Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Air Force ONE and its passengers

An interesting eye opener (NOT a political statement, just an observation on the temperament and personalities of White House occupants)

YOU MAY FIND THE SECRET SERVICE VIEWS ON THE PERSONALITIES OF PAST PRESIDENTS TO BE QUITE INTERESTING.

[This is written by Capt. Denny Keast, who flies for UAL and flew many SAM's (Special Air Mission's) for the White House.]

"I flew 4 Presidential support missions in the C-141 out of Dover AFB, DE. Two for president Johnson and two for President Nixon.

Johnson was a first class jerk and on the two occasions I flew for him, if the Secret Service and their Liaison in the Pentagon hadn't intervened, we would have had to stay on the airplane for hours while he (Johnson) was off somewhere.

Nixon never required that and the four (4) stops we made with him he was cordial to the Secret Service and to me and my crew.

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the secret service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane.

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret "dates," and LBJ was a typical Texas "good ole boy" womanizer.

Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current president Bush make it a point to thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go, one carries the armored limo, another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft.

Both Bushes made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness, ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail.

Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole. Former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying. Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his "attack dog" wife. It was crystal clear that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a "marriage of convenience." Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them.

His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were friendlier toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her "pegged" and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too centrist." He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked him. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his security detail and said, "Do you want to grow up and be like them?" Word of this insult by the former Vice-President quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.

Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, "Thank you." Very often, she will give members of her detail a kindhearted hug to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a "breath of fresh air." They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing "Mother Teresa" with the "Wicked Witch of the North."

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B-Q for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them.. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers. They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for him and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion."

Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President. And also the woman who is currently a candidate for president..

Submitted by John P.

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3232

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
Nope, but what you have is 2 Great minds working together, you can't beat it.......!!!
You know they have to be Very Smart, after all, if they are responsible for all the murders / accidents that you guys say they are involved with.......then they know what they are doing.....LOL.............

---

__________________
Tan
GRNTCH PKC CH Coble & Stocking's Troubadour (Troubles) or (Trubs)

NTCH PKCSilverCH Coble & Stocking's Swamp Rat Poison

NTCH Coble & Stocking's Stinger (GRNTCH Troubles x GRNTCH Fancy)

NTCH ACHA WReserve Team Troubles Trippy
Black & Tan

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Dec 2003
Location:
Posts: 779

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
Nope, but what you have is 2 Great minds working together, you can't beat it.......!!!
You know they have to be Very Smart, after all, if they are responsible for all the murders / accidents that you guys say they are involved with.......then they know what they are doing.....LOL.............

---

__________________
“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him had better take a closer look at the American Indian.”

- Henry Ford, founder – Ford Motor Corporation

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4545

quote:

---

Originally posted by conhtr1
The dixie mofia first couple.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm

---

Wow, just a good American couple, right ?.......

__________________
Track B4 Tree









Quality, Dependable Coon Lights--Built by a Coonhunter for Coonhunters
==================================
** Superior Lites

** Nitehunters.com

** Zepp's--Quality Products

** Tall Timber
Lights

**Boss Lights & Boss Pro


** They Twist it until they start believing it themselves**















Purina Dog Food
** Proven Results **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Competition Coonhunters and Politicians
** Win anyway you have to & tell everyone what they want to hear **

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4545

quote:

---

Originally posted by conhtr1
The dixie mofia first couple.

http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith/clinton/arkansas.htm

---

Oh, so they might have their fingers in a few jars, lol.......They are The Clinton's ...............

__________________
Track B4 Tree









Quality, Dependable Coon Lights--Built by a Coonhunter for Coonhunters
==================================
** Superior Lites

** Nitehunters.com

** Zepp's--Quality Products

** Tall Timber
Lights

**Boss Lights & Boss Pro


** They Twist it until they start believing it themselves**















Purina Dog Food
** Proven Results **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Competition Coonhunters and Politicians
** Win anyway you have to & tell everyone what they want to hear **

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2004
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 3086

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyOaks'Leps
How are you? Keeping that good Walker chasing those ring tails?
Can you please point to specific verifiable facts to back up your view point?
I'm not sure that I understand your statement...other than your strong personal beliefs...

---

Last edited by trackdriver on 09-08-2013 at 05:08 PM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

I am addressing my side Track...and when I agree with you or any of the other men on this board I say so.
As far as the President being a liar, if you look back over his record from his early days in the public eye until now...you will find blatant discrepancies and truth twisting in his own words...it didn't make it right when Nixon did it...when Clinton did it or our current President. It is not acceptable when anyone in public office Democrat or Republican distort the truth for personal gain, power or an agenda to push this country from it's founding to a Socialist State. He was not vetted properly when running for office by the media. I can... if you want me to... list those discrepancies...and they are numerous...he has been proven a weak leader in this Nation and across the World stage. His charisma carried him to power...it is feigning quickly. I was not a fan of Bush 42 his last 4 years...or of his administration. I am less of a fan of this administration.
For example:

What if President Obama were white?

Rep. Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., the chairman of the Congressional Black Caucus, said last year, "If (former President) Bill Clinton had been in the White House and had failed to address this problem, we probably would be marching on the White House."
The problem to which Cleaver refers is black unemployment. At the beginning of the Obama administration, 12.7 percent of black adults seeking work were unemployed. Black unemployment is now 14.1 percent. Black teenage unemployment at the beginning of the Obama administration was 35.2 percent. Black teenage unemployment is now 37.9 percent.
Last month, Cleaver said: "As the chair of the Black Caucus, I've got to tell you, we are always hesitant to criticize the President. With 14 percent (black) unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House. ... The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."
A reporter asked Cleaver what would he say had Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, instead of Obama, been elected president. Cleaver admitted: "As much as I love Sen. Clinton, I would have been all over her on 14 percent unemployment for African-Americans. I would have said, 'My sister, I love you, but this has got to go.'"
Actor Morgan Freeman accuses Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell of placing the defeat of Obama ahead of the welfare of the country. But there is no problem with Cleaver putting Obama's re-election ahead of the welfare of the very people who most enthusiastically voted the President into office?
Cleaver and other black Democrats in the House hail from the same tax/spend/regulate left side of the left party. What possible useful advice could they offer? "Hey, Mr. President, please don't accede to our political demands because, in truth, they are counterproductive."
Back in April 2003, then-Illinois state Sen. Obama sharply criticized high black unemployment under then-President George W. Bush. Obama assailed Bush's "attack on working families," arguing that the President needed to "fix up the economy first" before doing anything else -- like lowering taxes. Black unemployment, at the time, was 10.3 percent. Obama spoke about (SET ITAL) "the economic disaster that is occurring in our communities." (END ITAL)
When black unemployment edged up to 10.9 percent the next month, Obama called out Bush for his "unprecedented $300 billion deficit," which, he said, "underscores the recklessness of the George W. Bush administration and the Republican Congress." Under Bush, the economy grew for 35 consecutive months. And black unemployment reached a low of 7.9 percent.

What if Obama were white?
Apart from high black unemployment, Obama opposes allowing urban parents to select the school for their children. Though he calls education "the civil rights issue" of the 21st century, Obama opposed the popular D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. By lottery, inner-city Washington, D.C., children received vouchers to help allow parental choice in education. High school graduation rates increased from 70 percent for applicants not offered a scholarship to 82 percent for the scholarship recipients.
The head of the Congressional Black Caucus concedes that blacks suffer from a level of unemployment that would be unacceptable under a white president. But because of Obama's race, Cleaver refuses to criticize him.
How is this any different from how actor Samuel L. Jackson explains why he voted for Obama? "I voted for Barack," said Jackson, "because he was black. 'Cuz that's why other folks vote for other people -- because they look like them." Meanwhile, black political leaders like Cleaver refuse to criticize what Obama himself, in 2003, called "the economic disaster that is occurring in our communities" -- because Obama looks like them.
Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

Obama Versus Obama

by Victor Davis Hanson (Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow and chair, military history working group)

The president has lost his credibility. No wonder the public is tuning him out.

President Barack Obama is more exasperated than ever as polls dip, critics multiply, and none of his massive borrowing seems to jump start a stalled economy. He seems bewildered that House Republicans did not immediately agree to his tax increases proposals, and confused over why his serial calls for civility are noted—but quickly forgotten. Obama is also perplexed that businesses—in theory flush with cash after massive layoffs and budget trimming—do not listen when he presses them to start hiring. He cannot quite fathom why his conservative critics do not fully appreciate his achievement of eliminating Osama bin Laden. And the more he now talks about illegal immigration, the wackier fly his metaphors and the edgier the slurs. What happened to the legendary Obama, the "god" whom Newsweek deified in 2008, and who was declared the "smartest" president ever by historian Michael Beschloss

In a word, the president is discovering that Barack Obama is now at war with Barack Obama. It is not just that the public has fathomed that what Obama says one day will change the next. It is more troublesome than that: Americans are catching on that what Obama now insists is true usually proves at odds with what Obama once asserted. So the nation is insidiously tuning him out—a novel and annoying experience for the president, who heretofore had received little criticism over his habitual inconsistencies and had assumed his formidable powers of rhetoric and his own landmark heritage would trump any scrutiny from nit-picky critics.

In the recent debt discussions, Obama insisted on "balance": he was to play the role of the great compromiser in the middle who would choose the sober and judicious course between unreasonable Tea Party ideologues and fossilized Pelosi liberals. But how can he sound credible about the recklessness of not authorizing a higher debt ceiling when he himself voted not to raise it in 2006—when the aggregate debt was roughly half of what it is now? In 2007 and 2008, Obama did not even show up to the votes for authorizing a higher ceiling.

But more importantly still, Obama has proposed three budgets that ran up nearly $5 trillion in new debt. He submitted a record deficit budget for 2012 that no one in the Senate—Democrats included—could go on the record voting for. His critics assert, as even his supporters wince, that the biggest deficit spender in the history of presidential administration can hardly talk credibly now about the need for higher revenue and taxes to pay for his own profligacy. It is almost as if Obama 3.0 is saying, "Please, by no means act as President Obama 2.0 did between 2009-2011, or as Senator Obama 1.0 did from 2006-2008."

What happened to the legendary Obama, the "god" whom Newsweek deified in 2008?

On a regular basis, the president gives a well-meaning sermon on civility and the need to curb harsh rhetoric in promoting bipartisanship. But here too he is increasingly tuned out. After all, senator, candidate, and President Obama compiled the most partisan voting record in the U.S. Senate in 2007—to the left of self-described socialist Bernie Sanders and more consistently partisan than arch-conservative Jim DeMint. President Obama now deplores filibusters; Senator Obama filibustered an up or down vote on nominees like Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court and John Bolton to a U.S. ambassadorship.

Obama brought a Chicago-style, hard edge to presidential rhetoric. He accused budget opponents of abandoning children suffering from autism and Down's syndrome. Adversaries on taxes and the debt were no less than "hostage takers," who engaged in "hand to hand combat." Obama even suggested of AIG executives that they were veritable terrorists: "They’ve got a bomb strapped to them and they’ve got their hand on the trigger." The "terrorist" smear was recently picked up House Democrats and even Vice President Biden during the debt ceiling negotiations.

Once upon a time, Obama urged his supporters that they not act calmly, but that they, in fact, get angry: "I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry!" To Republicans, he boasted that they could come along for the ride, but would have to sit in the proverbial back seat. All of his them vs. us polarizing talk was the natural extension of his 2008 campaign invectives—such as when he ridiculed the "clingers" of Pennsylvania, called on his supporters to confront his opponents and "get in their faces," and, at one point, even boasted, "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun." This is not to mention his cast-off jokes about Nancy Reagan and the Special Olympics, which were tacky and crass. So listening now to President Obama on bipartisan civility evokes a natural response, "But why then were you the senate’s most partisan member, and why all the violent metaphors of guns, knives, bombs, and so forth?"

Presidents can get away with opportunistic revision on one or maybe two key topics, but not on nearly all of them.

President Obama is so angered that the private sector is not hiring that he dispatched his in-house CEO Jeffrey Immelt of General Electric to jawbone corporate heads to go out create new jobs. But why should they? Obama reversed the order of the Chrysler creditors when the government took over the company. His own National Labor Relations Board is currently trying to shut down a nearly complete Boeing aircraft plant. And "kick ass" was the sort of language he used in reference to British Petroleum after the gulf oil spill.

At various times, Obama has philosophized about spreading the wealth and redistributive change. He recently mused that he was confused why he should not pay higher taxes on income that he did not need, and why some of the more clueless American taxpayers did not know that at some point they had made enough money. A year into his presidency, he reintroduced the depression-era slur "fat cat" bankers, and during the 2008 campaign, he advocated for higher capital gains taxes, even if the result would be reduced aggregate federal revenue. "Fairness," he said, not government income, was the issue.

For nearly three years, Obama’s speeches on fiscal policy emphasized the new divide between the empathetic middle classes who make less than $200,000 per year and those who selfishly seek more—and thus are somehow morally suspect and should alone pay higher taxes on their unneeded income. "Corporate jets" and "millionaires and billionaires" are promiscuously lumped in with those earning above $200,000 in annual income, as if the two groups were synonymous and equally duty bound to pay higher taxes. So how can Obama reduce the unemployment rate to below 9.2 percent, given his past deprecations of business and the job-hiring affluent, coupled with his record of new regulations and rules that favor unions and shut down businesses? At this late stage it proves difficult for Obama to coax those whom he once so gratuitously offended and went after.

Obama has lost the debate over illegal immigration.

The president’s undeniable achievement in killing Osama bin Laden resulted only in a temporary bounce in popularity that has now completely dissipated. Why? Many reasons perhaps, but surely a contributing factor was once again the confusion over his prior harsh rhetoric blasting the so-called war on terror. At one time or another, senator and then presidential candidate Barack Obama ****ed as ineffective or unconstitutional the Bush-era Guantanamo Bay detention facility, renditions, tribunals, wiretaps, intercepts, predator drone targeted assassinations, preventative detention, and the war in Iraq. But as president, he has embraced or expanded all of these policies. That begs the question: are these protocols important in ridding the world of the likes of bin Laden, or are they, as Obama once argued, of little use and of questionable legality? In the case of bin Laden, did we wage a new politically correct "overseas contingency operation" against a perpetrator of "man-caused disasters," or did we simply employ time-proven protocols from a once derided administration? Would Senator Obama have ****ed President Obama’s war on terror protocols?

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Finally, Obama has lost the debate over illegal immigration--his calls for bipartisan efforts to craft a "comprehensive" reform package have gone nowhere. It is easy once more to see why. Opponents of open borders were derided as those who would arrest parents and children on their way to the ice cream shop, and who would enlist alligators and moats to fortify the Rio Grande. Meanwhile, the president erroneously claimed that the one-third completed border fence was "basically completed." Most notoriously, Latinos were asked by the president to vote in bloc with him in order to "punish our enemies" at the polls.

But most inexplicably of all, a newly elected Barack Obama once enjoyed a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House—enough to ram down any immigration bill he so wished in the fashion that he passed his health care bill. Yet from 2009 to 2010 Obama did nothing at all on this front when he had the power to act. Later, when he lost his majority in the House, he blamed his opponents for obstructing him. The result is that to pass any future immigration bill, Obama will now have to reach out across the aisle to those he smeared, while explaining to his own base that he is now right to seek bipartisan compromise, but was wrong in the past when he could have passed his bill on a simple up or down vote.

