of (Zane’s) soldiers want to know about him,” Shane said. “Every once in a while, one of them will come up to me and ask me questions about him, and I’ll give them a tidbit of information about some of the things he did growing up.”

Shane has been selected for promotion to sergeant first class and said he would like to be stationed back in the United States in the future. Zane said he and his wife are discussing the idea of asking to go to Europe.

Wild Thing’s comment……..
How wonderful that they got to meet up like this. Great story and I am so happy for them.

US Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) speaks during an appearance at the 38th constitutional convention of the Pennsylvania AFL-CIO in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania April 2, 2008. REUTERS/Tim Shaffer (UNITED STATES) US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CAMPAIGN 2008 (USA)

Obama Comes Out Against Concealed Carry
Townhall
by Amanda Carpenter
Barack Obama is embracing anti-gun policies in the run-up to a Democratic presidential debate scheduled on the one-year anniversary of the Virginia Tech shootings.

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

These remarks break from Obama’s previous moderate rhetoric on gun control.

While campaigning in Idaho in February, Obama promised, “I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.”

Obama elaborated later that month in a political forum sponsored by ABC News and the Politico.

He said: “I think it’s important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respects the Second Amendment and people’s traditions.”

Obama’s tough talk on gun control may be prompted by Philadelphia-based Democratic leaders who are pressuring Clinton and Obama to adopt harder stances on gun control. This issue is expected to come up in ABC News’ Democratic debate on April 16 in Philadelphia. 32 people were shot to death on the campus of Virginia Tech by Seung-Hui Cho April 16, 2007.
Obama’s new hardline liberal position differs from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP candidate John McCain, who both are for concealed-carry.
The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said in a statement Obama should apologize and revise his stance.

“Barack Obama ignorantly believes that legally-armed Americans are as reckless and irresponsible as the criminals with whom his political sympathies evidently law,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He has been insisting for months he supports the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, but here he is now campaigning in Pennsylvania, stating essentially he would prefers Americans not exercise that right.”

Wild Thing’s comment…….
“While a complete ban on handguns is not politically practicable…”
So he WOULD try to ban handguns. It just isn’t “politically practicable” ( at this time )
“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama told the Pittsburgh Tribune. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”
Nope. Just line up and be shot like good little sheep.
“And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets.”
And those folks with illegal handguns…are just gonna turn them in too. What a total idiot! It’s hard to bear arms, if you can’t carry them. Obama is an idiot, an idiot who can’t understand the concept of the 2nd Amendment, private property or freedom.
How many times must these liberal gun grabbers be told that it is not the gun that kills people… It is the bad people that kill other people… and if you make it illegal for good and responsible people to carry guns it will do nothing at all to stop the bad people from killing the good people with their illegal concealed guns.

….Thank you Mark for sending this to me.

* Michelle Malkin

Clinton Appears on “The Tonight Show”
MyWay
BURBANK, Calif.
Hillary Rodham Clinton made fun of herself Thursday, telling “Tonight Show” host Jay Leno she almost didn’t make it to his studio.
“It is so great to be here, I was so worried I wasn’t going to make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire,” Clinton said after joining him onstage, referring to her claims – since disputed – that she dodged sniper bullets while arriving in Bosnia as first lady. Clinton later said she had “misspoke.”
As she entered, Leno’s band played the “Rocky” theme, jumping off her statement this week that she is the underdog in the Democratic nominating contest against Barack Obama, just like the fictitious boxer was against his opponent in the Oscar-winning movie.

“This has been such a mismatch of words and action,” Clinton continued. “Obviously I’ve been so privileged to represent our country in more than 80 other countries, lots of war zones. I wrote about it in my book and obviously had a lapse. But here I am, safe and sound.”

Leno asked how much sleep Clinton was getting. “Answering the phone at 3:00, that’s gotta be tough,” he joked, referring to her campaign commercials that ask which candidate would be the best prepared as president for middle-of-the-night emergencies.

“It happens every single night. Someone calls up and they have something to say. You’ve got to stop calling me,” Clinton told Leno.

Clinton said she was proud of her daughter, Chelsea, 28, who has been campaigning for her. But she said her “stomach is in knots” most days thinking about what she might encounter each day. Chelsea Clinton has fielded some tough questions in recent appearances, particularly about her father’s relationship with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Her response has been that it’s none of the questioner’s business.

Asked about her daughter telling a voter that her mother might make a better president than her father, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton grinned and said: “She is such a smart young woman.”

Leno also asked about moments during the campaign in which the former president has blown up at reporters and others.

“When you’re supporting someone you love, you really do take it very much to heart,” she said. “I said ‘OK, honey, that’s all right, we don’t have to go get excited about it.’ He’s doing a great job for me but he does get a little carried away sometimes.”

Wild Thing’s comment…….
“It is so great to be here, I was so worried I wasn’t going to make it. I was pinned down by sniper fire,” Clinton said after joining him onstage, referring to her claims – since disputed – that she dodged sniper bullets while arriving in Bosnia as first lady. Clinton later said she had “misspoke.”
Obviously telling lies does not interfere with their lives! There life is a big lie! She has absolutely NO shame at all and to joke about what she said like that makes it even more disgusting then it was in the first place.
To make a joke out of running from sniper fire, really is a slap in the face to our military, who do this daily, and I have yet to hear any of them make a joke of it..

Special Operations Firefight in Iraq ( Special Forces )

OH yessssss Good one! God bless and protect our troops.

….Thank you Cuchieddie for this video.