Mr VJP

In 1992, Capt. Wade Sanders was awarded the Silver Star for actions in Vietnam years earlier. In 2004, he introduced Democrat presidential nominee John Kerry at that year's convention and was a big supporter throughout the campaign. As we all know, a group of some 200 fellow Swift Boat veterans eventually helped sink Kerry's presidential campaign by blowing up the Vietnam "war hero" facade that the Massachusetts senator had meticulously and misleadingly put forth. Contrary to Kerry's boasting, he committed treason in Vietnam. Sanders was a lead attack dog for Kerry, and he worked to tarnish the Swifties' reputations, slandering them as "Nazi propagandists." In a case of poetic justice, the Navy recently stripped Sanders of his honor. The Navy's tersely worded statement indicated that "subsequently determined facts and evidence surrounding both the incident for which the award was made and the processing of the award itself" led to the revocation of his Silver Star. Sanders, by the way, is also serving 37 months for possession of child pornography, and we doubt that helped his case. He claimed it was research for a book he was writing. Kerry made quite the issue of his military record, using it as both a crutch and a stick throughout his campaign. How ironic that one of his lead witnesses was found to be so wanting in character. Kerry should hope the Navy doesn't come after him, too.

With a reply like that after the above posts, I can rest my case!

Obama and his arrogant socialist cadres believe they are smarter than our Founders. They certainly believe they can outsmart most of the American People. Unless more of us begin to ask relevant questions about Rule of Law and constitutional authority, they may be right on the latter contention. Mark Alexander-The Patriot Post

I glad to see you are not denying the word "socialist" is false. ;D

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/27/mountain-lion-travels-cross-country_n_910907.html

Tester leads Senate in warning Obama: Arms treaty must not infringe on gun rights Senators outline stern conditions for U.N. Arms Trade Treaty proposal Tuesday, July 26, 2011 (U.S. SENATE) – Senator Jon Tester today led a group of U.S. Senators in calling on President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to guarantee the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans while negotiating the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. The warning letter, written by Tester and signed by a dozen colleagues including Senator Max Baucus, outlines in specific terms that the arms trade treaty must not “in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession, or sales of firearms or ammunition” in the U.S. Tester’s letter also warns that the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty: • Must guarantee that joining countries “will maintain the exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders,” a condition the senators say is “non-negotiable.” • Must not include “small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the Treaty overly broad and virtually unenforceable.” • Must not establish “any sort of international gun registry that could impede on the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners.” “The bottom line is this: No international treaty is more important than the Constitutional rights guaranteed to all law-abiding Americans,” said Tester, chairman of the Congressional Sportsmen’s Caucus and a longtime champion of gun rights. “I want the Obama Administration to understand loud and clear that no foreign treaty will dictate America’s gun rights, or the privacy of the firearms and ammo we own. I'm leading this charge on behalf of millions of law-abiding Americans who couldn’t agree more and I appreciate the NRA’s leadership in making sure our message is heard loud and clear.” The NRA today praised Tester’s leadership. “As we have for nearly two decades, the NRA will fight to stop any United Nations treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of American gun owners,” said Chris W. Cox, executive director, NRA Institute for Legislative Action. “This effort sends a clear message to the international bureaucrats who want to eliminate our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, a U.N. Arms Trade Treaty that includes civilian arms within its scope is not supported by the American people or a bi-partisan majority of the U.S. Senate. We are grateful for Sen. Tester’s leadership on this critical issue.” "I've always been a staunch defender of our right to bear arms, because the 2nd Amendment is part of who we are as Americans and Montanans,” Baucus said. “It's crucial that any treaty negotiated doesn't impede on law-abiding Montanans' gun rights, and I'll continue making sure the administration hears that message, loud and clear." The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, which must be ratified by the Senate, aims to improve regulation of the international trade of conventional weapons and set standards to ensure that arms are only transferred for appropriate use. Tester and Baucus say such regulations should “ensure these weapons do not end up in the hands of human rights abusers, terrorist groups, insurgents or organized criminal enterprises.” Tester’s letter notes that the United States has adopted a rigorous system of arms export controls that other nations should follow. Earlier this year, Tester and Baucus introduced a bipartisan bill to prohibit the Department of Justice from tracking and cataloguing purchases of multiple rifles and shotguns. Text of the legislation can be viewed HERE. Text of the letter follows and is also available HERE. July 26, 2011 The Honorable Barack Obama President The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW Washington, DC 20500 The Honorable Hillary Clinton Secretary of State 2201 C Street, NW Washington, DC 20520 Dear President Obama and Secretary Clinton: As staunch defenders of the rights of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms, we write regarding ongoing negotiations of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty, and to express concerns about any provisions that could potentially infringe upon those rights. We support efforts to better regulate the international trade of conventional weapons, but such efforts must be done in a responsible manner. We should do everything we can to ensure these weapons do not end up in the hands of human rights abusers, terrorist groups, insurgents or organized criminal enterprises. Further, we should not allow the unregulated trade of these weapons to continue fueling conflict and instability in nations around the world. The profound human and economic toll from these conflicts is staggering and the subsequent impact on our nation’s economic and security interests is increasing. The United States has adopted a rigorous system of arms export controls and it is time for other nations to abide by some of those same standards. For the past few years, negotiations for the Arms Trade Treaty have progressed. As your Administration continues to engage in these negotiations, we strongly urge you to address a number of our concerns. First and foremost, the Arms Trade Treaty must not in any way regulate the domestic manufacture, possession or sales of firearms or ammunition. Firearms possession is an individual right guaranteed by the Second Amendment and that cannot be subordinated, directly or indirectly, by any international treaty. We are encouraged that your administration is working to ensure that signatory countries will maintain the exclusive authority to regulate arms within their own borders. That must continue to be non-negotiable. We also oppose any inclusion of small arms, light weapons, ammunition or related materials that would make the Treaty overly broad and virtually unenforceable. Finally, the establishment of any sort of international gun registry that could impede upon the privacy rights of law-abiding gun owners is a non-starter. As members of the United States Senate, it is our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the ratification of the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. Before we could support ratification, we must have assurances that our concerns are adequately addressed and that the Treaty will not in any way impede upon the Constitutional rights of American gun owners. Anything short of this commitment would be unacceptable. We appreciate your consideration on this issue and look forward to your response. Sincerely, (s) Jon Tester, Max Baucus et al

More misdirection by virgil. Do you know anything at all about the "Arms Trade Treaty"? If not, all of your posts on this thread must be an attempt to avoid any discussion on that topic. I wonder what is the motivation behind that? P.S. For the illiterate on this thread, #1) I was not the original poster #2) Never did I say Obama was born in Kenya #3) Nor wasn't an American. #4) And Keynsian is different from Kenyan! But I doubt any of you, who obviously lack reading comprehension skill, would know any of that.

Do all of you suffer from attention deficit disorder, or are you just trying to change the subject because you don't know anything about it? This thread is about the "Arms Trade Treaty" currently being pushed by the United Nations. It's impact on US sovereignty and it's relation to the US Constitution is at issue. Do any of you have anything intelligent to add to this thread with regard to that?

It seems obvious, to the oblivious.

Considering you have not posted one single reply in this thread that actually addresses the subject, it is pretty hard to imagine you have any understanding of it, or any intelligent counter reply to debate with. Every one of your posts here is simply derogatory, or an insult. That being the case, although you claim to know the issues, you have yet to post anything that would lead one to believe you do. Perhaps you are the one who needs to back that up. There is a difference between a "know it all" and being a well informed individual who can easily discuss a given subject. Slinging insults during a debate usually indicates a total lack of understanding about the subject.

Considering I can quickly and easily provide proof of my birthplace and am not spending millions of taxpayer dollars to hide my past history and educational background, I think I can prove that I am American with a lot less doubt than Obama can. That has nothing to do with racism, which is the left's favorite playing card, it has to do with nationalism and American leadership. The fool in this thread is the one who has accused others of being one, as well as judging them to be racist.

Keynesian Socialist would be absolutely correct though. Besides, not being politically correct is nothing to be ashamed of, and that is where his ancestors come from. "For five years now, various committees of the United Nations purport to have been drafting 'an internationally acceptable Arms Trade Treaty' that 'will make the world safer.' If the U.N.'s 'Open-Ended Working Group on an ATT' completes its 'work' on time, the treaty will be voted on next year. The Obama administration is on record supporting the measure, claiming, 'The United States is committed to actively pursuing a strong and robust treaty that contains the highest possible, legally binding standards for the international transfer of conventional weapons.' ... Freedom Alliance President Tom Kilgannon, who wrote the book on how the U.N. usurps U.S. sovereignty, 'Diplomatic Divorce,' says we shouldn't be surprised at the international forum's end run on the U.S. Constitution. 'The U.N. is a global-leftist organization that uses multilateral treaties like the ATT to enforce their will upon all humankind. It's the ultimate power play. To them, the U.S. Constitution and the sovereign rights of American citizens are irrelevant. If they have their way, they will create a vast new international bureaucracy to document, regulate, track, supervise, inspect and maintain surveillance over every firearm ever made. Such a regime ought to be completely unacceptable to every American.'" --columnist Oliver North

Yea, take Tonto Joe with you. I hear you two applied at McDonalds and got turned down. Something about not being smart enough for the job.

http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/story/1311574612gzmjgh2wtuk Cuomo actually put wording in the budget saying he could use conservation money anywhere it's needed to balance the budget. The USFWS frowns on that and can withold the $20 Million because of it. It needs to be fixed now or the money is gone.

Good news. Thanks for the update. Glad she is good now.

I believe they are trying to kill the shooters!

Joe, I took his post as a request. Not a very tactful one, but a request. Sometimes the correct response to a request is, "Request Denied." IMHO, more people need to engage in current events, if the government is going to worry about what the people have to say at all. You may see, hear and read about all of the issues today, but if you don't get involved, you lose. And the loss is not just for you, but all future generations of Americans. I don't take my freedom for granted, having seen too many attacks on it, succeed in my lifetime. I guess some haven't lived long enough, or paid enough attention, to care. It's fine to escape into hunting for a while, but that escape has to be temporary in order to be healthy. Read these posts when you come back from the escape, but ignore them at your own expense.

Enough gun for you?

I'd appreciate that very much. Hear no evil, See no evil, Speak no evil, is how most of America's population tries to get by. How's that working out for you? Many generations of Americans fought and died for the freedoms we now cherish. It galls me that the current generations don't seem to give a hoot about their posterity. I doubt future American generations will look back on ours with fond respect.

Consider what could become of your gun ownership rights and hunting privileges if this is allowed to happen. Make no mistake, without strong opposition, it IS going to happen. Like I said, this is the poltical discussion forum. If you don't want to read about it on this site, don't read this forum. I promise you, when, and if, I find anything positive to post for you, I will.

Perhaps you shouldn't read posts in this forum if you want to be apathetic about the future. The electorate's aversion to the unpleasant reality of our run away governent, is exactly what allows this type of outrage to happen.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/23/super-congress-debt-ceiling_n_907887.html The U.S. as we know it may soon cease to exist. This is not hyperbole. Despite the seeming ease in which they have begun to implement the economic shock treatment, the country has yet to experience the real assault. I can hardly wait to see how the middle class will react to the end of the homeowners mortgage tax exemption, not to mention that home prices will deflate another 25% or so, AND millions more will lose their homes. All the bull about the “lesser depression”, or what to call this economic crisis, will be meaningless, as we will be entering greater and greater depression territory. Old people and the disabled with insufficient funds will starve. People without jobs or hope will commit suicide (they already are). The media will hardly notice, or if they do, only to throw out scare stories about terrorists in the “homeland.” The U.S. has not seen significant domestic disorder since the 1960s. The time is now approaching for major disorder, and they are ready. The entire apparatus for a police state has been erected: massive surveillance, “joint” fusion centers, military units working with “civil defense”, etc. Only thing they fear, and even expect… societal fightback. Things are going to get real ugly America.

I thought that's what they were for, but always forgot to ask someone when I had the chance. Thanks

I adjust my attitude by remembering there are young Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan right now, tolerating 100+ degree temps, with full battle gear on, every day. Some of these troops spend the whole day in a Bradley fighting vehicle where the temps can be 120+ degrees all day long. And they have to also worry about bullets and bombs while they sweat off 10 pounds a day over there. Once I think about that, I really feel like these temps are nothing compared to what they are dealing with. God Bless Our Troops

Businessmen Against Obama These days, it seems casino magnate Steve Wynn would rather tempt his luck at the card table than take his chances investing in the economy, thanks to Barack Obama's anti-business policies. Earlier this week, Wynn -- CEO of Wynn Resorts and a Democrat and Harry Reid supporter -- called this administration "the greatest wet blanket to business, and progress and job creation in my lifetime." Wynn blamed the president for the fear pervading the marketplace. "I could spend the next three hours giving you examples of all of us in this market place that are frightened to death about all the new regulations, our health care costs escalate, regulations coming from left and right." In fact, according to a new Heritage Foundation report, within two months of the president's signing ObamaCare into law, improvement in net private-sector job creation went from an average of 67,000 jobs per month to just 6,400 jobs per month. Correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, as Heritage admits, but many business owners cite ObamaCare as one of their top barriers to new hiring. Regulation wasn't Wynn's only concern. Obama, he said, "keeps making speeches about redistribution and maybe we ought to do something to businesses that don't invest, they're holding too much money. We haven't heard that kind of talk except from pure socialists." Coming from a Harry Reid Democrat, these words are pretty powerful. Wynn wasn't alone in his critique, either. Bernie Marcus, co-founder of Home Depot, said that the single biggest impediment to job growth is "the U.S. government. Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling." As for Obama, Marcus says, "His speeches are wonderful. His output is absolutely, incredibly bad. As he speaks about cutting out regulations, they are now producing thousands of pages of new ones. With just ObamaCare by itself, you have a 2,000 page bill that's probably going to end up being 150,000 pages of regulations." Is it any wonder, then, that the economy is struggling? http://image.patriotpost.us/2011-07-22-digest-cartoon-2.jpg[/img]