In short, Barack Obama has lost credibility because on any given issue, his most recent declaration—delivered with the now familiar emphatic qualifiers, "let’s be honest," "make no mistake about it," "let me be perfectly clear"—will be seen as contrary to what senator, candidate, or president Obama had earlier asserted. Presidents can get away with such opportunistic revision on one or maybe two key topics, but not on nearly all of them. The reason Obama is slipping in the polls is not due to the Tea Party, the Republicans in the House, House Speaker John Boehner, or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell—but because of his own doppelganger, who at various times is the greatest critic of none other than the latest incarnation of Barack Obama.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who Is Barack Obama?
'Obama Versus Obama' by Victor Davis Hanson is great analysis. I would just like to add that the reason Barack Obama always seems to be at war with himself is that he doesn't know who he is. When first elected, he wanted the nation to believe he was Lincoln reincarnated. Then he was JFK, and then, FDR. Lately, he fancies himself as Reagan. That’s what happens when, as Gertrude Stein said, “there is no there there.” He has to be someone else, because there really is no him. He is, and always has been, the sum projection of what others wanted him to be. Barack Obama doesn’t exist, except in the hearts and minds of minions and sycophants. In any case, in the end, he will be lucky to be seen as another Jimmy Carter.

---William L. Gensert


Obama Embraces Signing Statements After Knocking Bush for Using Them
Jan 4, 2012 6:58 PM EST


Candidate Barack Obama criticized President Bush for using ‘signing statements’ to ignore the will of Congress. But Obama’s done the same thing 20 times since taking office, and his latest effort is rankling lawmakers.
As a candidate in 2008, Barack Obama promised that if he was elected president he would not issue obscure declarations known as signing statements that thwart the intent of laws passed by Congress. But as the president now seeking reelection in 2012, on at least 20 occasions Obama has embraced the same tactic he criticized George W. Bush for using, raising allegations of double-dealing in Congress and questions of constitutionality from the American Bar Association.
Obama’s most recent signing statement came on New Year’s Eve, when he autographed a 13-paragraph memorandum declaring he did not intend to follow several sections of the National Defense Authorization Act that funded the military for 2012. The president said his lawyers had concluded the provisions interfered with his constitutional duties to carry out foreign policy.
Obama Payroll Tax
President Barack Obama signs the payroll tax cut extension, Friday, Dec. 23, 2011, in the White House Oval Office in Washington.
The signing statement essentially declares Obama’s intention to ignore requirements in the law, including restrictions on data transfers to Russia, new authorities to detain suspected members of al Qaeda, and sanctions against the central bank of Iran. The move has alienated members of Congress who claim the White House reneged on promises it made during backroom negotiations to get the long-stalled legislation passed just before lawmakers left for the holidays.
Sen. Mark Kirk, a Republican from Obama’s home state of Illinois, said in a phone interview Tuesday that the president’s lawyers had broken promises his top national security advisers made to Kirk on not sharing some data from U.S. missile defense systems with Russia. The senator had placed a hold on Obama’s nominee for U.S. ambassador to Moscow until he received assurances that such data would not be shared.
“Whichever administration lawyer wrote this was having the president speak with forked tongue,” Kirk said. “The deputy national security adviser assured me that under no circumstances would sensitive missile defense data like telemetry or hit-to-kill technology go to the Russians. Then his lawyers, with a great lack of integrity, pulled back the very commitments made to me in writing.”
“During the 2008 campaign, Obama trashed President Bush 43 for using signing statements but now seems to be using them vigorously to object to many provisions of laws.”
Asked for comment, White House National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama intends to keep his promises to Kirk. “We made clear commitments to Sen. Kirk that we will of course honor,” he said. “Those commitments were spelled out in a letter to him that he has made public. As it relates to the issue of cooperation with Russia on missile defense, the administration, like previous administrations, has viewed missile defense cooperation with Russia as an important opportunity to increase the effectiveness of our defenses against the nearest term and most likely threats.”
Kirk told The Daily Beast that the missile defense data the administration would share with Russia is likely to end up in the hands of Iran, whose missiles the missile defense system is meant to defend against. “When we give classified information to the Russians, we ignore the reality that almost immediately this technology will go to the Islamic Republic of Iran, probably through their senior missile defense ambassador, Dmitry Rogozin, who is scheduled to work there with Iranian officials in Tehran this month,” he said.
Vietor said the Obama administration has “kept Congress well informed of our missile defense plans, including discussions with Russia, and we will continue to consult closely with Congress.” He added, “We will not provide Russia with sensitive information about our missile defenses that would in any way compromise national security.”
In the Dec. 31 signing statement, Obama says the section of the defense authorization bill that requires the president to notify Congress 60 days prior to any decision to share the missile defense data “could interfere with my constitutional foreign affairs powers.” Obama also says the section of the bill instructing the United States to sanction any banks that do business with Iran’s central bank, a provision championed by Kirk, also would interfere with the president’s ability to make foreign policy.
The assertion by Obama does follow a long-standing tradition for Democratic and Republican presidents. President Monroe was the first to issue a signing statement, and the practice later became more widespread during the Reagan administration. Although Obama has issued 20 signing statements, President George W. Bush had issued 87 such statements by the fourth year of his first term.

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3232

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Stocking
I'd like to hear you say you hold your guns dear to your heart... because those great minds you speak of want all of them... FACT...

---

__________________
Tan
GRNTCH PKC CH Coble & Stocking's Troubadour (Troubles) or (Trubs)

NTCH PKCSilverCH Coble & Stocking's Swamp Rat Poison

NTCH Coble & Stocking's Stinger (GRNTCH Troubles x GRNTCH Fancy)

NTCH ACHA WReserve Team Troubles Trippy
Black & Tan

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4545

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Stocking
No response?

---

Oh, you REALLY wanted a reply didn't you ?
Sorry, I thought you were joking.....
I love my guns, I had them when a Clinton was President, and I am betting I will still have them when a Clinton is President again.......

__________________
Track B4 Tree









Quality, Dependable Coon Lights--Built by a Coonhunter for Coonhunters
==================================
** Superior Lites

** Nitehunters.com

** Zepp's--Quality Products

** Tall Timber
Lights

**Boss Lights & Boss Pro


** They Twist it until they start believing it themselves**















Purina Dog Food
** Proven Results **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Competition Coonhunters and Politicians
** Win anyway you have to & tell everyone what they want to hear **

Last edited by Triple K Kennel on 09-09-2013 at 01:09 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton

Jim Kouri|Law Enforcement Examiner
October 24, 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is pushing for the United States to become a party to a global gun control law proposed by the United Nations. And President Barack Obama appears to be sympathetic to such an international power-grab and he's already displayed a propensity for bypassing the legislative process.

In fact, many believe the recent "Operation Fast and Furious" scandal had more to do with gaining support for gun control and gun ownership bans than it had to do with crimefighting and drug cartels.

"The Obama Administration will take its first major step in a plan to ban all firearms in the United States. The Obama White House intends to force gun control and a complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations," according to journalist Joan Sharon.

The goal of the treaty is to come up with internationally recognized rules governing the trade of guns and ammo. The United States is the world's largest exporter of arms.

To sooth concerns, the administration has said that it would sign the accord only if all other states agreed to it first, but pro-gun groups view the international treaty as a first step toward home-grown gun control.

U.S. lawmakers and groups like the National Rifle Association argue that it would essentially gut the Second Amendment by allowing an international authority to control American gun ownership.

A final version of the treaty is expected to be finished next year.

By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the U.S. State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the U.S. government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.

These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as radical billionaire George Soros and New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms," according to Sharon.

"The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened," she added.

Critics believe Obama will appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation in the United States that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.

"We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment," Ms. Sharon stated.

Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org). In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty.


He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations. He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country. Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com. Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.


To subscribe to Kouri's newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write "Subscription" on the subject line.

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

2011

President Barack Obama has now brought America into the negotiations after the Bush administration voted against them.

Partners in Crime Against the 2nd Amendment

The UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) is now being conducted behind closed doors with finalization expected in July and implementation expected by the end of this year. Obama and his administration are in full support of ATT as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton leads international gun control.

From the independent.co.uk - The global arms trade, which produces two bullets for every person on the planet every year and the weapons that kill 1,500 people each day, is facing the first worldwide effort to control it. An unprecedented treaty that would attempt to restrict arms sales is expected to be drawn up at talks in the United Nations this week.

Negotiators at the UN will begin their final week of talks to agree on the terms of the treaty before world leaders gather in July to vote on it.

London Foreign Office minister Alistair Burt conceded yesterday that “there would have to be compromises” during the negotiation of the final treaty, stating, “Securing an arms trade treaty is a priority for this Government and we have made that clear since we came into office. It must be robust. We will not support a weakened treaty. We want it to cover all conventional arms and their munitions.”

Once the treaty is signed, those who do not meet its terms will be liable for prosecution under international law.

A report from the Heritage Foundation, has outlined why YOU, the United States should be concerned.
•The U.S. position is that the ATT should not include hunting weapons. Unfortunately, many major countries have made it clear that they want the treaty to include these weapons. The draft paper notes that the ATT will cover, inter alia, small arms, light weapons, their parts or components, ammunition, and equipment used to develop, manufacture, or maintain any of these items. It does not exclude hunting weapons. This is avowedly unacceptable to the U.S. The draft also does not exclude sporting firearms or other small arms that could conceivably have a military use but are actually for self-protection, such as revolvers.
•The scope of the treaty—which controls everything from rifle scopes to battleships, as well as the technology necessary for their production—means it would be unenforceable without a very substantial expansion of federal authority. The U.S. should not sign treaties that are so broad that their impact cannot be precisely understood, and the ATT would affect every individual and U.S. business that deals in any way with any conventional weapon. Such a treaty could not meaningfully be subject to advice and consent by the Senate.
•The draft paper requires nations to “maintain records of all imports and shipments of arms that transit their territory” and notes that these records may contain information about the type of arms transferred and their “end users.” This information is to be reported to the treaty’s international Implementation Support Unit, along with the “national legislation or other measures used to regulate or control the items and transactions.” The draft treaty thus views the collection and international reporting of the identities of selected individual firearms owners—the “end users”—as constituting the best practice of treaty compliance. It also appears to suggest the creation of an international gun registry for all firearms that are either imported into or transit national territory.
•The Senate uses reservations to define and limit the effect of a ratified treaty. The draft paper states that reservations “incompatible with the object and purpose” of the treaty are forbidden. This is a common clause, but in the context of this treaty, it raises special concerns.

The underlying philosophy of the treaty is that arms transfers between U.N. member states are presumptively legitimate, while private arms transfers are problematic and should be subject to national regulation.



The UN Arms Trade Treaty is simply GLOBAL GUN CONTROL!

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Former Clinton Advisor Dick Morris:

Without much fanfare and with as little publicity as possible, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will go to New York City to sign the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), now in the final stages of negotiation at the U.N. The treaty marks the beginning of an international crusade to impose gun controls on the United States and repeal our Second Amendment rights.

The ATT is nominally geared toward the purpose of stopping international arms sales to gangs, criminals and violent groups. But, as is so often the case with U.N. treaties, this is merely a convenient facade behind which to conceal the ATT’s true intent: to force gun control on the United States.

Secretary Clinton will doubtless succeed in inserting language into the treaty asserting that it in no way is meant to restrict our right to bear arms. But even this language will be meaningless in the face of the overall construct set up by the treaty.

The ATT is to be administered by an International Support Unit (ISU), which will ensure that “parties [to the treaty] take all necessary measures to control brokering activities taking place within [their] territories … to prevent the diversion of exported arms to the illicit market or to unintended end users.”

The ISU will determine whether nations are in compliance with this requirement and will move to make sure that they do, indeed, take “all necessary measures.” This requirement will inexorably lead to gun registration, restrictions on ownership and, eventually, even outright bans on firearms.

Former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton said it best: “After the treaty is approved and comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and that it requires Congress to adopt legislation to restrict the ownership of firearms.”

Bolton explains that “the administration knows that it cannot obtain this kind of legislation in purely a domestic context. They will use an international agreement to get domestically what they couldn’t get otherwise.”

The treaty makes no sense otherwise, except as a circuitous vehicle to achieve gun control in the United States. The vast majority of all small arms and light arms exports (the ostensible focus of the treaty) are from sales by the governments of the United States, Russia, China, Germany and Israel. Individual or corporate arms trafficking is a distinct minority. But it is to absorb the brunt of the treaty’s regulations.

Insofar as the treaty restricts governmental action, it bars governments from arming “illicit” groups in other nations. This provision could well be interpreted to ban U.S. arms sales to Iranian or Syrian dissidents. It could even be used by China to stop us from selling arms to Taiwan, since the U.N. does not recognize Taiwan as a nation, but rather an entity occupying territory that should belong to China.

And let’s not forget how well the United States has done in reducing murders and other crimes despite the absence of comprehensive gun controls and bans. In 1993, there were 24,350 homicides in the United States. Last year, there were 13,576 (despite a growth of 60 million in the population). Only 9,000 of these murders involved a firearm. (Less than one-third of the highway deaths each year in the country.)

Obama has left gun control off his legislative agenda so far. Now his strategy becomes apparent: Use international treaties to achieve it.

And bear in mind that under the Supremacy Clause of our Constitution, we would be obliged to enforce the ATT despite the Second Amendment. International treaties have the force of constitutional law in the United States.

If it is ratified during the lame-duck session of the Senate this year, then nothing can ever change it. Goodbye, Second Amendment.

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3232

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
Oh, you REALLY wanted a reply didn't you ?
Sorry, I thought you were joking.....
I love my guns, I had them when a Clinton was President, and I am betting I will still have them when a Clinton is President again.......

---

__________________
Tan
GRNTCH PKC CH Coble & Stocking's Troubadour (Troubles) or (Trubs)

NTCH PKCSilverCH Coble & Stocking's Swamp Rat Poison

NTCH Coble & Stocking's Stinger (GRNTCH Troubles x GRNTCH Fancy)

NTCH ACHA WReserve Team Troubles Trippy
Black & Tan

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 3232

Do you read Michael's posts?

__________________
Tan
GRNTCH PKC CH Coble & Stocking's Troubadour (Troubles) or (Trubs)

NTCH PKCSilverCH Coble & Stocking's Swamp Rat Poison

NTCH Coble & Stocking's Stinger (GRNTCH Troubles x GRNTCH Fancy)

NTCH ACHA WReserve Team Troubles Trippy
Black & Tan

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Published on Monday, September 02, 2013
Tags:Anti-Hunting|California|Hunting Bans|NSSF


No Hunting
Bill to Ban Hunting in California Advances in Senate

National Shooting Sports Foundation
SACRAMENTO, Calif. - Today the Senate Appropriations Committee moved to pass Assembly Bill 711 (Rendon) which will effectively ban hunting in California by banning traditional lead ammunition; the first statewide ban of its kind in the nation.

The bill now moves to the California State Senate Floor and is opposed by a large coalition including every major hunting and sporting organization in California, as well as a coalition of Labor leaders and organizations concerned about the impact to their members.

Proponents of the bill have argued that hunters could simply switch to non-lead ammunition, but alternative metals are classified as “armor piercing” by the federal government and require a special permission to make, sell or possess. Thus far, the federal government has refused to grant permission. Alternative ammunition would be exceedingly expensive and supplies would not meet the demands of hunters. By eliminating hunting in California, the state would lose millions in conservation funding that depends upon ammunition and license fees paid by hunters.

Despite the unavailability of alternative ammunitions, the committee passed the bill, although it was amended to delay implementation of the lead ban until 2019.


“Not only does passage of this bill needlessly jeopardize millions of dollars of federal conservation funding California receives annually as articulated by the Department of Finance analysis of the bill, but these new amendments shine a light on supporters’ true intentions,” noted National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence Keane.

“Their goal is to end hunting and sports shooting, beginning with California.

“Both the Department of Fish and Wildlife and bill proponents led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) have largely ignored concerns of ammunition manufacturers and the hunting community. While proponents talk publicly about an immediate concern for the health of wildlife ingesting traditional lead ammunition, delaying this bill makes that urgency argument moot. Instead, this legislation seems aimed at crippling California’s hunting community and industry and mission driven by organizations that want hunting banned.”

There is no sound science that California’s hunters use of traditional ammunition is adversely impacting wildlife populations. Supporters of the bill also knowingly falsely claim that using traditional ammunition poses a human health risk to hunters.

About NSSF
The National Shooting Sports Foundation® is the trade association for the firearms industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and the shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of more than 8,000 manufacturers, distributors, firearms retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations and publishers. For more information, visit nssf.org.


Read more: http://www.ammoland.com/2013/09/bil.../#ixzz2eLyWUYWK
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution
Follow us: @Ammoland on Twitter | Ammoland on Facebook


Posted on August 29, 2012

When Senate Bill 1221, a measure to ban bear and bobcat hunting with hounds, reached California Governor Jerry Brown’s desk, he did as expected—he signed it.

The highly controversial measure was introduced by State Senator Ted Lieu (D- Torrance) in April after anti-hunting organizations (including the Humane Society of the United States) failed to have California Fish and Game President Dan Richards thrown off the commission for legally hunting mountain lions out of state.

“From the get go, anti-hunting legislators have been out for revenge,” said Evan Heusinkveld, USSA’s Director of State Services. “Unable to get Mr. Richards to resign, they instead channeled their frustration towards sportsmen and used every political trick in the book. They are punishing a group of people who have done nothing wrong.”


- See more at: http://www.ussportsmen.org/hunting/...h.Tw0xQZA1.dpuf

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Last edited by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-09-2013 at 02:13 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

America's Largest and Most Radical Hunting-Ban Group Endorses Barack Obama

Posted on September 26, 2008
America's Largest and Most Radical Hunting-Ban Group Endorses Barack Obama--It's Just One More Association With Radicals That He Can't Run From: While Barack Obama lies to America's gun owners and hunters about his longstanding public record in support of legislation stripping Americans of essential liberties, his so-called friends are thwarting his campaign of deception. The Humane Society Legislative Fund, the political arm of the radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), is the most recent to foil Obama's best laid plans after giving him the organization's unequivocal endorsement. This should be a resounding wake-up call to America's millions of hunters.

Wayne Pacelle, President of HSUS has made no secret of his organization's desire to ban all hunting. Hunters would be well advised to keep in mind the following quotes from Pacelle that expose the true agenda of HSUS:

"If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." – as quoted by the Associated Press in Impassioned Agitator, December 30, 1991

"Our goal is to get sport hunting in the same category as cock fighting and dog fighting. Our opponents say hunting is a tradition. We say traditions can change." – Bozeman Daily Chronicle, October 8, 1991

Pacelle knows that he has a proven friend in Obama after his support of Senator Ted Kennedy's legislation that would have banned virtually all rifle ammunition used by America's hunters. If successful, the legislation would have ended the vast majority of all hunting – a fact not lost on HSUS.

In Congress and state legislatures and city councils around the country, HSUS lobbies to defeat every measure that expands hunting opportunities for the country's sportsmen. It says it opposes only the most "barbaric and inhumane" hunting practices. What it doesn't say publicly is that HSUS believes that all sport hunting is "barbaric and inhumane."

There's never been a hunting ban or restriction that HSUS hasn't actively supported. It routinely lobbies to:

- Prohibit the use of traditional lead bullets and shot for all hunting;

- Prohibit urban and suburban archery deer hunting programs;

- Prohibit bear hunting in a number of states including New Jersey, Colorado and Alaska;

- Replace traditional hunting as a wildlife management tool, with expensive and unproven contraception programs;

- Retain Sunday hunting bans in states like Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia;

- Ban the hunting of doves, the most widely hunted game bird in America; and

- Ensure that emotion, not science, dictates wildlife management practices

In addition to its anti-hunting efforts in the public policy realm, HSUS uses its enormous financial resources to regularly file lawsuits to stop hunting and the scientific wildlife management practices that recognize hunting as an essential tool. A recent example of this came when HSUS filed lawsuits that successfully closed millions of acres of wildlife refuges to hunting. This is despite the fact that Congress has determined that hunting is one of the traditional activities that should specifically be encouraged in refuges.

HSUS is also the group most responsible for preventing the removal of the Rocky Mountain gray wolf from the endangered species list despite the finding by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that wolf populations have exceeded original delisting goals by more than 400%. Delisting would have allowed states to implement hunting to control the now healthy and sustainable wolf populations. The overpopulated and unmanaged wolves are taking an unacceptably high toll on game populations, such as elk and moose. This significantly reduces hunting opportunities and endangers the long-term viability of these species. HSUS will stop management through hunting at all costs. It's more evidence that the group could not care less about the consequences of its actions on wildlife, as long as Americans are prohibited from hunting.

In addition to all of this, Pacelle's endorsement of Obama is proof positive that the anti-hunting, anti-gun front group American Hunting and Shooting Association (AHSA) is no friend to the country's sportsmen. AHSA had already endorsed Obama. HSUS and AHSA are now working hand-in-hand to elect the most anti-freedom presidential ticket in the country's history.

Sportsmen must now ask themselves what will happen to America's proud hunting heritage with an Obama administration that is beholden to radical groups like HSUS. We know from his own words that Wayne Pacelle's goal is to end all hunting, so the answer should be self-evident.

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Feb 2013
Location: Indiana
Posts: 4545

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lee Stocking
Do you read Michael's posts?

---

No, I read one or two of his first, it's boring because it's stuff that's been hit on over and over in the past......same old same old.......

__________________
Track B4 Tree









Quality, Dependable Coon Lights--Built by a Coonhunter for Coonhunters
==================================
** Superior Lites

** Nitehunters.com

** Zepp's--Quality Products

** Tall Timber
Lights

**Boss Lights & Boss Pro


** They Twist it until they start believing it themselves**















Purina Dog Food
** Proven Results **

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Competition Coonhunters and Politicians
** Win anyway you have to & tell everyone what they want to hear **

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Colorado Democrats have put forth a bill that not only targets "assault weapons" but some of the most popular shotguns for hunting as well.

According to Colorado state senator Greg Brophy (R), the ban Democrats want to place in front of Gov. John Hickenlooper would necessarily include shotguns with magazines which are easily extendable to hold more than 8 rounds.

The Democrats arbitrarily set eight rounds as the magic number--any more would be illegal.

If the bill passes the state senate and Gov. Hickenlooper signs it into law, Brophy said it could essentially mean that Coloradans "might not be able to purchase a pump shotgun or a semi-automatic shotgun again."

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2004
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 3086

Dang Oak, a book but it's starting to become a little clearer. Wow, Americans,but ok,what if Obama lied about the Iraq war or 9/11 happen on his shift or one of his daughters was pregnant while his run for office.What would your post read? Sorry not all people agree with each other,kinda like people on this board. I'll say this again for the umpteen time,He's a politician,you're picking though vids.and articles to feed your own fear if you're worried about "what ifs". Second term is a great indication of him losing his cred.. I thought you was a uniter not just another view on oneside,my fault. Obama is a pres.who happen to be black and nothing more and sorry you really believe Mitch didn't say that,youtube it. Funny how you can't take Obama at his word and not Mitch.

Last edited by trackdriver on 09-09-2013 at 02:42 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

Re: Posts.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
No, I read one or two of his first, it's boring because it's stuff that's been hit on over and over in the past......same old same old.......

---

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Last edited by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-09-2013 at 02:32 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Woodstock, Oh
Posts: 1047

quote:

---

Originally posted by Triple K Kennel
Oh, you REALLY wanted a reply didn't you ?
Sorry, I thought you were joking.....
I love my guns, I had them when a Clinton was President, and I am betting I will still have them when a Clinton is President again.......

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

quote:

---

Originally posted by trackdriver
Dang Oak, a book but it's starting to become a little clearer. Wow, Americans,but ok,what if Obama lied about the Iraq war or 9/11 happen on his shift or one of his daughters was pregnant while his run for office.What would your post read? Sorry not all people agree with each other,kinda like people on this board. I'll say this again for the umpteen time,He's a politician,you're picking though vids.and articles to feed your own fear if you're worried about "what ifs". Second term is a great indication of him losing his cred.. I thought you was a uniter not just another view on oneside,my fault. Obama is a pres.who happen to be black and nothing more and sorry you really believe Mitch didn't say that,youtube it. Funny how you can't take Obama at his word and not Mitch.

---

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Last edited by MightyOaks'Leps on 09-09-2013 at 02:45 AM

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jan 2004
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 3086

quote:

---

Originally posted by MightyOaks'Leps
I'd say the same thing Track...that I have previously posted...The intelligence on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was believed by the international community and signed on to by Kerry...Clinton and others...just like a Syria strike is being pushed now by Kerry and the President. It was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Bush was feckless his last 4 years...and so is Obama. I never claimed to be a unifier, but you need to understand this statement. I do not dislike President Obama...it is his policies that I do not agree with. As a side note, a Syrian General defected. He stated that Saddam Hussein moved his biological and chemical weapons to Syria before the US lead coalition attacked Iraq...

---

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged

Registered: Jun 2012
Location: Illinois
Posts: 741

That General was actually the topic of national news...
Track...I appreciate talking to you too. As I said, I think you're a good man with a good heart...I appreciate your opinions even if I don't always agree with them. It would get kind of boring if we all agreed all of the time. Keep up the good fight my friend...Have a nice evening...glad you're well. Good night.

__________________
Knight's Mighty Oaks Kennels
Michael & Raquel Knight

Email Mighty Oaks Kennels at: mightyoakskennels1@gmail.com
Or call : 217-412-2709
No Sunday calls please

*Original Foundation Old Line Pedigreed Midwestern Bred Leopards

I love you, O LORD, my strength. - Psalm 18:1

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged