Letter to the Editor

Project Gunwalker: A 'Fast and Furious' plot to murder, enslave Americans

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Dear Editor:

In conducting Project Gunwalker, operation Fast and Furious, the BATF elitists knew full well what they were doing--as did Attorney General Eric Holder and Pesident Barack Obama. These individuals intentionally facilitated the sale of weapons to Mexican mobsters, for the purpose of inciting political ire against lawful American gun owners--and did so with the expectation of increasing the Administration's draconian choke hold on our American liberties! The plot is a leap far beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors" or malfeasance in office--this crime entails a very particular offense, as defined in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution for the united States:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

When placed in context with their often expressed motives--to abrogate the Second Amendment, and eviscerate other essential liberties defined within the Bill of Rights--then the inescapable conclusion is that the above cited individuals willfully conspired to affect Treason. Recall that, within the time frame during which this "operation" was unfolding, the mainstream media and the Obama Administration were pushing the canard that "95 percent of guns supplied to Mexican Cartels come from gun shops in the United States." Now we know through whom, and on whose orders these guns were made available--and who is ultimately responsible for those crimes committed as a direct consequence: Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and the Directors of the BATF.

The owners and employees of those American firearms establishments located in border states were cajoled and reassured by the Obama Administration, through its BATF proxies, that their cooperation in allowing straw-man sales to known weapons traffickers was in the country's best interest! Under the pretense of capturing kingpins of the Mexican drug cartels, lawful gun shop owners were set up to be made political whipping posts for Obama and his fellow travelers.

When you assemble the facts--particularly the timely Obama-induced spin against gun owners, gun shows, and gun shops--it then becomes clear that the "Gunwalker / Fast and Furious" operation was PURPOSED from the beginning to incite public opinion against American gun owners in general--and gun rights in particular. To wit: elected and appointed officers of the U.S. Federal Government became willing participants to premeditated murder, in the hope of scoring political victories against the American people and our Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms.

Understand the game: Barack Obama and his cronies will eagerly aid drug lords, gangsters and mercenaries in the killing of innocent American and Mexican citizens--so to affect a greater leverage to deprive Americans of our freedoms! If these acts do not reach the level of Treason, then nothing does. This is bold treachery and sufficient cause to abolish this tyrannical regime--by armed force, if necessary--because these individuals know no limits in their efforts to deprive Americans of our life, liberty and property. It is time to end the reign of "King" Obama and his infamous court of arrogant usurpers. Impeach them, try them--and, if found guilty of Treason, publicly execute all those individuals who aided or acted to conceal these fowl deeds.

Bruce C. A. Desautels

Stratton, Nebraska

Comments
View 96 comments
Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. Please note that those who post comments on this website may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.
  • This would make for a good movie!!! Fiction movie, of course.

    -- Posted by FNLYHOME on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 4:03 PM
  • choke hold on what liberties? Does bruce have any evidience to implicate the white house? I would think Senator Grassley would be calling.

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 6:04 PM
  • For those who pay attention, notice the administration and the main stream media were quick to point out that guns used in Mexican drug wars were "purchased" in America. Do we hear any of that now?

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 8:01 PM
  • I also recall a terrorist video telling people to take advantage of the lax gun laws.

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 9:40 PM
  • These are strong words. Strong words with which I cannot disagree at this point in my life. I have disagreed with the current president's political agenda from the beginning, but I have also said, in an attempt to stay positive, that no matter how he or anyone he appoints affiliates politically, they have the best interest of our country in their minds. It would seem that if these things that transpired are true, then it is a crime against Americans.

    I sincerely believe that if we as a society held the same values as our founding fathers, we would be in the midst of another revolutionary war this very day. We would not stand for this type of government. So, that said, thank you Bruce for being, what I view, as a patriot.

    I am a gun owner. Not one of my guns is dangerous. I called one a lazy, good-for-nothing, inaccurate, piece of steel the other day and it just lay there. It didn't shoot me or anything. Moreover, I am a law-abiding citizen of the United States who has passed all criminal background checks and given up my privacy to the government so that I might carry one of those guns with me when I am in public without being jailed BY the government. As we know, an armed populace is dangerous to a big government because then they (the armed citizens) can question things (see: the first Revolutionary War). I guess it is a good thing that I have gone through all of the imposed restrictions so that I may protect those around me from those whom the government has provided guns illegally then, huh? The next time you go to Wal-Mart or out to eat, you should probably HOPE that there are one or two of me around should someone with criminal intent attempt to put your life on the line. Remember, when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. If those with criminal intent knew there were more of "me" out there, they might be less apt to put people's lives in danger knowing their own was always at risk. Our omniscient government intends to disarm law-abiding citizens though in as many places as it can already: sporting events, all government facilities and polling places, places of worship, schools, businesses whose sales are 50% or more alcohol, and any place with a sign "conspicuously" posted, to name a few. I know I'm not going to go into any of those places and shoot it up. I know I will disarm before walking into any of them, but will a criminal? Moreover, will taking the guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens altogether stop the criminals from posessing guns? Obviously not.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 9:42 AM
  • Biff,

    Good comical reading. If you send this to the National Enquirer you may get it published next to a calf with two heads story.

    -- Posted by BuffRoam on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 1:05 PM
  • Bigdawg, to which "lax" gun laws are you referring? I don't know your history and I won't try to assume. I do not have military background so everything I know about guns is civilian in nature.

    Let me give you an example of the liberties that I DON'T have already: to purchase a handgun, I am now required to provide all of my background (I would prefer it be a little more private, but that's just me) information to the government. As noted above, I passed criminal background checks at the local level by applying for and PAYING for a "Firearm Purchase Certificate". That wasn't easy, as a college student, my current address did not match that which was shown on my driver's license, so I had to go have that renewed too. Wow, now I can spend what was left of my taxed dollar on my hobby. So I purchase a little piece and decide that I wish to sell it to a friend in Oberlin, KS. Turns out, I cannot privately sell this to him because he is across a state line! I must go through a LICENSED FFL dealer who has paid an exhorbitant amount to have said license and who will collect (typically) 10% of the value of the piece or minimum $50 so that he can make his money back. In turn, he will do the appropriate paperwork and background checks on my friend according to that particular state's statutes. Now I go get a new piece and decide that I would like to carry it with me wherever I go. Nebraska is an "open carry" state so technically I could do that, but because of some people, it just saves time and incites fewer riots to not to (I understand how that reads). I cannot carry this piece under my shirt in any way though because that is against the LAW, unless I have proper licensure. I decide I want this "freedom" so I go to a mandatory class (here it cost me $135). I learn in this class basically of all the freedoms having this permit takes away from me, but since I am already money into it, I go further. I go to the Nebraska State Patrol and have every line and crevice on my body (not literally, but close) recorded (each finger individually, all fingers together, palms, sides of hands) and pay another $100 fee, renewable at $50 every 5 years, to get my little card. NOW, as noted above, I can carry my piece in a "concealed" fashion. The list of places I CAN'T carry it is posted above, but it is not exhaustive. If I am EVER confronted by an officer of the law, the FIRST words out of my mouth must be that I have a concealed carry with me. If I don't, the card is gone. If I am ever carrying, and have .001 alcohol on my breath, the card is gone. I was pulled over for failure to fully yield at a stop sign and did not have my piece with me, but they asked because it is now tied to my driver's license that I am a cardholder. This is my hobby. I am no danger to you or anyone else unless you pose a threat to the life of my family and maybe even if you pose a threat to my own.

    You say laws are lax? Which ones? So impose more? Will that do the trick? Will the imposition on my freedom stop terrorists from doing what they are going to do anyway? If you take the guns out of the hands of those who obey the law, only the criminals will have guns. You've probably heard all this before, but it sure can't hurt to say it again.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 3:59 PM
  • actually the terriorist who made the video called them lax. When I lived on the east coast I could go to a gun show and buy a handgun out of the trunk of a car in 10 min. No freedom loss there.

    So, you think more guns and the ability to carry them around without going to a class or getting a licenses is the answer?

    "will the impositon on my freedom stop terrorists from doing what they are going to do anyway"? that is a good question. should we get our bags checked at the airport? Why are we in afganistan and iraq? why do anything to try to stop terriorsm? Why not teach them how to fly and give them the planes since they are going to do it anyhow.

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 5:20 PM
  • Well Said, speak-e-z. I do find it interesting that the only way to fight crime, it seems, is to regulate the law abiding population, so they/we be better equipped to be harmed or killed by the people of that Crime committing mentality.

    Sadly, 'We the People' are no longer of the same genre of the Founding Fathers, who fought and died, to give us what so many are willing to NOT fight to retain. God help us, as that is about all we have left on our side, IMHO.

    -- Posted by Navyblue on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 5:24 PM
  • Re-read what I said. You buying a gun out of the trunk of a car is probably not, how do I say, a legal transaction. That has nothing to do with freedom. If Big Brother knew of your crimethink, you might not be so "free".

    If you want to make ludicrous comparisons, I say we put a ban on cars, too. I could just as easily run someone down with my automobile and make them just as dead or injured. (Lawrence Philips proved it.) There are far more auto-related deaths in the US than gun deaths each year. (I did not research that, but I feel confident writing it.) I just read about the plane, I believe in Russia, that went down killing some 45 people. We should probably ban the planes too.

    The point I was trying to make about the "laws" that are already in place is that unless you are a criminal, it is not that easy to run around wielding a gun. The point I am making, is back to basics: guns are not the problem, people and politics are.

    I think it was Yamamoto, an admiral in the Japanese Navy (even though I think the quote was misattributed) who said something to the effect of 'you cannot invade the mainland United States, there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.' Our forefathers understood the value of the second amendment. You are "free" today because of the technology that brought us those evil guns. No doubt, guns have been in the wrong hands countless times, but you get to have your opinions and post them on here because of them.

    I'm going to deal with the laws we have now. Freedom is never free. But taking away any more of it is unacceptable. Like I said, you had better hope that there is someone like me around when it really matters to you or to the people you love because your love and hugs won't stop the man who wants to do you harm with his butter knife...wait, ban those too.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Wed, Jun 22, 2011, at 10:41 PM
  • I don't want to have what I have written misconstrued either. I understand the importance of laws. I also understand the importance of some taxes. I follow both willingly. I also know that if I didn't, the current government could arrest me at gunpoint, but that's for another post. Without laws, society would be like "Lord of the Flies", "sucks to your ***-mar."

    I don't necessarily disagree with bag checks at airports. What I disagree with is our super sensitive liberal views of anti-profiling. I have yet to see an 80-year-old woman pack explosive into the legs of her walker, yet we let people of Arab decent walk through so we don't hurt their feelings. I know it sounds terrible of me to say this because I FULLY RECOGNIZE that not every Muslim is radical. Moreover, I recognize that not ever person with dark skin is a terrorist, but we would save a lot of time and money if we would go with the majority. There I said it. It goes against what people will accept, but I said it anyway.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 8:21 AM
  • so you would be for letting people carry around ak-47s anywhere they want to with no oversight as long as they are white. now i think i understand.

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 1:40 PM
  • I didn't put words in your mouth, don't put words in mine. Why is an AK-47 any more dangerous than anything else (SKS, M-16, Mini-14, Ruger 10-22, Benelli M4)? They're just popular because they are so darn dependable. They aren't all that accurate in the scheme of rifles, but you can dunk 'em in mud and sand and they'll keep shooting. Moreover, as noted above, our government seems to be providing just that type of rifle to the terrorists and drug lords.

    On another note, who said I'm "white"? I didn't say anything about that. I clearly stated that I am "a law-abiding citizen of the United States." (Insert words into bigdawg's mouth here...) But I won't. I will say I don't think you understand as much as you think you do.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 2:03 PM
  • in the 2010 transparency international corruption index, the usa sat a little below 20th place. somewhere between uruguay and chili. there is starting to be a lot of corruption in the usa.

    -- Posted by bob s on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 2:28 PM
  • putting words in someones mouth, let me think.

    I also recall a terrorist video telling people to take advantage of the lax gun laws.

    -- Posted by bigdawg on Tue, Jun 21, 2011, at 9:40 PM

    You say laws are lax? posted by you.

    I didnt say it. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

    its not anymore dangerous so why not let people carry them? When I pick up the kids from school I will have it slung over my shoulder.

    No one said you are white as far as I know. Is someone did could you please post it? I think you dont understand anything.

    more guns and less gun laws are the answer. as long as you are white. I understand your position perfectly

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 9:38 PM
  • *

    Umm... You did say gun laws are lax. your statements included lax gun laws. If quoting actual statements is included in putting words in your mouth...wow.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Thu, Jun 23, 2011, at 10:49 PM
  • Wow, is what I am thinking. Your response to me reminds me of how I used to get the "last word" in with my father. I was famous for jumping to atrocious and illogical conclusions and then burying my head in the sand so that I didn't have to hear any more of what he had to say...

    You have made the "race" assumption. You wrote those words. Thus, prompting me to request that you do not "put words in my mouth." I say stop acting like a petulant child and draw up a conclusion better than mine. You and I both know that what you wrote is not what I am saying. I respect your opinion and will take a logical conclusion into consideration, when you provide one.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 8:26 AM
  • *

    (lap)dawg,

    You implied that speak-e-z is white when you said that he/she agrees that anyone who is white should be allowed to carry around an AK-47, unless you meant that speak-e-z wouldn't be allowed to carry around an AK-47 while the white people in society can. If that is what you are saying, why do you think a person who says they support gun ownership rights, would only support ownership rights for other people but not him/herself? You make as little sense as usual here. Watching you try to backpedal is amusing.

    I think you are a bigoted individual that tries to shut up people you disagree with by trying to use race.

    You also said gun laws are lax, if you can't support your statments you need to stop making them. You even copy and pasted your comments but then said you didn't say it. Hilarious.

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 3:44 PM
  • is implying and saying the same thing? He apperently supports profiling people based on their regilious beliefs and the pigment of there skin. Speak brought regilion and race into this blog, not me.

    Im not "saying" anything, he is. I love how im the person who brought race and regilion into this.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/27/us/politics/27guns.html

    http://thinkprogress.org/security/2011/06/09/240705/nra-silent-al-qaeda-gun-laws...

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/14/insanity-americas-lax-gun-la...

    there, that is just a few of the 100,000 plus links that came up. Is that enough for you? would you like more?

    I assume nothing about race save for the fact that you would judge people based on their color or regilion.

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 4:57 PM
  • he proposes to treat people of a different ethnicity differently then "other" people and im the bigot and racist? wow, you people should run for office.

    Lets end the suspence, what is your race? anyone want to bet me what it is? ill give you 10 to 1 odds I can name it.

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 5:30 PM
  • *

    Once again, all the usual suspects of McCook's little click of leftists have made their intelligence quotient a matter of public record.

    Rural Citizen, Buff Roam, and, of course, Dawg have each managed to steer as far from the theme as possible. They throw up liberal pabulum ... but nothing of substance.

    The amusing aspect to this story (if one exists) is that while the above truth-challenged individuals continue their asinine attempts at subterfuge, the facts revealed in the testimony before Congress are plowing the Administration's nose deep into the pit of rotting manure.

    Stay tuned, Dawg, et al ... There is more coming. Much more.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 5:55 PM
  • *

    NY Times?

    Think Progress?

    The Guardian!?

    Dawg, I would laugh you to scorn, but then I might risk exhaling too much CO2 into the atmosphere, get dragged before some leftist thug's "star chamber," and be condemned for the crime of breathing ... Another one of those "freedoms" we Americans take for granted, and which the collectivists also seek to curtail "for our own good."

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 6:03 PM
  • *

    In conducting Project Gunwalker--Fast and Furious, BATF Directors knew or should have known the dire risks to the life, limb and property of American citizens and other foreign nationals. Equally culpable are the persons of Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama, whose anti-individual political ideology does not cede its collectivist dictates to American law, morals, ethics, common sense, or decency.

    Under a pretense of capturing high-ranking operatives within the Mexican drug cartels, via project Gunwalker--Fast and Furious, elected and appointed officers of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government of the United States plotted and facilitated the sale of firearms to Mexican mobsters, in direct violation of Federal and State firearms statutes; and did so for purposes of inciting animosity against lawful American gun owners, and to achieve political gain. In expectation of increasing despotic regulatory control over the American People, operatives within the Administration of Barak Obama, and its subordinate regulatory agencies, did willingly conspire with foreign criminal entities The legal question is whether these actions meet of burden of proof to compell impeachment, or do they exceed to a graver offense.

    Let us first consider Malfeasance:

    Malfeasance in Office: criminal conduct by a public official or an administration's member; dereliction of performance in office; deviation from rectitude; dishonest management; failing to uphold a sworn oath of office; illegal act while a public official; improper conduct by a public official; maladministration by a public servant; mis-administration by a public servant; misconduct by a public official, misdeeds by a public official; misguidance by a public official; mismanagement by an office holder, misprision by an office holder.

    Malfeasance in office refers to an unlawful act carried out while acting under one's official capacity. Malfeasance in office affects the performance of a person's official duty. It is also known as official misconduct. An act of malfeasance in office can cause the removal of an elected official by statute or recall election.

    The West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals summarized a number of the definitions of malfeasance in office applied by various appellate courts in the United States. The court then went on to use yet another definition ...

    "Malfeasance is the doing of an act which an officer had no legal right to do at all and that when an officer, through ignorance, inattention, or malice, does that which they have no legal right to do at all, or acts without any authority whatsoever, or exceeds, ignores, or abuses their powers, they are guilty of malfeasance."

    A few elements can be distilled from those cases:

    1. malfeasance in office requires an affirmative act or omission.

    2. the act must have been done in an official capacity--under the color of office

    3. the act somehow interferes with the performance of official duties--though some debate remains about "whose official" duties.

    In addition, jurisdictions differ greatly over whether intent or knowledge is necessary. Many courts will find malfeasance in office where there is "ignorance, inattention, or malice", which implies no intent or knowledge is required.

    In pursuit of initiating impeachment proceedings against a sitting president, the designs and actions of this Administration, such as are manifest in the Gunwalker--Fast and Furious, certainly appear to exceed the criteria for "malfeasance in office."

    To be continued ...

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 6:21 PM
  • I am bigoted only against those sworn enemies of the United States of America and our life as we know it. I know what I wrote can be misconstrued in your mind, bigdawg, but that is how your mind works. I hope I am clearly saying that there appears to only be one particular religion, and as I stated, portion of that religion, that tend to pose a threat. Give me a legitimate argument, because I WILL LISTEN, as to why it is wrong to use profiling. Why does the TSA need to pat down 3 year old toddlers?

    Your links didn't do much for me. If I wanted a certain set of data to show something, I would give my study certain criteria to meet my particular political agenda. Did you like that quote though in the second one about "terrorists" buying guns to "murder Americans"?

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 9:27 PM
  • tim mcvey, white christian. KKK, white christians. Abortion clinic bombers and doctor killers, white christians. Do I need to go on?

    Bruce, at least I provided links and not a headline like "murder and enslave americans". quite frankley i find offence that you would compare anything with slavery. That just shows your ignorance to what happened prior to the civil war.

    the links, and there were alot of them, were for transplant because he or she asked for them. Again, where are your links? post them and I will scoff at them the same way you scoffed at mine. At least I was man enough to put some up.

    If strapping a bomb to a 3 year old would bring down a plane do you think the terrorists would do it? Surley not you ignorant fool. There are alot of african american muslims, anglo saxon muslims, etc....

    Bruce, where is proof that implicates the white house, oh wait, i know, you dont have any.

    You people cry about your guns being taken away and I have yet to see anyone take anything away.

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:17 PM
  • again, someone posting on here wants to profile people and im the racist. thats rich

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 10:18 PM
  • *

    bigdawg,

    No, you are a bigot, get it straight. Use a dictionary. Bigotry is not racism. Most Racists are bigots, though.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 11:15 PM
  • *

    Dawg, et al...

    Keep writing, Charles... and I will help you hang yourself. BTW, in answer to your subterfuge, Democrats were the enforcers of slavery before and during the Civil War. Democrats were the enforcers and practitioners of racism and bigotry before, during and after the Civil War. Do I need to trounce all over you with the facts of history? You are one pitifully obstinate and ignorant man, sir. Now back to the matter at hand ...

    The NRA is closely following this Fast and Furious scandal. Here are highlights.

    Fast and Furious was a BATFE operation, initiated to covertly and passively supervise the felonious acquisition, transfer and international smuggling of thousands of firearms into Mexican criminal commerce. A congressional inquest now reveals government corruption and possible criminality on a broad scale. These Inquiries reveal that BATFE, U.S. attorneys and higher DOJ authorities are directly responsible for part of the murder and mayhem on both sides of the border--including the murder of U.S. Border Agent Brian Terry near Nogales, Arizona, in December 2010. The Obama Administration has acted to stonewall Congress and cover-up its involvement in the crime.

    Fast and Furious is an outgrowth of Project Gunrunner--an $80 million BATFE propaganda campaign that began with the Obama Administration. Gunrunner was premised on the falsehood that Mexican cartels obtain the majority of their weaponry from regulated U.S. firearms retailers. The BATFE effort was based on their false notion that gun tracing stops crime--and the liberal media acted on cue to do the Administration's dirty work:

    USA Today ran a piece "ATF acting Director Michael Sullivan said investigators have traced 90 to 95 percent of the weapons found in Mexico to the U.S." The media had a field day, while the Obama Administration, acting on Rahm Emanuel's advice, wasted no time in pumping up this phony "crisis" with demands for new and more stringent gun control measures. Taking full advantage of the Mexican drug cartel terror that has claimed 35,000 lives, the Obama Administration created a fictional domestic problem--and then plotted the usual government solution: the loss of additional American freedoms.

    Headlines came in waves: "Lax U.S. Gun Laws Fueling Mexico's Drug Violence!" "U.S. Guns Arming Mexican Drug Gangs: Second Amendment to Blame?" "The Drug Cartel's Right to Bear Arms." Phoenix Magazine published an article in its October 2010 issue--in screaming caps: "AS CONCERNS MOUNT OVER THE POTENTIAL FOR MEXICAN DRUG CARTEL VIOLENCE TO SPILL OVER THE BORDER, A STEADY FLOW OF FIREARMS SOUTH FROM PHOENIX IS HELPING GIVE THE CARTELS THEIR LETHAL FIREPOWER." That hit-piece, titled "THE IRON RIVER," was sourced from U.S. attorney and BATFE leadership. The Washington Post ran a series, listing border state dealers the newspaper labeled as major suppliers to the cartels. The propaganda was accompanied by cries from the Obama Administration for new gun control measures. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeatedly told Mexican officials that U.S. gun stores were supplying the drug bosses. Mexican President Felipe Calderon fed the lie, demanding the U.S. Congress enact a ban on semi-automatic rifles--bringing new administrative proposals to register semi-automatic rifles under the pretense of multiple sales reporting. Eric Holder, eager to accept this move, said a prohibition against Americans owning certain guns "will have a positive impact in Mexico at a minimum." Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano--after refusing to secure America's borders--wasted no time jumping aboard anti-Second Amendment bandwagon.

    Project Gunrunner--a government juggernaut manned by hundreds of agents, inspectors, researchers and office staff-- enjoyed constant funding, including $10 million in emergency economic stimulus funds, supplied to the BATFE in 2009.

    Robert Sanders, former BATF enforcement head in the 1980's, had this to say: "When they started this thing, the premise was that the bad guys were the dealers. The whole original object of this fiasco was to prove dealers were supplying the cartels. And they had nothing to show for it since it wasn't true."

    In a highly publicized case, the BATFE sought to bring down a Phoenix gun dealer. FFL holder George Iknadosian was the subject of a sting operation, using criminal undercover operatives. He was arrested in May 2008; however, federal prosecution was denied, so the BATFE conned a local prosecutor to use federal evidence and witnesses in a state court.

    The feds then conspired with media to subject the accused to a pre-trial inquisition, up to the start of the March 2009 trial. On its opening day, CBS led with "Gun Runners Send Thousands of Weapons from the U.S. to Mexico, Fueling That Country's Drug Wars." --"In Phoenix, Monday, a gun dealer went on trial for supplying assault rifles to Mexican drug gangs who are locked in a bloody war with authorities... "'Firearms trafficking in Mexico is a huge problem,' says Phoenix ATF agent William Newell. 'Drugs go north, guns come south.'" "George Iknadosian is accused of being a top gun-supplier. When government agents raided his Phoenix gun shop last May, they found hundreds of weapons allegedly destined for Mexico." The story also included the usual Obama Administration garbage: "Mexican law makes it nearly impossible to buy guns there legally. But less restrictive laws in the U.S. keep the firearms flowing over the border."

    On March 18, 2010, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Gottsfield threw out all 21 charges, before the prosecution was finished, saying "The state's case is based upon testimony of individuals who [alleged] ... that they were the actual purchaser of the firearms when they were not ... There is no proof whatsoever that any prohibited possessor ended up with the firearm."

    Government innuendo and media slander to the contrary, no guns went to Mexico. No sting firearm found its way to the cartels. None of those guns was used in a crime, excepting the straw-sales crimes committed by the BATFE's undercover operatives. But Operation Fast and Furious changed that: Real guns went to real bad guys in Mexico, courtesy of the BATFE leadership, and with the repeated approval of the Justice Department.

    To be continued...

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jun 24, 2011, at 11:46 PM
  • You're right bigdawg, I'm an ignorant fool. I concede that not all Muslims are terrorists. I also concede that not all people with dark skin are terrorists.

    You kinda got pwned by Bruce there. You can copy/paste all the links you want, but he spelled it out for you.

    I am still willing to listen to your argument and any logic you might provide to stop my narrow-minded way of thinking on things. So far I just feel like you have been stuck on the race thing, so what is a better option? Leave it as is? Moreover, what do you suggest we do with the guns in the USA right now? What should I do with my shotgun with which I shoot trap? What should I do with my deer rifle? My .22 for target shooting?

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 1:34 AM
  • *

    NRA Summary of Operation Fast and Furious continued ...

    Operation Fast and Furious was a response to two damning reports (2009-10) on BATFE's performance in the Gunrunner fiasco, made by the Internal Office of the Inspector General (OIG): "ATF has not focused its enforcement on complex conspiracy investigations with multiple defendants." Its efforts "involved straw purchasers and corrupt dealers, not those who organize and command the trafficking operations." The 2009 report faulted the BATFE for having too few Spanish speaking agents and no on-the-ground presence in Mexico. But, lacking these assets and having no evidence to back up their $80 million cost of claiming a gun-dealer to cartel connection, the agency decided to encourage the gun smuggling operation themselves.

    A BATFE chart, provided during the congressional hearings, lists "monitored" criminals, and the quantity of guns bought before and after they were placed under surveillance.

    This brings us to another BATFE "tracing" operation, perpetrated upon a popular Texas gun dealer--made guilty by innuendo and the selective information planted by the BATFE for media consumption: Carter's Country, a leading gun store for firearms traced to Mexican crime scenes since 2009--over 125 firearms were recovered by Mexican authorities.

    But the media never reported that Carter's was one of many such establishments COOPERATING with the BATFE, having from the beginning alerted the feds to suspicious sales. Company officials reported suspicious "straw sales" or attempts to purchase volumes of guns--but were told to go through with the transactions: three or more assault rifles at the same time, even five or more, or sales of 9mm guns at the same time, or young Hispanic males paying cash. Carter's personnel reported promptly, while the transaction was occurring, or soon after. They did this for months.

    Carter's processed the sales because the ATF told them to do so. The ATF used the information, but did NOTHING to stop the guns from crossing the border. This pattern occurred at various gun shops, but the feds only videotaped the felonious transactions, never arresting the buyers.

    The chart classifies straw buyers as "indicted targets'--a term given after two of the guns purchased were found at the scene of BP Agent Terry's murder. The chart labels a man who was brought to the feds' attention after purchasing 59 guns. He was then "monitored" buying 661 additional guns! 720 felonious purchases and the BATFE did nothing to intervene. They allowed transactions to proceed, and then monitored those weapons to the border--where the guns disappeared into Mexican commerce.

    The total number listed on the chart was 1,725, with serial gun and smuggling crimes distributed among 15 "indicted targets." The chart also list 250 guns traced to the operation that were found at crime scenes, mostly in Mexico. Mexican authorities claim hundreds of their citizens killed with those weapons.

    The chart accompanied a January 8, 2010 brief in which BATFE officials stated Arizona U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke was repeatedly kept informed--and concurred with the operation. The memo noted "It is unknown at this time what direct connection exists between those straw purchasers and the drug trafficking operations (DTOS) in Mexico." That would be because the Mexican government was kept in the dark about operation Fast and Furious--even the BATFE's attaché in Mexico was not informed. The only way the agency would learn the fate of their "monitored" guns is when they turned up at crime scenes!

    Some of these guns may have made it into the hands of drug cartel operatives, and some may have been gotten by Mexicans hoping to defend themselves in a country that forbids private firearm ownership. "However, it is illogical to assume that a ruthless group of ultra criminals, rolling in billions of dollars of drug profits, who run highly sophisticated international drug shipping operations involving DC-10 airliners and surplus military submarines, are going to bother with buying guns a few at a time from U.S. firearms retailers."

    A final thought: a rebuttal to the 90 percent lie that the Obama Administration is using to attempt the forcing of more draconian laws upon American gun owners ... In a footnote of that OIG report:

    "[I]n September 2010, in response to a draft of this report, ATF told the OIG that the 90 percent figure cited to Congress could be misleading because it applied only to the small portion of Mexican crime guns that are traced. ATF could not provide updated information on the percentage of traced Mexican crime guns that were sourced to (that is, found to be manufactured in or imported through) the United States."

    The 90 percent lie--repeated ad nausea by the media, the Brady campaign, the Violence Policy Center, Mayor Bloomberg, the White House, Attorney General Holder and DHS Secretary Napolitano--was revealed almost a year ago to be a phony statistic. A federal border patrol agent is dead because of it. Mexican citizens are dying because of it. All this carnage from Fast and Furious will continue into the future--and all created to prove a fraudulent statistic.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 2:11 AM
  • *

    Oh, another oops on the Obama Administration's part. They are now accusing Rep Issa of distorting the facts, claiming that Congress, including Issa himself, were informed and briefed on Project Fast and Furious. However, and just days before, the Obama White House denied having any knowledge of the BATFE's doings.

    So, do tell, Doggie, how does one at the same time claim ignorance of the facts, but then insist that they had briefed Congress on those same facts? LOL Charles ... Your boy just screwed the pooch.

    Oh what a tangled web we weave, when we first weave to deceive! I predict that Eric Holder will be forced to resign ... as will others in the BATFE. However, there is growing substantial evidence of criminal actions, and cover-up. We all know where that leads. Then the real fun begins when the House brings impeachment proceedings against Obama ...

    And THEN the heads of all the liberal elites, both here and across the land, shall begin to explode, one after the other.

    How's that crow tasting, Doggie, old boy? Never screw with a man in possession of the facts, Charles.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 2:41 AM
  • Sir, why would you bother to correct a semi-literate pot stirer? Oh, i know, your ego. congratulations, you spelll and type better then me and have a bigger vocabulary then me, a semi literate. good job buddy. I do find it odd you support profiling people.

    Speak, I say less laws make less criminals, let everyone have all the guns they want and let them carry them around everywhere. I dont know what the answer is but i guess we could try it.

    Bruce, What has you so frightned? It will all be ok. No one is going to take your guns away and if they do we will get you more. wanna take a bet that obama dosent get impeached? Keep scaring people bruce

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 8:16 AM
  • Biff, the Mighty Mouse of SW Nebraska. Here I come to save the day! How did we manage before he moved here? Like a noxious weed we must not let his venom flourish.

    -- Posted by BuffRoam on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 1:43 PM
  • Buff...Biff/Buff (not far off, and funny to me), do you find what he writes to be false, or do you just not like it? I'm asking because I'm curious.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 9:18 PM
  • Tim McVeigh a Christian? KKK Christian? Seriously bigdawg, where can you possibly find where Jesus Christ advocated anything that resemble what this man did, and what this group stands for?

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 10:50 PM
  • *

    Dawg ... As usual, your willful ignorance of the paramount points raised by the Administration's actions is disgraceful and inexcusable. Would you be so careless of the matter had this occurred within the ranks of a Republican Administration? I think we all may well guess the answer to that question. And that is why your words drip with insincerity ... and also provides the reason as to why you get little respect on this board. But I digress ...

    RE: Impeachment

    In pursuit of initiating impeachment proceedings against a sitting president, the designs and actions of this Administration, manifest in the Gunrunner / Fast and Furious schemes, certainly appear to exceed the criteria for "malfeasance in office;" but do they reach the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"--the standard for imposing the constitutional penalty of impeachment?

    I shall "borrow" some text from Miss Ann Coulter:

    From 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' ...

    There is no such thing as a "high Crime and Misdemeanor" in the criminal law. Impeachment is not a criminal procedure; the acts that justify impeachment are not necessarily criminal acts; and the purpose of impeachment is not punishment. Impeachment is not directed exclusively or even primarily at violations of criminal law: Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story in his Commentaries on the Constitution made the following observation on this point. Not only "crimes of a strictly legal character" are impeachable offenses, but also political offenses, growing out of "personal misconduct... so various" that they "must be examined upon very broad and comprehensive principles of public policy and duty." Impeachable offenses encompass "a great variety of circumstances... which do not properly belong to the judicial character in the ordinary administration of justice and are far removed from the reach of municipal jurisprudence."

    According to historical precedent, impeachable misbehavior "means: (a) [misconduct] in the execution of office, or (b) scandalous behavior in his private capacity." Or, as Alexander Hamilton put it, the impeachment power is addressed to "the misconduct of public men" or the "violation of some public trust."

    In prosecuting the impeachment of Warren Hastings--Edmund Burke said: "Other constitutions are satisfied with making good subjects; [impeachment] is a security for good governors." Statesmen are supposed to be "good" not in the sense of competent, but in the sense of moral: "It is by this tribunal that statesmen [are tried] not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality." Burke continued: Statesmen who merely transgress "the spirit of the law can never hope for protection from any of its forms."

    Although Burke explicitly ruled out trying impeachments "upon the niceties of a narrow [criminal] jurisprudence," almost any serious crime will evidence a sufficiently diminutive morality as to constitute a "high Crime and Misdemeanor." Still, the standard is morality, not the technicalities of the law. Crimes that are malum in se, or wrong in themselves, such as murder or bribery, would fall within the ambit of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Crimes that are malum prohibitum, or wrong only because the law makes them so--Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) violations for example--would not.

    James Madison said the "first aim" of the Constitution was to ensure that men with the "most virtue" would become the nation's rulers. The Constitution's impeachment power was for "keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." They were erecting a moral standard because they believed that only virtuous men could maintain a republic. Acts unrelated to job performance are proper subjects for impeachment because "a perjurer or a forger simply could not command the public respect indispensable to the administration of justice." The rationale is not that the officer has violated the criminal law, but that such a violation discredits his office, and that failure to punish it would damage the government.

    Impeachment was the means by which the Republic would defend itself from officeholders who could no longer command the public's trust. As Hamilton stated: "Men, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious to legal punishment." The framers recognized that the credibility of the government would be undermined and the nation threatened if the president, judges, or other government officers were seen to be personally corrupt or self-aggrandizing, as if they were above the law.

    Examples of impeachable conduct [in Great Britain] by officeholders included appointing "unfit persons to office" (often relatives and retainers). These were offices they had the strictly legal right to fill, so at worst this was mere neglect of duty. But appointing "unfit persons" denied the king's subjects the benefits of just and efficient administration. Justice Joseph Story included as an impeachable offense "habitual disregard of the public interests, in the discharge of the duties of political office."

    The only impeachment convictions ever rendered by the United States Senate were for the high crimes and misdemeanors of: Drunkenness and Senility; Incitement to Revolt and Rebellion Against the Nation; Bribery; Kickbacks and Tax Evasion; Tax Evasion; Conspiracy to Solicit a Bribe; and False Statements to a Grand Jury.

    One additional distinction the Constitution requires is this: policy disputes are not supposed to be resolved by resort to impeachment. The Constitution gives Congress plenty of tools, short of impeachment, to oppose a president's "pernicious" policies. Elections decide policy; impeachments judge character. At the Constitutional Convention, Madison explicitly rejected "maladministration" as a ground for impeachment. He said "so vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during the pleasure of the Senate." (And thus, "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was adopted instead.)

    Other comments from the framers further demonstrate that the purposes of impeachment did not include policy disputes--but did include personal misconduct. When Hamilton described impeachable offenses as "political," he did not mean partisan. Rather, high crimes and misdemeanors are "political" in the sense that they "relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." Since policy matters are necessarily off the table, in a sense, that leaves only "personal misconduct, or as Edmund Randolph put it, "wilful mistakes of the heart."

    ***End Citations***

    I need go no further here with "High Crimes and Misdemeanors," since it is patently obvious that President Barack Obama, in his Administrative capacity concerning Projects Gunrunner / Fast and Furious, and in his "habitual disregard of the public interests" has certainly broken the public trust. So while Obama's actions--or lack of them--would appear to satisfy the intentionally broad term "high crimes and misdemeanors," the question remains as to whether he consented and conspired to violate U.S. Criminal Law. Here then we must decide what motive(s) compel his Attorney General to withhold evidence and stonewall the Congress about project Gunrunner / Fast and Furious. In this matter the Administration's abuse of Executive and or Regulatory powers may reasonably be argued to entail conspiracy--but in this case, something more hostile to the Constitution has occurred ...

    To "give aid and comfort" to diverse enemy combatants--Mexican drug cartels--who have been and are presently engaged in "levying (a border) war against them"--to wit: the several States." In this last context the willful actions of the Obama Administration would thus affect an offense against the nation, as defined in Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution for the United States:

    "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

    As I stated in my initial discussion ... When juxtaposed with the Obama Administration's oft expressed intent to diminish or abrogate the Second Amendment to the Constitution--and, more pointedly, in light of the Administration's demonstrated contempt for, and actions made to eviscerate other essential liberties expressly defined within the Bill of Rights--then the Administration's actions in Gunrunner / Fast and Furious are less a case of gross incompetence and more to do with Machiavellian intrigue.

    I believe that this Administration's brazen treachery is cause to bring impeachment proceedings against President Barack Obama--and the criminal prosecution of every individual or entity involved in Gunrunner / Fast and Furious. 'We the People' must end the corrupt despotic abuse of Executive power--less, by ignoring its continuation, we sacrifice the nation.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 11:35 PM
  • *

    P.S. Dawg,

    "Wanna take a bet" that, if the Obama Administration continues to obfuscate and stonewall Congress, then Obama will be tottering on the political abyss of impeachment? This is not going away, Mr. Dawg. A swath of carnage has occurred--and many Americans and Mexican civilians are dead--for reason of the "bet" Obama and his fellow travelers wage against the Constitution. This is not going to end well, old boy. Bet on it.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sat, Jun 25, 2011, at 11:56 PM
  • ann coulter, hahahahahahahaha.

    chunky, we are talking about profiling. If you cant keep up dont post

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 8:05 AM
  • bigdawg,

    Profiling works and brings criminals to justice. If we all lived by the Biblical standards, only then profiling would become obsolete. Now can I get a response for my question.

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 10:37 AM
  • *

    I love how bigdawg is trying to derail this whole thread by focusing on 'profiling' by using profiling.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 11:46 AM
  • *

    Dawg, et al ...

    Rather than acting the Fool, as usual, present your arguments against what I posted from Miss Coulter.

    Coulter's discussion of impeachment is set on settled law, condensed from historical jurisprudence, not the rants of ideological rhetoric. Do you so frivolously mock the intellects of Chief Justice Joseph Story and Sir Edmund Burke? Or is the problem that you truly have not the intelligence to understand, let alone challenge what is stated? Perhaps it is as I once stated of your character--you are a perpetual coward. I am becoming more convinced that you resort to cliché, mockery and slander because you have no reasoned arguments to make.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 1:42 PM
  • how about this responce

    ann coulter?

    I would laugh you to scorn, but then but then I might risk exhaling too much CO2 into the atmosphere, get dragged before some leftist thug's "star chamber," and be condemned for the crime of breathing ... Another one of those "freedoms" we Americans take for granted, and which the collectivists also seek to curtail "for our own good."

    Since thats how you respond to my links, thats how im gonna respond to yours.

    chuncky, these are white people claming to be christians. since profiling works then we need to be stopping and checking every white christian male.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 5:00 PM
  • *

    (lap)dawg,

    I think you may actually (accidentally?) be on to something. Abortion clinic security should use the profile of the terrorists that attack them. There is little reason for them to fear middle eastern Muslims. Airports should probably also profile those who have posed a threat to airplanes, and leave little girls and old women alone. Sound good to you?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 6:20 PM
  • *

    "how about this responce ... "Since thats how you respond to my links, thats how im gonna respond to yours."

    Well, Charles, right out of the starting gate, I shall deduct eight points for your poor spelling and grammar.

    I did not post a single web link. Therefore, it is illogical for you to claim a lack of response to that which I never posted. I did ask you to respond to the judicial philosophy that I provided for your consideration, and from which Miss Coulter cited. It is understood that the referenced legal philosophy did not originate with Coulter, as her own opinion; but rather the legal points are the sum of:

    1.)The English Common Law

    2.)The original intent of the Constitution

    2.)Early American jurisprudence

    3.)American political history

    Obviously, you are either unwilling or unable to respond to the above cited legal principles.

    Apparently, you lack the ability to make reasoned arguments. I ask for serious debate, and you answer with childish nonsense. That is your loss.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sun, Jun 26, 2011, at 9:49 PM
  • I was reading about the history of aircraft hijacking. seems we will be profiling alot of ethnicitys. For some odd reason you seem to think that terriorists play by some kind of rule book about not using women and children.

    If I wanted to read ann coulter I would buy her books. To quote her tells me alot about you. You post part of her book here and want to be taken seriously. Laughable.

    What the heck does "claim a lack of responce to that which I never posted" mean? a lack of responce that you did not post? You did respond and when I repeated what you responded with i guess you decdided to call that a non responce.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 3:19 AM
  • *

    (lap)dawg,

    What airline was highjacked by little girls and old women?

    -- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:32 AM
  • *

    Dear Charles,

    (Sigh) You sir, are an abject idiot.

    Quoting Coulter? No, Charles. I clearly stated that Coulter is quoting other legal sources on the history of, and limitations to, impeachment. I listed several examples for you. They are not Coulter's opinions. She is quoting others. Understand? Had I chosen to do so, I could have referenced the same text from the original sources, but this was a readily-available, condensed compilation. Unfortunately, your feeble intellect is unable to grasp the plain meaning of the English language, let alone basic legal principles. By the way, Charles, I have three years of legal studies under my belt, so to measure Coulter's accuracy on the topic. What are your qualifications--other than being a close-minded echo chamber for anti-freedom socialist propaganda?

    Your words: "Since thats how you respond to my links, thats how im gonna respond to yours."

    Your written sentence implies that I posted "links," to some other source, etc.; and, further, you imply that you would ignore them (to wit: give no response) as I ignored those which you provided. However, I posted no "links." Therefore, since I posted no "links," it is illogical for you state that you will not respond to non-posted links. For how can you respond to something I did not provide?!

    Charles, once again, you are caught in the net of your own twisted illogic, and, obviously, you cannot follow its incoherent babbling--any more than those of us here who are sane individuals (Buff Roam, Rural Citizen and yourself are, naturally, excluded from that category)

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 10:42 AM
  • *

    Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns have....

    The Obama apologists have too much pride at stake to risk saying that maybe he was wrong. Liberal ideology mandates that this type of gaf is a resume enhancer, and should never be literally met with consequences. After all, his intentions should excuse the results.

    -- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 11:15 AM
  • would terrioritst use women and children? at what age are they no longer little girls or old women? You seem to think that terriorsts have a war rule book they play by. I have news for you, then dont.

    bruce, with yout double talk you should run for office. to be honest with you I rarely read past the first few sentences before I begin to yawn, I then scan down to the last part. call me when he gets impeached. In the mean time keep making mountains out of mole hills and scaring people with non issues. three years of law studies, wow, that makes you correct on everything.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 12:09 PM
  • *

    Question being, bigdawg...if Holder and Obama initiated this affair, or took part in it; are they wrong? Should they be held accountable? Are their actions criminal?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 12:21 PM
  • *

    Well, Charles,

    Specifically, where have I written "doubletalk?" Cite the passage, and provide specific details as to why you believe it so. Otherwise, quit throwing up the subterfuge. So far, you have managed to avoid the topic of this discussion. So far, you have only made remarks about profiling and non-pertinent rhetoric removed from the central issue: Federal Government complicity in facilitating weapons to Mexican criminals, accomplished for the purpose of framing lawful American gun retailers and bringing derision upon lawful American gun owners. So, by your jaundiced judgment, government complacency in the murder of American and Mexican innocents is making "mountains out of mole hills"?

    Other than the liberal bootlickers, such as yourself, whom do you believe I am "scaring"? Only the guilty fear the truth.

    I refer to my law studies not to imply I am "correct" in all things--or even do I imply to possess knowledgeable in many things; but rather only to state that I am competent to understand the legal points presented. Those which you refuse to address, as they relate to the 'Gunrunner / Fast and Furious' scandal. Only an intellectually dishonest individual would interpret my words as you have. But then I see that this is your typical response to any who challenge your remarks: subterfuge, obfuscation, and distraction. You cannot adequately address the issues, so you change the subject.

    You, sir, are in a class by yourself. Carry on, old boy.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 12:53 PM
  • sorry bruce, started yawning again and skipped to the part where you say im in a class all by myself. thanks for that.

    were the guns that went to mexico purchased legally? Was the purpose of letting these guns go to drug lords in mexico to track the guns to find out more about how their system works? I believe the senate has conviened hearings on the issue and im sure if there was wrongdoing the guilty partys will be punished. I guess the difference between bruce and I is that he has made a leap of faith that this was done to try to put arms dealers and owners in a bad light. I prefer to see all the evidence.

    mickle, were they wrong? I dont feel im good enough or know enough about it judge right or wrong on this issue. It is not the first time we have given guns to questionable people and prolly wont be the last. I prefer to let the system do its thing and see how it shakes out before calling someone guilty like bruce. You would think a guy who has 3 years of study of law would know the innocent until proven guilty thing.

    on another note I do find it interesting that I am being called semi literate and an idiot yet these people continue to post in reguards to me. why would you bother posting to someone you think is dumb.

    lets review what he have

    obama sold guns to the mexican mafia

    bruce is a constitutional legal scholar who builds homes

    profiling everyone is not a waste of time

    terriorists play by a set of rules that says old women and children cant strap on a suicide vest.

    bruce knows who is guilty and is going to bring the entire system crashing down from his den in stratton.

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 6:01 PM
  • *

    Charles, please, shut your mouth and READ ALL of the FACTS I previously posted as to what is KNOWN so far. The US government FORCED these transactions, and did so WITHOUT INFORMING THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT. The BATFE did not even bother to inform their attaché in Mexico of the operation! The ATF has NO resources in Mexico, few Spanish-speaking agents, and is without jurisdiction in Mexico.

    THEREFORE, there was NO WAY TO TRACK THESE GUNS ONCE THEY CROSSED THE BORDER -- AND THE GOVERNMENT KNEW THIS BEFOREHAND! The U.S. government compelled American gun retailers to sell these weapons, even though the retailers protested because they knew these buyers were likely "straw-man" purchasers. The government did not care--even while knowing that THEY COULD NOT TRACK THE WEAPONS! At the same time the government then attempted to PROSECUTE the very retailers they were COMPELLING to sell the guns--while simultaneously drumming up public opinion against the very American gun retailers that were cooperating with the BATFE!

    DO YOU GET THE POINT NOW? IT WAS A SET-UP FROM THE BEGINNING. IT WAS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. IT WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A PREMISE TO VALIDATE MORE RESTRICTIVE LAWS ON AMERICAN GUN OWNERS. Are you naive, dense, or are you just plain stupid?

    As for the rest of your commentary, it is not worth the time to respond.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 6:58 PM
  • so, anyhow, I prefer to wait until all the facts come out then make a decision. DO YOU GET THE POINT NOW? are you nave dense or just plain stupid? Ill give you this you constitutional lawyer you, you make a great conspiracy theory. Is there a problem with waiting for the hearings to conclude then punishing those responsible if wrong doing was done, or should we just assume guilt and string them all up now?

    great job bruce, you singlehandedly cracked the case from your laptop in stratton. watch out obama and holder.

    and to think, for years I thought it took a vote from our elected representitaves to get a law passed when all we really had to do was sell guns to mexican drug dealers. with the gun trasactions over i assume that guns are now illegal, right bruce?

    ann coulter, that one still cracks me up

    -- Posted by president obama on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 7:56 PM
  • *

    Charles, I never claimed to be a lawyer. I never claimed to be a Constitutional scholar, or any thing even remotely close. I stated that I have the competence to read and understand legal parlance and reasoning. Do not put words in my mouth.

    I never held the illusion that I was "cracking the case" either, dear boy--except to provide the revealed facts on a public forum.

    "I prefer to wait until all the facts come out then make a decision."

    Please spare the dripping insincerity. You, sir, are by far the most disingenuous hypocrite that has ever touched a keyboard.

    Charles you could walk in on a rape in progress, and find cause to dispute or dismiss the facts before you ... even after the assailant boasted of his intent and actions.

    I am absolutely convinced that had this operation been conducted by a Republican Administration, you, Charles, would demand anything but a fair hearing. So blow smoke up some other individual's hind quarters.

    As for getting to the truth of the matter... well, not if AG Eric Holder and the Obama Administration have their way:

    Sunday, 26 June 2011 17:07 Congressman Randy Forbes

    http://www.rightsidenews.com/2011062613911/editorial/us-opinion-and-editorial/ra...

    "... Attorney General Eric Holder was unwilling to provide answers about who at the Department of Justice authorized or knew about Operation Fast and Furious.

    "... In a hearing before the same committee with testimony from ATF agents, members of Congress learned that the operation was not only done in a conscious decision by senior officials at the ATF, but that it was intentionally and enthusiastically orchestrated.

    "Agents testified ... that the supervisor of the operation was "jovial ... just delighted about" walked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico.

    "ATF agents have shared chilling accounts of being ordered to stand down, allowing criminals to walk away with guns headed for Mexican drug cartels.

    Emails released ... revealed the acting director of the program even arranged to watch live feeds from ATF cameras in gun stores being used by the program while sitting at his desk.

    ... [T]he ATF is the government entity charged with preventing the illegal transfer of weapons to Mexico.

    " ... Operation Fast and Furious has already led to deaths that would not have occurred if the DOJ had not authorized such a miscalculated and dangerous operation. ..."

    " ... [T]he Department of Justice has said the purpose of the investigation was to dismantle a transnational organization believed to be responsible for trafficking weapons into Mexico.

    *** "However, the ATF was not working with Mexican officials." ***

    The operation was condemned by Mexican lawmakers after it came to light, calling it a "grave violation of international rights."

    "The Department of Justice has yet to provide answers as to why the government allowed guns to be trafficked into Mexico as part of a program designed to stop guns from being trafficked into Mexico."

    In March, I joined with Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith and other members of the Committee in writing a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder asking for answers to questions surrounding the operation, including information on who and on what authority the program was approved, whether the program is still active, and whether the ATF views the program as a success. The stonewalled response we received provided little to no details. It wasn't until agents agreed to testify at last week's hearing that Members of Congress began to learn more details."

    So, Charles, we do not know if the program is "over." Moreover, had this insanity not been exposed, then the Obama Administration, with its DOJ and willing dupes of the media, would have invented sufficient evidence to obtain the desired outcome: greatly increased restrictions on legal firearms ownership in the U.S.

    But Charlie, you keep believing those liberal fairy tales, and writing your nonsensical garbage, which you think to be reasoned responses. Those having an ounce of integrity will continue to laugh you to scorn. As I stated previous, Charles, you are incorrigible.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:44 PM
  • *

    Oh, by the way, Charles... One other important point to refute your foolish assertions:

    This Administration has demonstrated nothing but contempt for the "law" and legislative process.

    Obama and his clones are quite content to usurp congressional oversight and deliberation, by way of using administrative-regulatory rulings to obtain that which they cannot secure through the Legislative branch.

    There is no "checks and balances" with this pack of wolves, Charlie. There is only a dogged determination to do whatever they will, whenever they will, and to whomever they will. To wit; we are now fast descending into the pit of oligarchy or dictatorship.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Mon, Jun 27, 2011, at 8:53 PM
  • *

    Career Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives agent John Dodson told Rep. Darrell Issa's House Oversight Committee:

    Supervisor of the operation, David Voth, was "jovial, if not, not giddy but just delighted about" marked guns showing up at crime scenes in Mexico. "Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals -- this was the plan," Dodson testified to the panel. "It was so mandated."

    Why was the BATFE Supervisor Jovial? Delighted?

    Well, because all was going "as planned" until two AK-47s that were recovered at the murder scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry turned out to have been bought through Operation Fast and Furious.

    ATF agent Olindo James Casa said that "on several occasions I personally requested to interdict or seize firearms, but I was always ordered to stand down and not to seize the firearms."

    The "gun-tracking" operations stopped at the border. Now Charles, if the purpose of the operation was to capture gun traffickers and their drug-lord bosses, then why would the BATFE stop tracking the firearms once they crossed the Border into Mexico? More pointedly, why was the Mexican government kept in the dark? If the BATFE was not tracking the weapons, and the Mexican authorities had no idea that the BATFE was sending these weapons into Mexico, then how could the purpose of the operation be claimed as the tracking of weapons so to capture gun traffickers and their drug-lord bosses?

    How did the BATFE plan to "track" these weapons once they crossed the border, or when they left the gun shops for that matter? Did they have GPS transmitters on the weapons? Really, and those devices were powered how? Batteries? Oh, wait ... I know--a BATFE agent was assigned to "tail" each one of over 1700 weapons! This operation makes no sense at all from an interdiction perspective.

    However, this operation makes total sense if the purpose was to perpetuate, in the interests of pursuing the Obama Administration's gun-control agenda, "the 90 percent lie" that I previously wrote of.

    Charles, perhaps this is what Obama meant when he said that gun control was being promoted "under the radar." That would indicate he had knowledge of the operation and did not order it stopped.

    That is impeachment material--and a criminal act.

    Further, there are better sources for arms. Is a high-rolling drug kingpin, sitting in his million-dollar armored Humvee, having just inspected a DC-10 packed with tons of cocaine, going to tell his henchmen "Eh, Manuel, cross the border to America ... Go to Gringo Gun store and get me an AK-47, I understand he no like government paperwork"? Not while he can deal directly with a Russian weapons smuggler, who will furnish him with just about anything imaginable in the realm of firearms.

    Smaller narc operators would opt for easily-obtained full-auto arms--not the semi-auto-only options which the BATFE allowed to "walk."

    "Operation Gunrunner" was designed to stop the arms before they crossed the border; however, this Administration's "Fast and Furious" modification allowed weapons to cross into Mexico and disappear. There is NO logic there. None. Zippo! (Other than perhaps the rationale to create a convenient reason to subject the United States to the UN's Small Arms Treaty.)

    This is a classic example of the Hegelian Dialectic.

    1. Government wants to achieve a goal that is unacceptable to the people.

    2. Government creates a problem that is opposite to its desired unacceptable goal.

    3. The people, who are suffering because of the government created problem, then beg the government to institute the formerly unacceptable goals to solve the problem.

    Therefor:

    1. Government wants gun control. This is unacceptable to the people.

    2. The government then puts guns illegally into the hands of criminal gangs. This is exactly opposite of their unacceptable goal of gun control.

    3. The people suffer because of this and beg (or at least acquiesce) to the previously unacceptable gun control measures to solve the problem.

    This is how socialists and communists operate.

    Oh, but we are supposed to believe that Attorney General Eric Holder was "outside the loop!" We are supposed to accept that the BATFE acted solely on its own authority to violate the laws and sovereignty of another nation. We are further to believe that even if Holder was aware, he acted without Obama's approval! Now come on, Charles! Do you really think that was the case?

    BTW, are you aware that from 1994 to 2002 Barack Obama was a Director of the Joyce Foundation--a organization dedicated to, among other "progressive" pursuits, eroding our Second Amendment rights?

    Here, Charles... research this:

    The "Conspiracy Against Rights" Law, Title 18, Chapter 13, Section 241.

    Any Two or More Persons - who conspire to deprive a citizen of a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution [2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights], may be held personally responsible for damages. If these public officials conspire to injure, oppress, threaten or intimidate ANY PERSON in ANY STATE, Territory or District in the free exercise of any Right secured to him by the Constitution of the United States, that public servant(s) can be found guilty, and can be punished by up to 10 years in jail.

    Not enough time behind bars for this action, in my opinion!

    Now, for the really "funny" version of this story, which will blow all your "wait for the investigation to be over" right out of the water. Pay especially close attention to the last several seconds of this video... They speak volumes about the DOJ and AG Eric Holder--and this is from people on YOUR side of the political spectrum, Charles:

    http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/the-fast-and-the-furious---me...

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:02 AM
  • *

    One final thought on this scandal ...

    The Fast and Furious investigat­ion must not stop with the resignatio­n of Kenneth Melson, acting director of the BATFE.

    Other Federal agencies--the DEA, ICE and Border Patrol--were involved. None of those agencies report to Kenneth Melson. Authorizat­ion for the involvemen­t of those other agencies came from higher up.

    The BATFE and DEA report to Eric Holder, and since the operation crossed his agencies, he was involved.

    Border Patrol and ICE report to Janet Napolitano, and since the operation crossed her agencies, she was involved.

    Since the operation crossed department­s--Homeland Security and Justice--and those department­s report to Obama, he too had to have been involved.

    This was an orchestrated conspiracy, and I will guarantee all that crap goes all the way up the chain of command.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:14 AM
  • sorry old boy, you had me yawning early on this one, didnt make it past the first few words. Im just glad you cracked the case.

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 7:23 AM
  • *

    "mickle, were they wrong? I dont feel im good enough or know enough about it judge right or wrong on this issue. It is not the first time we have given guns to questionable people and prolly wont be the last. I prefer to let the system do its thing and see how it shakes out before calling someone guilty like bruce."

    Okay...so in the future, you will defer all judgement against the goings-on of elected officials until A: All the facts are in, B: CNN tells you what to think, C: You experience a knee-jerk reaction or D: Both B&C.

    Had this been Bush and Cheney - I'm sure we all know you would have burned them in effigy before knowing fact one. The point is: We all know it, but are really wondering if you will admit it.

    You wanted to know that the facts are the facts - okay - please cite for me the last time we sold arms to drug dealers for the purpose of tracking.

    (toe-tapping in anticipation)

    -- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 10:18 AM
  • had this been bush cheney you would have defended them to the end of time. Just like bruce is burning obama in effigy now.

    We have sold arms to several of questionable groups in the past. We are the worlds largerst exporter of arms and some of those arms go to groups with shady pasts. The war of drugs is an epic failure. So, should we keep doing the same thing we have been to combat the problem and expect different results? I personally dont think it was a very good plan but I guess they are desperate to stop the flow of guns and drugs across the border.

    I do find it interesting how bruce would know that the US has no assets in place in mexico. He must have hacked into the nsa, fbi or some other black ops computer to get that information. Or, perhaps bruce, along with being a constitutional lawyer and home builder is involved with top seceret wet work.

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 12:24 PM
  • "sorry old boy, you had me yawning early on this one, didnt make it past the first few words. Im just glad you cracked the case."

    Ditto, but I am glad we have Biff to keep an eye out for fringe conspiracy theories. Meanwhile, back to the real world.

    -- Posted by BuffRoam on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 1:14 PM
  • Yes ol' brucey boy is after blood on this one.

    Smells a lot like something that years ago was known as Iran/Contra, but I'm sure THAT was different.

    -- Posted by goarmy67 on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 7:05 PM
  • *

    A tepid attempt at deflecting by gauging what I would do if the tables be turned, albeit politically. Perhaps you don't understand the depth of my true loyalty.

    And then a very vague reference to claiming America as the worlds largest arms exporter...but no facts to back it up.

    I asked when we had prior sold arms to drug dealers for the purpose of tracking them...no facts, no references, but conjecture without facts; something you just claimed you wouldn't do.

    Once again - can you back up your statements?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Tue, Jun 28, 2011, at 9:17 PM
  • can you point out where I said the united states has sold arms to drug trafficers for the purpose of tracking? are there any more qualifiers to the question? a simple google search will tell you who the largerst exporter of arms is. last time I posted links on this thread I was told I was laughable and stupid. Then the guy who says that goes on to quote ann coulter, who is truley funny. If a simple google search is too much for you then I would be happy to post the links.

    How about this question for you. Do you really think the united states has not sold a single weapon that went into the hands of a group with a shady past? are you that naive?

    -- Posted by president obama on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 7:40 AM
  • So bigdawg, what has Ann Coulter said that is wrong?

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Wed, Jun 29, 2011, at 8:53 PM
  • -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 7:42 AM
  • *

    bigdawg - naivete? One endearing trait to that condition is that it can be corrected by living and learning. I'll take that over willful ignorance, or hiding one's head in the sand.

    I'm aware of the United States selling arms. I'm also aware that in most instances, those arms are being sold to allies of the U.S. You made the statement that the U.S. has sold arms to questionable people. Since the topic is the Obama administration sending arms to drug cartels in Mexico; which were then used on Mexican and American citizens; I guess I assumed that you had prior knowledge of some other time that the U.S. had engaged in this behavior. Obviously, you have no knowledge of such. I suppose that answers my question.

    To answer your question: I'm sure that the U.S. has supported groups that they would optimally not elect to support; but did so for the sake of trying to stave off another group deemed even less likeable. I've never engaged in foreign policy - but I would guess that it is sometimes not necessarily a win/win situation; but merely a choice between the lesser of two evils.

    Are you concerned at all that the Obama administration may have been party to the murder of American and Mexican citizens? This is not an act of war, mind you. This would fall under the category of forcing a response to illicit a specific desired outcome.

    What say you?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 8:32 AM
  • My old pappy used to say, never engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 12:16 PM
  • *

    I wish the wisdom of your pappy would rub off'n me speak-e-z....

    -- Posted by Mickel on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 1:02 PM
  • He also said something like, "never argue with an idiot, he will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience."

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 3:16 PM
  • I have no knowledge of our government selling arms to mexican drug trafficers for the purpose of tracking them. If I had such knowledge wouldent it be reasonable to assume that I WOULD HAVE SAID THAT?

    You should read and not assume.

    that is all

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 7:36 PM
  • bigdawg,.

    Just finished reading the out of context liberal hit piece you referenced, I present you the truth;

    http://lyingliar.com/?p=40

    -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Thu, Jun 30, 2011, at 7:47 PM
  • since you are familiar with out of context writings i guess you now recognize dear ole ann for what she is.

    that is all

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 7:28 AM
  • well dont chunky, next time I reference Al Franken you can bring that link out.

    http://slannder.homestead.com/files/slanndermain.html

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 7:31 AM
  • It may be a bad reason to jump in, but I find it HILARIOUS that bigdawg is telling people to read when he himself claims to not fully read other people's posts. Simply amazing. Can't wait to see how he'll take the time to bash Bruce in his response.

    -- Posted by bjo on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 9:37 AM
  • really? I find it HILARIOUS that he thinks I said something that I clearley didnt say. have you read bruce's post, if you have then you know they are yawners. Blame bruce.

    Did I say "bruce said this" when he did not say it?

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 12:27 PM
  • How do you spell "Aitoldjyasoe"?

    -- Posted by speak-e-z on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 3:44 PM
  • why are you responding to an idiot speak? guess you cannot stay away. spelling comments is the best you got? good job

    -- Posted by president obama on Fri, Jul 1, 2011, at 5:09 PM
  • *

    Personally, I find it amusing that the multiple posters seem to really be getting under ole bigdawgs skin. :) I look forward to more of his predictable responses.

    -- Posted by Sir Didymus on Sat, Jul 2, 2011, at 8:36 AM
  • *

    I'm still wondering if bigdawg is bothered by Obama and Holder arranging for weapons to be delivered to drug dealers who then murdered Mexican and American citizens....

    Should they be held accountable?

    -- Posted by Mickel on Sun, Jul 3, 2011, at 1:28 PM
  • personally, I find it amusing that the multiple posters who think im semi-literate and stupid continue to respond to me.

    yeah mickel, cause if obama and holder had not sold those guns to the mexican mafia they would have had to use baseball bats to kill people.

    -- Posted by president obama on Thu, Jul 7, 2011, at 8:47 PM
  • *

    I think we have a "smoking gun" here.

    http://patdollard.com/2011/07/obama-orders-launched-fast-and-furious/

    As I recall, the first attempt at spin made by Dawg and his fellow travelers, was to state that no proof existed of Obama's involvement--or knowledge--of what the BATFE's Gunrunner / Fast and Furious operations in Mexico.

    Note the above linked video is shot at the WHITE HOUSE. OOOPS!

    Note also that while the speaker declares representatives of the DEA to be in Mexico, he NEVER states that the BATFE has agents in Mexico.

    This is not going away. While the mainstream media is keeping this story off the radar, not so for those who have the real power to prematurely end this Administration's corrupt rule.

    Dawg, if you ever demonstrate an ability to cogently and concisely argue the facts, I believe then you might be taken seriously... but I shall not bet on that horse ever crossing the finish line.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 8:59 PM
  • *

    LIAR, LIAR, PANTS ON FIRE!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lh37v_NkmM4&feature=player_embedded

    Now go back and watch the previous video SHOT AT THE WHITE HOUSE!

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 9:21 PM
  • *

    BUSTED!

    AG Holder discussed "Project Gun Runner" in April 2009 in Mexico.

    DOJ ^ | April 2, 2009 | Eric Holder

    Attorney General Eric Holder at the Mexico/United States Arms Trafficking Conference CUERNAVACA, MEXICO ~ Thursday, April 2, 2009

    Remarks as prepared for delivery.

    First, let me express my thanks to Attorney General Medina Mora and Secretary of Government Gomez Mont for making this conference possible.

    This is my first trip to another country as Attorney General. I wanted to come to Mexico to deliver a single message: We stand shoulder-to-shoulder with you in this fight against the narcotics cartels. The United States shares responsibility for this problem and we will take responsibility by joining our Mexican counterparts in every step of this fight.

    And, together, we will win -- thanks in large part to the courage of my Mexican colleagues here today, who are on the front lines every day, and with whom I am proud to collaborate.

    The topic that has been addressed over the past two days could not be more important -- the development of an arms trafficking prosecution and enforcement strategy on both sides of the border.

    I would like to thank the Mexican and U.S. experts who have worked so hard on this issue. On our side, Secretary Napolitano and I are committed to putting the resources in place to increase our attack on arms trafficking into Mexico.

    Last week, our administration launched a major new effort to break the backs of the cartels. My department is committing 100 new ATF personnel to the Southwest border in the next 100 days to supplement our ongoing Project Gunrunner, DEA is adding 16 new positions on the border, as well as mobile enforcement teams, and the FBI is creating a new intelligence group focusing on kidnapping and extortion. DHS is making similar commitments, as Secretary Napolitano will detail.

    [OH, but, according to Obama and company, he and Holder knew NOTHING about this operation!]

    But as today's conference has emphasized, the problem of arms trafficking will not be stopped at the border alone. Rather, as our experts emphasized, this is a problem that must be met as part of a comprehensive attack against the cartels -- an attack in depth, on both sides of the border, that focuses on the leadership and assets of the cartel. This is the type of full-bore, prosecution-driven approach that the U.S. Department of Justice took to dismantle La Cosa Nostra -- once the most powerful organized crime group operating in the United States. With partners like those we have here today, I am confident that together, we will defeat these narcotics cartels in exactly the same way. I am proud to stand with you, and to join you in this fight. Thank you again for inviting me here.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 9:25 PM
  • *

    As I stated this story is not going to go away ... OK, you want proof ... Here is your proof:

    Breaking News: Source claims ATF's Tampa SAC walked guns to Honduras

    http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/breaking-news-source-claims-atf-s...

    ATF Director Says Holder Obstructing 'Fast and Furious' Probe

    http://nation.foxnews.com/eric-holder/2011/07/06/atf-director-says-holder-obstru...

    BATF Head Melson Implicates DOJ In Surprise July 4th Testimony

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/07/batf_head_melson_implicates_doj_in_surpri...

    43 Weapons in Phoenix Traffic Stop Linked to ATF's 'Fast and Furious' (video)

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mSyBqBLX0I

    Operation Gunrunner was funded by the 2009 Stimulus Package

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2745149/posts

    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_070811/content/01125114.guest.html

    White House Mum on When Obama Learned of DOJ's Gun-Running Scheme

    http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/white-house-mum-when-obama-became-aware

    Which Was Worse: Watergate or Operation 'Fast and Furious'?

    http://biggovernment.com/awrhawkins/2011/07/07/which-was-worse-watergate-or-oper...

    ATF Director Testifies on Operation Targeting Gun Smugglers

    http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=35844

    Gunwalker: The ATF's Kenneth Melson Blows the Whistle on the Justice Department

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-the-atf%E2%80%99s-kenneth-melson-blows-th...

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-whistleblower-atf-director-horribly-irres...

    DOJ Inspector General Can't Be Trusted to Investigate Gunwalker -- Will Barack Obama dare to appoint an independent prosecutor?

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/doj-inspector-general-cant-be-trusted-to-investigat...

    Blood On Their Hands: Giving Guns to Criminals Was the Plan All Along

    http://townhall.com/columnists/katiepavlich/2011/06/15/blood_on_their_hands_givi...

    GUNWALKER: LAYING IT ALL OUT

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/07/breaking-news-source-claims-a...

    Interview Provides Insight Into Zeta Cartel(Fast & Furious)

    http://www.krgv.com/mostpopular/story/Interview-Provides-Insight-Into-Zeta-Carte...

    Fast-And-Furious-Gate (Cont'd)

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/577631/201107071849/Fast-And-Fu...

    A.T.F. Official Defends Role in Criticized Gun Operation

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/07/us/politics/07guns.html

    Honduras? Why would ATF walk guns to Honduras?

    http://sipseystreetirregulars.blogspot.com/2011/07/honduras-why-would-atf-walk-g...

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Fri, Jul 8, 2011, at 9:54 PM
  • way to go bruce, you have offically broken case wide open. Now you can just sit back and watch the whole corrupt system come crashing down.

    Im flabbergasted that my own government tried to murder and enlsave me.

    -- Posted by president obama on Sat, Jul 9, 2011, at 5:32 AM
  • *

    Tying up some loose ends... Now, you all had better take this serious--that goes for you too, Dawg:

    http://barnhardt.biz/

    Pre-emptively Tying Things Together

    Posted by Ann Barnhardt - July 10, AD 2011 7:46 PM MST

    There is one more loose end that needs to be tied together regarding Gunwalker. In the last 2 1/2 months I have heard from very credible sources, who are unconnected, the same thing repeatedly - so frequently that it is truly frightening.

    There have been numerous, and I mean NUMEROUS, muslim plots to wage Mumbai-style attacks against churches and synagogues that have been foiled and thwarted in the U.S. within the last several years. By "Mumbai-style" I mean muslims walking into churches heavily armed with AK-47s and open-firing on the congregation. This is what they did in Mumbai, India, except that they focused on stations, hospitals, hotels and other public areas. In Mumbai, there were ten discrete attack locations carried out simultaneously. 164 people were killed with 308 wounded. Churches and synagogues have people much more tightly packed than the hotels, hospitals and offices targeted in Mumbai.

    A few weeks ago, the "American Al Qaeda", Adam Gadahn, released a video calling and urging muslims in the U.S. to carry out attacks against "their religion and sacred places".

    What does this have to do with Gunwalker? Well, in case you have been under a rock for the last ten years, muslim terror outifts (yes, that is redundant) such as Hamas and Hizbullah are actively coordinating with the Mexican narco-terror gangs in Mexico, and Hamas and Hizbullah already have a huge physical presence in Mexico and are entering the United States across the Mexican border. Border agents report finding muslim and arabic paraphernalia routinely on the "coyote trails" on the Southwest border. Additionally, we have seen the Mexican narco-terror gangs start to use such tactics as beheadings with significantly increased frequency over the past several years. This implies a muslim cultural influence. Finally, we have the fact of Central and South American Marxists embracing and actively allying themselves with muslim states, led by Hugo Chavez' strong alliance with Iran. Did you know that Iran has TROOPS stationed in Venezuela, and has promised to arm Chavez, or at least park a nuclear device in Venezuela as soon as possible?

    Read it and weep.

    So, the Obama-Clinton criminal machine has been sending thousands - and probably tens of thousands - of AK-platform weapons not only into the hands of the narco-terror gangs in Mexico and Central America, but also into the hands of their muslim allies who have been and will continue to plot Mumbai-style attacks against the U.S. It is a miracle - and that is exactly the word that was used to describe it to me: "MIRACLE" - that diligent Americans have managed to thwart every one of these musloid attacks so far. But guys, it is just a matter of time. It will happen. Musloids will walk into a church somewhere in suburban America, walk uncontested through the narthex and into the sanctuary or auditorium. They will then open fire on the neatly arranged and tightly packed congregants, every one of whom is sitting with their back to the door, with AK-47s that very well could have been supplied by Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and Eric Holder via Operation Fast and Furious, and all of the other gun walking programs instituted nationwide.

    When Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot earlier this year in Arizona, the entire ATF and DOJ was in a state of blind panic because they thought that Giffords had been shot in a hit by the Mexican narco-terror gangs who had threatened her for some work she was doing on the border issue. But beyond that, the core cause of their panic was the fact that they knew it was possible that Giffords had been shot with a Gunwalker weapon. As it turned out, the gunman was a severely mentally ill American who was a fan of Marx and Hitler. But the panic by the ATF was certainly warranted, and it will be warranted again when the first muslim Mumbai-style attack takes place on U.S. soil. The odds are very high that the weapons used will have been supplied by Obama, Clinton and Holder.

    Now, an action item. If you go to church, you need to schedule a meeting with your priest/pastor/rabbi/whatever and explain this situation to them. If they make the predictable argument that "guns in church means the terrorists win", you need to remind them that the terrorists aren't keeping score by counting guns. They are keeping score by counting DEAD BODIES. DEAD MEN, WOMEN and CHILDREN are the metric.

    Every church in North America should have armed men on the door during all major services. Anyone who concealed carries should carry to church without hesitation. There is NOTHING sinful or immoral about being armed in a church. NOTHING. Remember, the apostles wore their sidearms to the Last Supper. Sidearms have been carried and worn in churches since time immemorial. The muslims are coming. And there will be casualties. But, by God, we need to be returning fire and defending our families and children when it happens. Dear God, I hope it never does happen - but given that muslims are openly declaring their plans and the Obama-Clinton machine is arming them to the teeth and holding open the door for them, we MUST be ready to defend ourselves.

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 10:27 PM
  • *

    Add perjury to the list...

    http://www.salem-news.com/articles/july092011/holder-atf-death-tk.php

    EXCERPT

    Jul-09-2011 20:59

    Holder Lied: DOJ News Release Shows Obama Admin Approved ATF Mexico Weapons Smuggling

    Tim King Salem-News.com

    Eric Holder gave false info. to a Congressional Committee last May about ATF operations tied to the deaths of two U.S. Agents; we have the proof.

    Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and Special Agent Jaime Zapata from ICE

    (SALEM, Ore.) - New information indicates that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder's actions are squarely behind the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms) operation known as "Fast and Furious", which orchestrated the delivery of almost 2,000 weapons to Mexican drug cartels.

    Holder openly proclaimed his connection to the operation in April 2009 during a publicized speech in Mexico, then told a Congressional Committee in May 2011, "I probably heard of Fast and Furious the first time in the last few weeks."

    The ATF weapons smuggling ring involved the arrest of several government officials with the city of Columbus, New Mexico including the mayor and police chief, but that is all.

    They were apparently known from the beginning and the weapons deals with 'straw buyers' were videotaped. Smuggled U.S. weapons from this operation, described as mostly semi automatic versions of military weapons like the AK-47, were found to be used in the shooting deaths of two U.S. federal agents.

    The new information, which is not really new at all, proves that Holder had to be aware of the U.S. government weapons smuggling operation, planned and implemented by federal agents from ATF, which he denied to Government Reform Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-CA) less than two months ago, as detailed below. ...

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Sun, Jul 10, 2011, at 11:13 PM
  • so they arrested several government officials, that is good news.

    dont they just have to cite "excutive privlidge" so they dont have to answer questions?

    -- Posted by president obama on Tue, Jul 12, 2011, at 12:37 PM
  • *

    I was not aware that "executive privilege" is invokable under criminal law. Is that not what President Richard Nixon tried to do? This is far worse than the attempted coverup of a petty burglary.

    American and Mexican citizens are dead as a result of these actions. Twp federal agents are dead, as a result of these actions.

    We have repeated criminal violation of state and federal firearms statutes, multiple counts of manslaughter, perjury, contempt of Congress, obstruction. That is just for starters.

    As I stated previous, this investigation is not going away. It is clear that this goes to the top--or very near the top; for to accept any claim that the BATFE and several federal agencies coordinated this affair on their own, and without direction from above, is to suspend disbelief.

    If such reckless administration is true, then Eric Holder needs to be removed from office for reason of incompetence; and still he would be responsible and accountable for the actions of his inferiors.

    However, I sincerely doubt that the Attorney General of the United States is now or ever was ignorant of the facts. Neither is there credibility in the claim that Holder acted on his own without direction from above. For if such action were so, then what does that tell of our supposed commander and chief?

    No matter how one may spin this scandal, it comes down to malfeasance in public office--at best.

    This scandal will be Obama's "Watergate."

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 8:38 PM
  • *

    http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/578184/201107131822/Fast-And-Fu...

    Fast And Furious Scandal: A Watergate For Obama?

    Border: A 2-year-old video shows a high Justice official saying "the president has directed us," including the attorney general, to speed up Project Gunrunner and the offshoot that got a border agent killed. ...

    [T]he March 24, 2009, video may rival the tape that turned a "third-rate burglary" into a presidential resignation. No one died at Watergate. Agent Brian Terry lost his life in the administration's obsessive pursuit of gun control.

    ... Immigration Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata was also killed in a separate incident by a weapon allowed to "walk" into Mexico from the U.S. as part of the administration's third-rate alleged attempt to track and catch gun traffickers.

    The video shows Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, who would resign nine months later after less than a year's service, telling reporters at a Department of Justice briefing of major policy initiatives to fight the Mexican drug cartels.

    "The president has directed us to take action to fight these cartels," Ogden begins, "and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new and aggressive steps as part of the administration's comprehensive plan." ...

    EXCERPT

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 9:03 PM
  • *

    Did Fast & Furious violate the Arms Export Control Act?

    http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2011/07/did_fast_furiou.php

    7/12 David Hardy

    First, the Arms Export Control Act, 22 USC §2778.. It authorizes the President to define defense articles and regulate their export. In so doing, he must consider the possibility that export could "support international terrorism, increase the possibility of outbreak or escalation of conflict..."

    Those defense articles may not be exported without a permit, issued by the Secretary of State ( Department of State guidelines here), "except that no license shall be required for exports or imports made by or for an agency of the United States Government

    (A) for official use by a department or agency of the United States Government, or

    (B) for carrying out any foreign assistance or sales program authorized by law and subject to the control of the President by other means."

    The firearms involved here were not being exported for official use by an agency, nor as part of foreign aid. This a lot narrower than the GCA exception for acts by a government agency, and for good reason: the purpose of this statute is to control executive agency actions. No gun running to foreign governments or persons without a paper trail (and in cases of large transactions, a prior request for Congressional approval).

    Any person who willfully violates these provisions "shall upon conviction be fined for each violation not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

    There have been some reports of agents having directly transferred firearms to drug cartel buyers, in order to boost their "street creds." That'd clearly be a violation. In other situations, the person who actually exported the firearms would be in clear violation. But what of those government supervisors who allowed the arms to flow -- especially the cases where a protesting FFL was told to sell the guns anyway?

    18 U.S. Code §2 provides:

    "§ 2. Principals

    (a) Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.

    (b) Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him or another would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principal."

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 9:09 PM
  • *

    "Operation Fast and Furious: Designed to Promote Gun Control." -- Manufacturing evidence to achieve a political result.

    "Internal ATF emails seem to suggest that ATF agents were counseled to highlight a link between criminals and certain semi-automatic weapons in order to bolster a case for a rule like the one the DOJ announced yesterday [Monday]."

    Townhall has obtained the email which states:

    "Can you see if these guns were all purchased from the same FfL and at one time. We are looking at anecdotal cases to support a demand letter on long gun multiple sales. Thanks Mark R. Chait Assistant Director Field Operations."

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PF-7aYe5wHU/Th4WfT5EvpI/AAAAAAAAI1Y/bJ7jH1ai1JY/s1600/...

    Five key accusations against ATF and DOJ made by ATF whistle blowers and other sources within FedGov:

    1. That they instructed U.S. gun dealers to proceed with questionable and illegal sales of firearms to suspected gunrunners.

    2. That they allowed, or assisted guns crossing the border into Mexico to "boost the numbers" of American civilian market firearms seized in Mexico, thereby to provide justification for firearm restrictions on American citizens, and more power and money for ATF.

    3. That they intentionally kept Mexican authorities in the dark about the operation, even over objections of their own agents.

    4. That weapons the ATF let "walk" to Mexico were involved in the deaths of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry and ICE agent Jaime Zapata, as well as at least hundreds of Mexican citizens.

    5. That at least since the death of Brian Terry on 14 December, the Obama administration is engaged in a cover-up of the facts behind the "Gunwalker Scandal."

    -- Posted by Bruce Desautels on Wed, Jul 13, 2011, at 9:40 PM
  • -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Wed, Oct 5, 2011, at 5:16 PM
  • -- Posted by Hugh Jassle on Sun, Oct 9, 2011, at 7:46 PM
Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: