Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
October 01, 2014, 01:00:45 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
82682 Posts in 2251 Topics by 1062 Members
Latest Member: seawolfpack5
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 32 Print
Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (Gun rights stuff )  (Read 237280 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #750 on: October 29, 2011, 01:30:01 PM »

PC:  

Your reasoning is sound and protects us from sliding down a slippery slope to places to which we do not want to go.  That said, please forgive the intrusion of this ridiculous hypothetical  grin

The Aztec religion worshipped the Sun God.  As part of that religion they waged war, captured prisoners, and sacrificed them to the Sun God by cutting out their still beating hearts.  Question presented:  Could the CCW instructor deny them instruction on the basis of their religion?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #751 on: October 29, 2011, 01:40:56 PM »

Woof,
  If they were tried and convicted for a crime committed by them exercising their religious belief yes, but just because they belonged to such a religion doesn't mean they are automatically guilty of doing anything that would prevent them from receiving training under State law. I'll add that morally, even if they got up right from the class and killed a hundred people in front of the building to please the Sun God, the onus of both legal and moral responisbiliy is on them, not the teacher of the class or even the State. Hopefully one of their class mates, not of their religion, would blow their f'in heads off.
                    P.C.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 01:52:16 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #752 on: October 29, 2011, 02:17:09 PM »

Goodness, I feel like I am back in law school!  cheesy

"I'll add that morally, even if they got up right from the class and killed a hundred people in front of the building to please the Sun God, the onus , , , of moral responsibility is on them, not the teacher, , ,."

Of course it is on them, but morally and spiritually speaking, it is not clear to me that the teacher is off scott free though.

a)  Neo Nazis who go on to kill blacks, and jews, and asians, and Mexicans and , , ,
b) KKKers who go on to kill blacks, and jews, and asians, and Mexicans, and , , ,

Indeed, aren't bartenders sometimes held responsible for serving the obviously inebriated when they then go drive and kill someone?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #753 on: October 29, 2011, 02:46:32 PM »

Woof,
 Over serving the obviously inebriated is illegal to begin with, it's just that it is unusual for them to be caught or prosecuted for it unless there is an accident. Teaching a State certified gun class is not illegal and yes any teacher would be slammed by the Press and the public would call for his head, and he himself would certainly feel remorse and feel personally responsible; but legally and morally he is not responsible for the acts of others just because he taught a class that they were within their rights to take and he was obligated to give. You assume that the teacher is going to know who is with what group or religion when in most cases they won't and it might be illegal discrimination to even ask. If they actually did something overtly that let the teacher know of their intentions, then that would be a different kettle of fish; such as stand up in the class and say, "Soon as I get my permit, I'm going to go over to my ex wife's workplace and pop a cap into her." Then he could call the cops, but just because the guy has an ex wife doesn't mean the teacher has grounds not to teach the class or is immoral for doing it, even if afterwards, he goes and kills her. And there again hopefully the ex will already have her permit and training and plug him at the door. cheesy
               P.C.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 02:53:01 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #754 on: October 29, 2011, 04:29:37 PM »

I don't think "Equal protection" is a moral absolute. Is "No shirt, no shoes, no service" a civil rights violation?
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #755 on: October 29, 2011, 05:44:16 PM »

Woof GM,
 There are personal moral standards that individuals live by and they are derived from a variety of influences: Parents and family upbringing, religious teachings and experiences, societal norms and personal interactions and experiences. As a result we have individually different personal moral standards that we hold ourselves to. You may try to hold me to your standard or I might try to hold you to mine but neither of us have the right to do that. You speak of morals as if they are written in stone and that ones' moral's, whatever they may be, should apply to all. That is why equal justice under the law is a higher principle. Maybe some religion does believe in human sacrifice and they may believe that morally it's justified because their God demands it. Does the first amendment protect their religious right to commit that religious act by sacrificing you? I don't think so. Their right ends where your life and rights begin. On the otherside of that the same principle protects them from you forcing your morals on them. The laws that govern such things need to be applied justly and that's what equal protection provides.
                             P.C.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 08:12:48 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #756 on: October 29, 2011, 06:03:40 PM »

 "There are personal moral standards that individuals live by and they are derived from a variety of influences: Parents and family upbringing, religious teachings and experiences, societal norms and personal interactions and experiences. As a result we have individually different personal moral standards that we hold ourselves to."

Agreed.

This is why I questioned your assertion that:


"Wrong is wrong" related to this topic.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #757 on: October 29, 2011, 07:41:25 PM »

Woof,
 He is wrong. His personal set of morals does not trump the States' mandate of equal protection under the law. So he has no right to choose who he teaches under this State program. He must teach all that come, so long as they meet the legal requirements of the State. He can choose not to be a part of the program on personal moral grounds but he is wrong in believing he can impose his personal standards and discriminate against people and remain a part of the State program and in order for the State to award a conceal carry permit the class must be certified by the State and the teacher licensed by the State. As a part of that, the licensee agrees not to discriminate, and then adhere to the terms of State regulations. An impostion of his own standards is a blatant violation of that agreement and he is in breach of contract with the State. Wrong is wrong and we are back where we started so I'll leave it here. Interesting exchange, regards. smiley
                                                                      P.C.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2011, 08:16:09 PM by prentice crawford » Logged

Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #758 on: October 31, 2011, 05:23:19 PM »

PC has already expressed himself very well on this, but FWIW here is Glenn Beck with the instructor in question:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/31/glenn-interviews-controversial-gunshop-owner/
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #759 on: October 31, 2011, 05:29:22 PM »

PC has already expressed himself very well on this, but FWIW here is Glenn Beck with the instructor in question:

http://www.glennbeck.com/2011/10/31/glenn-interviews-controversial-gunshop-owner/

I'd like to point out again that islam is not a race, nor is it simply a religious belief.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #760 on: November 01, 2011, 12:40:58 AM »

This past week, top government leaders continued to spin the deadly 2009 gunwalking Fast and Furious operation as some low-level rogue operation. In addition, there were inside-the-Beltway rumors, letters sent between key players, and demands for Holder's resignation.


The heroic online journalists at sites like Sipsey Street Irregulars, PajamasMedia, and Townhall have worked for months uncovering facts leading to the foul murders of federal agents and Mexican citizens. During the week leading up to Halloween, certain signs appeared suggesting that their diligent work is beginning to yield some interesting fruit.


Working backwards Memento-style, here are the highlights in what may turn out to be a watershed week in the high-stakes scandal known as Fast and Furious.

Friday, October 28 2:24PM
Katie Pavlich reports from Townhall.com that Attorney General Holder will testify before the House Judiciary Committee on December 8.
Holder better get his lies, the lies of President Obama and the lies of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in order before promising to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth about this deadly program. His testimony is sure to be "consistent and truthful" with his efforts to cover-up Fast and Furious since the beginning of the House Oversight Committee investigation.

Will he take the fifth?

Friday October 28
Representative Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, penned a letter to Chairman Issa suggesting that Kenneth Melson, the former head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, appear before the members to "help the Committee and the American people better understand what mistakes were made in Operation Fast and Furious, how these tactics originated, who did and did not authorize them, and what steps are being taken to ensure that they are not used again."


The tone of Cummings' letter should have interested parties a bit perplexed. The congressman sounds a lot more subdued and respectful towards Congressman Issa. Two weeks ago, an angry Cummings disparaged the chairman's investigation into Fast and Furious as a "deep-sea fishing expedition" and "political stunt." What's up, Mr. Cummings?

Thursday, October 27
Big media shill Jonathan Alter pens a comically dead serious editorial for Bloomberg.com entitled "Obama Miracle Is White House Free of Scandal."
President Barack Obama goes into the 2012 with a weak economy that may doom his reelection. But he has one asset that hasn't received much attention: He's honest.
Although it's possible that the Solyndra LLC story will become a classic feeding frenzy, don't bet on it. Providing $535 million in loan guarantees to a solar-panel maker that goes bankrupt was dumb, but so far not criminal or even unethical on the part of the administration
Every time Representative Darrell Issa, the Republican from California who leads a House investigative committee, calls the Obama administration "corrupt" without offering any evidence, he hurts his cause. It's much harder to make a story register as a bona fide scandal when the political motivation is so obvious.

How terrified are these people? Alter mentions Solyndra, a scandal covered by the mainstream media, but only alludes to Fast and Furious via Congressman Issa. This kind of over-the-top damage control must mean that F and F is sending shudders through the halls of power.

Thursday, October 27
Blogger Anthony Martin at Examiner.com reveals that there's a rumor swirling around D.C. that former Deputy Attorney General David Ogden, who abruptly resigned in December 2009, has turned over a stack of documents to Congressman Darrel Issa's Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Issa's office won't confirm or deny according to Martin.


One thing is for sure: by his own admission, Ogden was in on the ground floor of whatever the higher-ups were planning in secret meetings back in 2009. On March 24, 2009, Ogden spoke at a Department of Justice briefing and announced, "The President has directed us to take action to fight these cartels and Attorney General Holder and I are taking several new aggressive steps as part of the Administration's comprehensive plan."


If Ogden handed over documents that truly "vindicate ATF whistleblowers" and "confirm the guilt of the perpetrators of the scheme within the DOJ," then Issa needs to play it close to the vest. If this turns out to be just cover-up "disinformation," could Ogden be the administration's designated fall guy?

Thursday October 27
Appearing before the House Foreign Affair Committee, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Representative Connie Mack (R-Fla) that the State Department had not issued a license or waiver to "allow for the transfer of thousands of weapons across the US.-Mexico border." Clinton stated that "there is no record of any request for coordination. We have no record of any kind of notice or heads up."


Asked when she first heard about Fast and Furious, Mrs. Clinton stated, "[F]rom the press." When interviewed by a reporter from CNN Español in March 2011, President Obama gave a similar response, saying he first heard about the gun-trafficking program "in the news."

Wednesday, October 26
If anyone thought the internet would make old-fashioned letter-writing obsolete, think again. Hard-copy correspondence is making its way to major players allegedly involved in Fast and Furious. Representative Joe Walsh (R-Ill) joined the fray and wrote a no-holds-barred letter to Attorney General Eric Holder telling him "to resign immediately and issue an apology to the American people he has failed to serve." But the best part centered on Walsh's reference to the current "anti-gun administration."
This not only raises serious questions about your ability to serve as the head of the Justice Department, but also begs the question of why an anti-gun Administration would knowingly force licensed firearms dealers to sell guns to violent criminals. I raise this because Operation Fast and Furious - if the facts of this case had not come to light - would have been used by this Administration as another false argument to attack law-abiding American gun owners.

Representative Joe Walsh became the fourth congressman to demand Holder's resignation.

Wednesday, October 26
Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano got a grilling during a House Judiciary hearing from Representative Jason Chaffetz (R-UT), Representative Trent Gowdy (R-SC), and Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA) (see video).
The "testy" stone-faced secretary showed little empathy for the murdered agents despite her defensive remarks.
I think we all should be outraged at the death of Agent Terry and I think the first thing is to recognize who actually killed him and that our No. 1 priority was to make sure the shooters were found - some had gone back into Mexico - and that the FBI was in charge of that investigation.

Napolitano then called Operation Fast and Furious "troublesome" and denied any involvement, conveniently passing the buck to the Department of Justice. She spoke in the customary cover-up language, advising committee members not to "rush to judgment" and promising that "there will be lessons learned from this."

Tuesday, October 25
Congressman Darrell Issa (R-Ca), chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Holder, head of the Department of Justice, demanding answers on the murder of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata on February 15, 2011. Zapata was shot to death while driving on a highway near the northern city of San Luis Potosi. A fellow agent was wounded in the deadly attack.


The letter "raises red flags about the nature of the ATF investigation" into Zapata's killing. The opening paragraphs cites a March 1, 2011 ATF press release denying knowledge of Otilio Osorio's purchase of the weapon on September 17, 2010 used to kill Zapata in February 2011.
According to ATF documents, however, the agency had reason to believe as early as September 17, 2010, that Otilio's brother, and co-habitant Ranfari Osorio, and their next-door neighbor Kelvin Morrison were straw purchasers. Yet the ATF apparently made no effort to contact Ranfari Osorio or Kelvin Morrison and inquire about how their weapons came to be trafficked to Mexico within 2 weeks of their purchase.

The ATF did not submit a Report of Investigation (ROI) on a November 9, 2010 transfer of firearms among the Osorio brothers, Morrison, and a Dallas ATF confidential informant until February 25, "the same day ATF received the report tracing the Zapata murder weapon back to the purchase by Otilio Osorio."


The letter implicates Operation Fast and Furious as a game of Russian roulette with other people's lives.
At the heart of the Operation Fast and Furious debacle stands the memory of the victims and their families' search for the truth. It's becoming clearer and clearer each day this investigation may end at the White House. AG Holder has already perjured himself in front of a congressional hearing, and what the mainstream media once termed a "botched sting operation" is turning into a mass murder tragedy threatening to upend our rule of law.


http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/...d_furious.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #761 on: November 01, 2011, 10:51:48 PM »



A proposed revision to Freedom of Information Act rules would allow federal agencies to lie to citizens and reporters seeking certain records, telling them the records don’t exist.

The Justice Department has proposed the change as part of a large revision of FOIA rules for federal agencies. Specifically, the rule would direct government agencies who are denying a request under an established FOIA exemption to “respond to the request as if the excluded records did not exist,” rather than citing the relevant exemption.

The proposed rule has alarmed government transparency advocates across the political spectrum, who’ve called it “Orwellian” and say it will “twist” public access to government. 

Justice Dept. proposes lying, hiding existence of records under new FOIA rule
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/24/justice-dept-proposes-lying-hiding-existence-of-records-under-new-foia-rule/#ixzz1cPrGQbez

__________________
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #762 on: November 01, 2011, 10:54:06 PM »

Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer Blames Second Amendment For ATF/DOJ Gun Walking Mistakes
Katie Pavlich


During a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing today on Capitol Hill, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who is facing pressure surrounding his role in the Obama Justice Department’s Operation Fast and Furious, asked for more gun control and blamed law abiding gun shop owners for violence in Mexico.

Breuer declared that nearly 70 percent of guns found in Mexico come from the United States, a figure that has been disproven by the National Rifle Association, FactCheck.org, PolitiFact and by Senator Charles Grassley’s office multiple times. Also during testimony, Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein pushed for more gun control and Breuer expressed his agreement with her statements that American gun laws are too “lax” and therefore result it more violent crime.

Feinstein asked Breuer if he thought a reporting measure for long gun rifles would be helpful to ATF. Breuer answered yes. Remember, the Department of Justice has already circumvented Congress by requiring the sale of multiple long gun rifles in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas be reported to the ATF. These new regulations were implemented in early July 2011:


Quote:
The international expansion and increased violence of transnational criminal networks pose a significant threat to the United States. Federal, state and foreign law enforcement agencies have determined that certain types of semi-automatic rifles – greater than .22 caliber and with the ability to accept a detachable magazine – are highly sought after by dangerous drug trafficking organizations and frequently recovered at violent crime scenes near the Southwest Border. This new reporting measure -- tailored to focus only on multiple sales of these types of rifles to the same person within a five-day period -- will improve the ability of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to detect and disrupt the illegal weapons trafficking networks responsible for diverting firearms from lawful commerce to criminals and criminal organizations. These targeted information requests will occur in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to help confront the problem of illegal gun trafficking into Mexico and along the Southwest Border. 

“The problem is, anybody can walk in [to a gun shop] and buy anything,” Feinstein said.

This comment by Feinstein was particularly disappointing considering during Operation Fast and Furious law abiding gun shop owners expressed deep discomfort with selling massive amounts of high powered weapons to known drug cartel straw purchasers, yet ATF officials told them to do so anyway, saying they would be “serving their country” by helping ATF in the operation.

Breuer said the number one tool he needs is to know when guns are purchased, essentially what can be interpreted as a national reporting measure. What Breuer and Feinstein are missing is this: The Obama Justice Department in partnership with ATF is the largest American supplier of weapons to Mexican drug cartels through Operation Fast and Furious; not law abiding gun shops. See Obama DOJ Gave Cartel Enough Guns to Arm a Marine Regiment.

Also, Breuer tried to claim that when Operation Fast and Furious came to light publically in Spring 2011 through media reports, ATF officials “made it clear” they don’t condone walking guns. Not true, in fact William Newell, ATF Special Agent in Charge of the Phoenix Field Division at the time Operation Fast and Furious was implemented (he has since been promoted to a cushy position in Washington D.C.) and carried out, wouldn’t rule out the idea of conducting another program like Fast and Furious in the future when asked during Congressional testimony in July 2011.

As I wrote in July after a House Oversight Hearing about Fast and Furious:

Former ATF Special Agent in Charge William Newell would not condemn Operation Fast and Furious and allowing guns to walk into Mexico during testimony and questioning. In fact, Newell went so far as to say he was unaware of guns walking into Mexico, despite internal emails showing he did know. Newell admitted the agency made mistakes but would not admit the program was a bad idea and exposed that he was in communication with a member of the White House national security team. His testimony also conflicted with previous testimony given by Special Agent John Dodson of the Phoenix Field Division who said on June 15, “Allowing loads of weapons that we knew to be destined for criminals, this was the plan. It was so mandated.”

“At no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken to Mexico,” Newell said, adding that at no time did his agency allow guns to walk.

“You’re entitled to your opinion, not your own facts,” Issa responded.

Yesterday Breuer came out publically to admit he had made a “mistake” by not telling Attorney General Eric Holder about gun walking that occurred under the Bush Administration through Operation Wide Receiver, saying essentially he should have sounded a warning about gun walking when it started to occur during Fast and Furious, but he remained silent. It is important to point out that under Wide Receiver, there was an effort to track 300 weapons in collaboration with the Mexican Government. Under Operation Fast and Furious, there was no effort to track 2,000 guns that were purposely walked in to Mexico and the Mexican Government was left in the dark about the operation. Today during testimony, Breuer said he, “Didn’t draw the connection,” between the tactics used in the two separate programs, which is hard to believe.

Breuer’s testimony and statements about “not making connections” between two separate but similar gunwalking programs and his claim he never told Attorney General Holder about his concerns or Fast and Furious at all, raise new questions.

Why is Breuer coming out with these revelations now? The House Oversight Committee Investigation into Fast and Furious has been going on for months, yet Breuer all the sudden regrets not sounding the alarm about the dangers of gunwalking when Operation Fast and Furious started in the Fall of 2009? While claiming he never told Attorney General Eric Holder about the program? Although Breuer claims he personally never told Holder about the tactics being used in Fast and Furious, five detailed memos about the lethal program dated July and August 2010 were addressed directly to Holder. Despite Breuer’s testimony, the question of “who authorized Fast and Furious,” remains unanswered.



"The American people—and especially the family of murdered Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry—deserve answers from the Justice Department about why they claim they didn’t know gunwalking was occurring in Operation Fast and Furious when the department’s fingerprints are all over it," Senator Grassley said during the hearing.

It looks like someone, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, is falling on a sword, and that sword happens to be Eric Holder’s.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #763 on: November 01, 2011, 10:55:47 PM »


Third post


Sen. Feinstein: Lax gun control is real ‘problem’ with Fast and Furious
By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller


Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein told a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing that lax gun control laws, not Obama administration malfeasance within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF), was the real problem uncovered by Operation Fast and Furious.

“My concern, Mr. Chairman, is there’s been a lot said about Fast and Furious, and perhaps mistakes were made, but I think this hunt for blame doesn’t really speak about the problem,” Feinstein said during the Tuesday hearing. “And the problem is, anybody can walk in and buy anything, .50-caliber weapons, sniper weapons, buy them in large amounts, and send them down to Mexico. So, the question really becomes, what do we do about this?”

“I’ve been here 18 years,” Feinstein continued. (Many thanks to the people of California for that - LD) “I’ve watched the BATF get beaten up at every turn on the road. And, candidly, it’s just not right.”

After the hearing, Feinstein’s staff refused to answer when The Daily Caller asked how gun control laws would have prevented the abuses in Operation Fast and Furious when the law enforcement agents responsible for upholding gun laws were the individuals giving the weapons to drug cartels.

They also refused to say whether the Sen. Feinstein wanted to hold Obama administration officials accountable for shipping guns into Mexico, for Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder, or for the murders of countless Mexican citizens directly resulting from the failed gun-walking program.

When TheDC asked if Sen. Feinstein cared about the program’s connections to the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata, Feinstein’s spokesman pointed to a comment she made during a March 9, 2011 hearing. Then, Feinstein did not mention any relationship between the murder and Operation Fast and Furious.

House oversight committee chairman Rep. Darrell Issa recently indicated that Attorney General Eric Holder may be withholding more information about Zapata’s murder.

During Tuesday’s hearing, Sen. Feinstein advocated for Operation Fast and Furious as a springboard from which to advocate for gun control laws, including national databases and government-controlled firearms registration. She argued that such laws would prevent future programs like Fast and Furious from reaching maturity.

“So, the question comes, what can we do?,” Feinstein asked Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, a hearing witness. “And, I’d really rather concentrate on the constructive, rather than other things, so the questions comes: Do you believe that, if there were some form of registration when you purchase these firearms, that that would make a difference?”

Breuer, a high-ranking Obama administration official who is notable for his willingness to accept some responsibility for the scandal, said it would.

“Senator, we’re talking today about transnational organized crime,” Breuer said, ”and your leadership, and the chairman’s, and other senators’ shows that information — information — is the tool we need to challenge and defeat organized crime.”

“I know others disagree,” Feinstein added, “but we have very lax laws when it comes to guns and I think, to some extent, this influences BATF as to whether they have political support or not,” Feinstein said. “But, I think these numbers are shocking — and when you know the number of deaths these guns have caused, used by cartels against victims, it’s literally up in the tens of thousands.”

According to the Obama administration’s BATF, 70 percent of weapons recovered in Mexico come from the United States. Feinstein insisted those numbers are a “very deep concern for me.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican, contested the weapons-trafficking statistics Feinstein and Breuer cited, arguing that they appear to make the U.S. appear to be a more rampant source of illicit firearms than is actually the case. Grassley has been challenging those statistics since June, when he wrote a letter to then-acting BATF director Ken Melson.

“I am concerned that the selective release of certain statistical data without further clarification and categorization may inaccurately reflect the scope and source of the problem of firearms in Mexico and the DTO [drug trafficking organization] violence,” Grassley wrote to Melson in June.

At least 29 members of Congress have now called on Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over Operation Fast and Furious. With a Tuesday tweet, North Carolina Rep. Walter Jones became the latest, writing: “It’s time for Eric Holder to go!”

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #764 on: November 02, 2011, 12:06:27 PM »

Is Sen. Feinstein admitting this operation had something to do with tightening up gun laws in this country? If so, unblievable.  If not, what is she saying was the aim of the program?   It happened under her watch as a senior senator of our largest state serving in the majority in the United States Senate with plenty of oversight clout from within congress and plenty of clout inside the administration.  What does she think was the legitimate intention of the program?  Either I haven't heard anyone other than firebrand right wing pundits explain it or I am too dense to understand that they have.

In Fast and Furious - the dead Mexicans and dead border agent scandal, they all seem to admit something went wrong.  Sen. Feinstein: "perhaps mistakes were made" PERHAPS MISTAKES WERE MADE, ARE YOU F*KCING KIDDING??  But what was supposed to have gone right if perhaps mistakes were not made?  If all had happened according to plan, what was the plan?  Big guns and ammunition would travel illegally across sovereign lines without knowledge on either side, into a volatile, civil war torn country with a cross border war like situation, never be used, and then would return, be found unused and tracked back to their own agency arranged sales for enforcement??  I still don't get it!
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #765 on: November 03, 2011, 08:27:50 PM »

Betcha Harold Koh is behind this , , ,

http://www.examiner.com/law-enforcement-in-national/global-gun-control-law-pushed-by-clinton#ixzz1bjW4PQC4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By signing international treaties on gun control, the Obama administration can use the U.S. State Department to bypass the normal legislative process in Congress. Once the U.S. government signs these international treaties, all US citizens will be subject to those gun laws created by foreign governments.
 
These are laws that have been developed and promoted by organizations such as the United Nations and individuals such as radical billionaire George Soros and New York City's Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
 
"The laws are designed and intended to lead to the complete ban and confiscation of all firearms," according to Sharon.
 
"The Obama administration is attempting to use tactics and methods of gun control that will inflict major damage to our 2nd Amendment before US citizens even understand what has happened," she added.
 
Critics believe Obama will appear before the public and tell them that he does not intend to pursue any legislation in the United States that will lead to new gun control laws, while cloaked in secrecy, his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, is committing the US to international treaties and foreign gun control laws.
 
"We will wake up one morning and find that the United States has signed a treaty that prohibits firearm and ammunition manufacturers from selling to the public. We will wake up another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that prohibits any transfer of firearm ownership. And then, we will wake up yet another morning and find that the US has signed a treaty that requires US citizens to deliver any firearm they own to the local government collection and destruction center or face imprisonment," Ms. Sharon stated.
 
 
Jim Kouri, CPP is currently fifth vice-president of the National Association of Chiefs of Police and he's a columnist for The Examiner (examiner.com) and New Media Alliance (thenma.org).  In addition, he's a blogger for the Cheyenne, Wyoming Fox News Radio affiliate KGAB (www.kgab.com). Kouri also serves as political advisor for Emmy and Golden Globe winning actor Michael Moriarty. 
He's former chief at a New York City housing project in Washington Heights nicknamed "Crack City" by reporters covering the drug war in the 1980s. In addition, he served as director of public safety at a New Jersey university and director of security for several major organizations.  He's also served on the National Drug Task Force and trained police and security officers throughout the country.   Kouri writes for many police and security magazines including Chief of Police, Police Times, The Narc Officer and others. He's a news writer and columnist for AmericanDaily.Com, MensNewsDaily.Com, MichNews.Com, and he's syndicated by AXcessNews.Com.   Kouri appears regularly as on-air commentator for over 100 TV and radio news and talk shows including Fox News Channel, Oprah, McLaughlin Report, CNN Headline News, MTV, etc.

To subscribe to Kouri's newsletter write to COPmagazine@aol.com and write "Subscription" on the subject line.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #766 on: November 07, 2011, 02:26:52 AM »

AG Holder arranged the Marc Rich pardon.

Here's this on Breuer:
====================

After graduating from Columbia Law School, (yet anothe stain on my alma mater!) Breuer was an assistant district attorney in Manhattan from 1985 to 1989. As a special White House counsel, he helped represent President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 1999 during independent-counsel and Congressional investigations, and the impeachment hearings.

(...)

Breuer made headlines when a friend from the White House, Sandy Berger, (a.k.a. Sandy "Fingers" Berger) asked for representation after an investigation disclosed Berger’s theft of classified documents from the National Archives.  (IIRC the documents would have proven that Hillary perjured herself with regard to the billing conspiracy of her law firm , , , or was it her husband's pardon of her brother? GM?)

On January 22, 2009, President Obama selected Breuer to head the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanny_A._Breuer
Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 5970


« Reply #767 on: November 08, 2011, 11:01:55 AM »

I was surprised to see the NY Times jump all over this issue - a couple of years too late...  Of course theitr very first point is to blame it on Bush and to set it up as an independent department run amok as if they did not report directly to the Attorney General and the President.  Then they close with the need for congress to pass a new law banning dangerous weapons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/07/opinion/gun-walking-the-mexican-border.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Editorial
Gun Walking the Mexican Border
Published: November 6, 2011

It turns out that Fast and Furious, the foolhardy government operation that allowed high-powered weapons to cross the border to Mexican drug cartels, was not a one-off. The Bush administration used the same improper tactic in Operation Wide Receiver in 2006-7.

The history of these risky “gun walking” operations — devised by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to try to track illicit gun-shop purchases in Arizona to the cartel bosses — was spelled out to Congress by Lanny Breuer, head of the Justice Department’s criminal division. Fast and Furious, in place from 2009 to early 2011, sent more than 2,000 assault weapons onto streets on both sides of the border. Some showed up at crime scenes, including a shootout where a Border Patrol agent was killed last December.

In denouncing the tactic as “unacceptable and misguided,” Mr. Breuer apologized for his own failure to respond aggressively when he learned about Operation Wide Receiver even as Fast and Furious was under way. He said that he did not alert Justice Department leaders when he found out about it in April 2010.

Congressional Republicans have rebuked the Obama administration for the Fast and Furious fiasco. That this tactic — which ranges so far from proper law enforcement — was used in the Bush years is equally disturbing. Congress should bring responsible officials to account, but it cannot duck the need for far stronger laws to control gun trafficking.

Mr. Breuer said in the past five years, 94,000 weapons have been recovered in Mexico and 64,000 were traced to American sources. “We need more tools,” he said. To which Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa, predictably responded, “The answer isn’t to clamp down on law abiding-citizens or gun dealers.” There is no problem with law-abiding citizens. It’s Congress’s failure to ban sales of assault weapons that is feeding the drug wars.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #768 on: November 08, 2011, 03:51:57 PM »

Gents:

Lott dials in why the Bush ATF's program was completely different from the Obama ATF's OFF.

======================================

Blame Bush -- Is That Holder's Strategy to Get Out of the 'Fast and Furious' Mess?

By John Lott

Published November 08, 2011 | FoxNews.com


Blame Bush. It has been almost three years since President Obama took office, yet he still blames Bush for the bad economy. Now the Obama administration is following the same strategy to get out of the "Fast and Furious" mess.

"Fast and Furious," also called the "Gunwalker" case, involves the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATF) agents ordering American gun dealers to sell guns to obvious Mexican drug gang members during 2009 and 2010. This was done over the objections of the gun dealers.

Both Fox News and the Washington Post started covering this scandal in early February this year. It may be excusable that Attorney General Eric Holder did not read the press reports, but, if we are to believe his congressional testimony Tuesay, he and his staff also neglected to pay attention to the 100 or so page "weekly reports" summarizing activity in the Justice Department.

Those reports began mentioning the operation as long ago as July 2010. When Holder testified before the House Judiciary Committee in May this year he claimed: "I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks." Holder reiterated again Tuesday that he simply didn't have the time to read even the summaries. Neither did his staff.

Holder had few options today.

Even President Obama gave an interview in March where he indicated that at that time Holder knew about the operation. With the president on record saying that he knew about the operation before April, Holder conceded Tuesday that probably knew about the operation at least a month earlier than he had previously testified.

The Obama administration has also tried to show the practice originated in the Bush administration during 2006 and 2007 under operation “Wide Receiver.” After all, it is what Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer argued just last week. When Breuer testified last week, he confessed that he had learned about "gun walking" tactics as far back as April 2010, but it wasn't the Obama administration's "gun walking" that he confessed to learning about, it was a program run briefly during the Bush administration.

And on Monday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vermont) pushed this further by asking the Justice Department’s inspector general to include the Bush-era operation in his investigation of “Fast and Furious.”

But trying to shift blame to President Bush doesn't hold water, as the two programs were very different.

Obama's "Fast and Furious" was a gun-tracing program that didn't even try to trace guns.

In sharp contrast, Bush's “Wider Receiver” program gave direct notice to the Mexican authorities so that they could try to track the guns as they crossed the border. Bush officials might have learned that Mexican police weren't up to tracing the guns, but at least they had a plan to try to have the guns followed.

"Fast and Furious" made no such attempt to notify the Mexican authorities in any way. Worse, the Obama officials knew that they had a problem. "Fast and Furious" gave out the guns, but agents and middle level people complained to administrators that the guns weren't being traced.

Indeed, when BATF agents' warnings that the guns weren’t being tracked during the Obama administration went unheeded, in despair at least one agent went to his local Radio Shack store to try jerry-rigging a GPS tracking bug for the guns.

A widely run Associated Press story last week by Pete Yost pointed out that both the Bush and Obama programs involved "gun-walking." Yet somehow Yost managed to leave out the very central point about tracing. Other articles, such as those in the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal, have likewise left out this important point.

What is really missed by all this is the utter failure of gun tracing programs. The problem isn't really that the Obama administration simply screwed up the tracing plan. Few guns move from the U.S. to Mexico and just as drug cartels bring in drugs from other countries, they can bring in the weapons that they need to protect those drugs. Mexican drug cartels aren't getting their machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers from the United States.

Why would the Obama administration not trace the guns? Why would they not inform Mexican officials about the program? One hopes that it was sheer incompetence combined with a desire to stonewall any investigation, but the fact that people knew that the guns weren’t being traced raises questions even about this plan.

The only other possibility -- deliberately increasing the number of guns sold to increase the share of crime guns in Mexico from the United States and thus generate support for more gun control -- is conceivable if only because "Fast and Furious" started at the same time that Obama began his campaign falsely claiming that most Mexican crime guns came from the United States.

We can only hope that even for the Obama administration that scenario is too cynical to be possible.

John R. Lott, Jr. is a FOXNews.com contributor. He is an economist and author of the newly revised edition of "More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, 2010)."
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 03:54:01 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #769 on: November 09, 2011, 12:52:11 PM »

Former U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke in Arizona, who resigned in the wake of a congressional probe into the Fast and Furious undercover investigation his office oversaw, has admitted leaking a sensitive document about a federal agent who blew the whistle on the gunrunning operation, according to Sen. Chuck Grassley, Iowa Republican.


Mr. Grassley, in a statement late Tuesday, said the leaked document was "deemed so sensitive by the Justice Department that it was not provided to Congress, except in a secured room at department headquarters."
"Leaking sensitive documents to the press and retaliating against whistleblowers is not good faith cooperation with Congress," Mr. Grassley said.


The leak involved Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Agent John Dodson, one of several agents who testifed in June before a House committee that their ATF superiors told them to stand down and watch as weapons flowed from gun dealers in Arizona to criminals and violent drug cartels in Mexico as part of the Fast and Furious operation.


Agent Dodson told the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that the operation facilitated the sale of more than 2,000 firearms, and while hundreds have been recovered, there could be more than 1,000 still out. Agent Dodson said that of those, two-thirds were likely in Mexico and the rest still in the U.S.


"The Justice Department confirmed that the Inspector General continues to investigate the leak, which means there are others who may be involved in drafting and distributing the talking points and document to the press," Mr. Grassley said.


In August, Mr. Burke, who oversaw all federal prosecutions in Arizona, resigned while Assistant U.S. Attorney Emory Hurley, the lead prosecutor in the Fast and Furious investigation, was reassigned from the criminal division to the civil division. Kenneth E. Melson, ATF's acting director, was reassigned the same day to a lesser role as senior adviser on forensic science.


The three Justice Department officials had come heavy criticism after Mr. Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, discovered that hundreds of weapons sold to straw buyers in the Fast and Furious operation had been "walked" to drug smugglers in Mexico.


At least two of those weapons, AK-47 assault rifles, turned up at the site of the fatal Dec. 14, 2010, shooting of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian A. Terry, killed by Mexican bandits just north of Nogales, Ariz.
Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced the Burke resignation and the reassignments. The Fast and Furious operation has been disavowed by Mr. Holder and President Obama.


Mr. Burke's Phoenix attorney, Lee Stein, said in a Nov. 8 letter to the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General — which was posted on Politico — that his client had provided information to a reporter who was working on several stories involving Fast and Furious. The attorney said "it was clear" to Mr. Burke from their conversations that the reporter already was aware of a memo about Agent Dodson and he wanted "to give context to information the reporter already had."


The attorney wrote that because the memo's topics involved closed investigations, it was not subject to any limitations on disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.


"Dennis regrets his role in disclosing the memo but he's a stand-up guy and is willing to take responsibility for what he did," the letter said. "It was absolutely not Dennis's intent to retaliate against Special Agent Dodson or anyone else for the information they provided Congress."

Mr. Stein said Mr. Burke has been "cooperating fully with the Department of Justice and with the Congress and will continue to do so." It is unclear who else at Justice took part in sharing the memo with reporters. The Inspector General's investigation into the leak was first reported by NPR in July.


The Inspector General's Office and the department's Office of Professional Responsibility are investigating the Fast and Furious operation, but it is not known when a final report might be made public.


Agent Dodson's attorney, Robert Driscoll, said in a statement: "Special Agent Dodson demonstrated both tremendous courage and fidelity to the mission of ATF when he came forward to discuss the misguided Fast and Furious investigation. It is unfortunate that his superiors at ATF and DOJ did not listen to his attempts to address the matter internally, and instead chose to attack him once he, out of necessity, stepped forward."


Mr. Driscoll described Mr. Burke's public acknowledgment that he "participated in such misguided efforts to smear Agent Dodson is welcome, but unfortunately Burke did not act alone in attempting to ruin Special Agent Dodson's career."








By Jerry Seper
-
The Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...=all#pagebreak
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2789


« Reply #770 on: November 09, 2011, 04:56:26 PM »

Police weapon exemptions in spotlight

Officers can buy guns usually not available to public
By DON THOMPSON
Associated Press
Posted: 11/09/2011 01:50:18 AM PST
Updated: 11/09/2011 01:50:19 AM PST

SACRAMENTO — A federal investigation into weapons dealing by officers in three Sacramento-area law enforcement agencies has shined a light on provisions in California law that allow peace officers to buy guns, high-capacity magazines and assault weapons that are illegal for the public.

Officers only need show their law enforcement credentials to buy ammunition clips that exceed the 10-round limit and buy guns not available to others. Their police chief or sheriff can give them permission to buy an assault weapon or avoid the 10-day waiting period for buying a gun and undergoing a background check.

There is no statewide data available to show the extent of the practice, what weapons officers are buying or why they need them. Policies on applying the law vary among law enforcement agencies.

Exemptions in state law drew attention last week with the disclosure that the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is investigating deputies in the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department and officers in the Roseville and Sacramento police departments for selling weapons most civilians can't legally buy and sell.

Federal agents served search warrants, but no one has been arrested or charged. Authorities haven't disclosed what weapons were being sold or to whom, but officers and deputies have access to weapons prohibited to others.

"Under the law, all they have to do is show their law enforcement credential to a dealer. That's enough to purchase an off-list handgun or high-capacity magazine," said Steve Lindley, chief of the state Department of Justice's Bureau of Firearms.

There are more restrictions on assault rifles, which must be registered with the state and sold or returned to the local law enforcement agency when the officer or deputy retires or leaves law enforcement. The assault rifle is supposed to be "deregistered" with the state, although in practice authorities say it can easily be converted so it no longer meets the legal definition of an assault rifle.

Weapons permitted under the law are semiautomatics, meaning they fire one bullet with each pull of the trigger. Fully automatic weapons that fire continuously are not permitted without meeting much stricter federal regulations.

Officers or deputies must get permission from their chief or sheriff to buy assault weapons, but in many cases there are few checks or policies that limit officers' purchase of the weapons.

Sacramento sheriff's spokesman Jason Ramos said his department has an informal practice of letting deputies buy one assault rifle during their career, with the approval of the sheriff and the captain in charge of weapons and training.

"A guy can't be in the habit of every year or two buying another one," Ramos said. "You can't just be out buying these cool weapons."

On the other hand, the department provides its own assault weapons for qualified deputies, so Ramos said the department's 1,245 deputies have no need to buy the guns for official reasons.

"It's more really for personal interest," Ramos said.

The department permits 25 to 30 assault weapon purchases this year.

http://www.montereyherald.com/state/ci_19296231
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #771 on: November 09, 2011, 05:32:22 PM »

It's my understanding that the California Dept. of Justice has a specialized unit dedicated to investigating and prosecuting Californian LEOs for firearms violations. It's also my understanding that under PRK law, when you retire as a LEO, firearms purchased with your LEO creds cannot be legally owned in CA, meaning either you get rid of them or move out of state.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #772 on: November 10, 2011, 12:52:11 PM »



Testifying before an intensely partisan Senate Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder only deepened suspicions about the Department of Justice’s possible criminal involvement in a gunwalking operation known as Operation Fast and Furious. The scheme saw the federal government provide more than 2,000 firearms to Mexico’s Sinaloa drug cartel.
Holder presented the improbable case that he was not responsible for — or even aware of — the plot:
I have ultimate responsibility for that which happens in the Department, but I cannot be expected to know the details for every operation that is ongoing in the Justice Department on a day-to-day basis. I did not know about Fast and Furious as is indicated in the chart that you have up there until I guess, well, until it became public.

Operation Fast and Furious was run primarily by the DOJ, but involved Obama administration officials spread across four Cabinet-level departments, and included direct links to the White House’s National Security Council.
Attorney General Holder’s claim that he was ignorant of one of the most deadly political scandals in U.S. history, which was run out of his department with key input and the understanding of his top lieutenants, is simply not credible.
Holder used his opening statement to shift the blame to the American gun dealers — whom his Department forced to supply weapons to the cartels — and Congress:
“Unfortunately, earlier this year the House of Representatives actually voted to keep law enforcement in the dark when individuals purchase multiple semi-automatic rifles and shotguns in Southwest border gun shops,” Holder’s written testimony declares. “Providing law enforcement with the tools to detect and disrupt illegal gun trafficking is entirely consistent with the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens and it is critical to addressing the public safety crisis on the Southwest border.”

It took considerable gall for Holder to make that allegation against Congress: the long-gun reporting requirement he mentioned was suggested by the Department of Justice to combat a problem that they had created with Operation Fast and Furious.
The hearing was full of jaw-dropping moments. For the first time, Holder conceded the obvious fact: Justice was responsible for firearms being “walked” to Mexican drug lords:
“I want to be clear: any instance of so-called ‘gun-walking’ is simply unacceptable,” Holder said in his opening statement before the Senate Judiciary committee. “Regrettably, this tactic was used as part of Fast and Furious, which was launched to combat gun trafficking and violence on our Southwest border. This operation was flawed in concept, as well as in execution. And, unfortunately, we will feel its effects for years to come as guns that were lost during this operation continue to show up at crime scenes both here and in Mexico.”

The concession came after months of the Department’s top officials claiming that just the opposite was true, until the compiled evidence was insurmountable.
Holder also claimed he did not commit perjury in May, when he claimed under oath that he had first heard about gunwalking just weeks before the hearing. Yet a series of five memos addressed to the attorney general were received ten months before, as was a detailed public statement from President Obama and letter from Senator Charles Grassley dated nine months before his testimony.
The attorney general also claimed that he had other “regrets” involving operation Fast and Furious, including a February letter from the Justice Department that blatantly lied and claimed there was never any gunwalking in the operation. Holder also voiced regret that Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was gunned down — though in the testimony’s most shocking moment, he posited that it was not fair to claim Operation Fast and Furious was responsible for Terry’s death. He made this statement despite the fact that the current official story from the DOJ claims the only two weapons recovered from the murder scene were traced to the operation.
As contentious as the hearing became between Holder and several of the minority Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Senate’s majority Democrats were almost seditiously uninterested in finding out anything about the plot.
Senators Diane Feinstein (D-CA) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dishonestly claimed that the plot was an extension of the Bush-era Operation Wide Receiver. It most decidedly was not, and Holder himself refuted that connection.
Judiciary Committee Chairman Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Feinstein argued that the plot — in which the government forced firearms dealers to give weapons to criminals — justified more gun-control laws.
And in a surreal moment, Senator Al Franken (D-MN) decided the occasion was a wonderful time to discuss the bullying of gay schoolchildren.
Attorney General Eric Holder will not apologize for the deaths of the U.S. federal agents gunned down as a result of the crimes his Department ramrodded, nor will he or his employer, President Barack Obama, accept responsibility or even demand accountability. They incredibly still insist that they don’t know who came up with the operation or know who approved it, even as documentation points directly to men and women in their employment.
Operation Fast and Furious is beyond impeachable. It was a “felony stupid” plot at best, and at worst a treasonous attempt to amplify violent crime in order to subvert the Constitution.
Playing dumb won’t cut it. Relying on an employee/crony to conduct an investigation while leaking information to those she is investigating won’t cut it. Our government is responsible for arming criminals with thousands of weapons, causing hundreds of deaths.
Either Operation Fast and Furious is investigated by an independent counsel, or there is no rule of law in America.



http://pjmedia.com/blog/holder-plays...inglepage=true
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #773 on: November 10, 2011, 10:29:49 PM »



http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/111011.jpg
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #774 on: November 17, 2011, 10:42:03 AM »

Concealed Carry Reciprocity Bill
Passes House
Troubling Amendment Added

The House passed national concealed carry reciprocity legislation on Wednesday evening by a vote of 272-154.

The bill, H.R. 822, is intended to allow persons who hold a concealed carry permit from one state to also carry anywhere in the country, with the exception of Illinois and Washington, D.C.

Though the bill passed by a wide margin, it was not without controversy on the pro-gun side of the debate. In previous alerts, GOA has pointed out several flaws in the legislation:

•   It forces Vermont residents (who do not need a permit to carry) to either obtain an out-of-state permit or to push their state to pass a more restrictive concealed carry law than it now enjoys;
•   By requiring permits for reciprocity, the bill undermines efforts at the state level to pass constitutional carry (i.e., Vermont-style carry);
•   In restrictive “may issue” states, the bill allows for non-residents to carry firearms in the state while most residents would still be prohibited, and;
•   The bill is yet another example of Congress distorting of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause.

Representative Justin Amash (R-MI), who voted against the bill, addressed this last point in a statement, calling H.R. 822 “an unconstitutional bill that improperly applies the Commerce Clause to concealed carry licensing.”

Another freshman Representative, Rob Woodall (R-GA), noted that the right to carry a concealed firearm is already protected by the Second Amendment.

“If the Second Amendment protects my rights to carry my concealed weapon from state to state to state, I don’t need another federal law,” Rep. Woodall said. He went on to remind his colleagues of the original intent of the right to keep and bear arms.

“I don’t believe the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights to allow me to shoot targets [or] hunt for deer and turkey. I think the Second Amendment was put in the Bill of Rights so that I could defend my freedom against an overbearing federal government.”

Anti-gun Amendment Passes

One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:

“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”

Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.

Click here to act
http://capwiz.com/gunowners/issues/alert/?alertid=56876501
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #775 on: November 22, 2011, 04:51:08 PM »

51 congressmen to Eric Holder: You must resign immediately

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller 12:40 AM 11/18/2011


The surge in congressional calls for Attorney General Eric Holder’s immediate resignation has reached a new milestone: More than 50 members of Congress are now demanding Holder step down in the wake of Operation Fast and Furious.

The number of congressmen calling for Holder’s immediate resignation is now 51. New additions to that list include Republican Reps. Todd Akin and Blaine Luetkemeyer of Missouri, Lynn Westmoreland of Georgia, Steven Palazzo of Mississippi and Jeff Duncan of South Carolina.

Rep. Westmoreland said Operation Fast and Furious was a disgrace to the American people and that Holder needs to resign immediately.

“Fast and Furious played fast and loose with the American public’s safety, leaving a U.S. Border patrol agent dead and DOJ-purchased guns in the hands of Mexican drug lords,” Westmoreland told The Daily Caller. “To say this program was a failure and an embarrassment to the U.S. justice system is an understatement.”

“No matter how many times the attorney general’s statement of when he was aware of Operation Fast and Furious changes — and it has changed almost daily — at the end of the day, he is the head of the Department of Justice and the buck stops with him,” said Westmoreland.

“It’s time for Mr. Holder to hold himself accountable,” he added.

On Thursday morning there were 46 congressmen demanding Holder’s resignation. Holder is currently on a taxpayer-subsidized junket in the Caribbean with his spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler, who has repeatedly declined to answer questions about the increasing congressional disapproval of Holder’s job performance.

Akin and Luetkemeyer had not previously called for Holder’s immediate resignation, but cast doubts on the truthfulness of the attorney general’s testimony before Congress.

“Given Mr. Holder’s inconsistencies and general lack of compelling testimony before the Judiciary Committee on such a serious matter as the ‘fast and furious’ gun walking debacle, his resignation would go a long way to restoring credibility to the office he now holds,” Akin told TheDC.

The recent surge in calls for Holder’s resignation can be attributed to two factors. First, Rep. Paul Gosar of Arizona, the third congressman to demand Holder step down, hosted a press conference on Tuesday to amplify calls for Holder’s resignation. Second, Rep. Joe Walsh of Illinois is currently circulating a letter on Capitol Hill asking for Holder to resign or for Obama to fire him.

The Walsh letter, addressed to Obama, urges him to “hold attorney general Eric Holder accountable for Operation Fast and Furious” and “ask for his immediate resignation.”

The new congressmen demanding Holder step down now are also signatories to Walsh’s letter — which currently has 39 co-signers.

The White House and the Justice Department remain silent as pressure for Holder’s immediate resignation builds, which may be a sign that the Obama administration is prepared to force Holder out if it is politically necessary.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #776 on: November 23, 2011, 03:27:39 AM »

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/armed-illegals-stalked-border-patrol/?page=all#pagebreak

Armed illegals stalked Border Patrol

Mexicans were ‘patrolling’ when agent was slain, indictment says


 By Jerry Seper

-

The Washington Times

 Tuesday, November 22, 2011



SLAIN: Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terry called out, “I’m hit,” after a bullet pierced his aorta. He died at the scene. (Associated Press)


 
Five illegal immigrants armed with at least two AK-47 semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole known as Mesquite Seep just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and one U.S. agent was killed, records show.

A now-sealed federal grand jury indictmentin the death of Border Patrol agent Brian A. Terrysays the Mexican nationals were “patrolling” the rugged desert area of Peck Canyon at about 11:15 p.m. on Dec. 14 with the intent to “intentionally and forcibly assault” Border Patrol agents.

At least two of the Mexicans carried their assault rifles “at the ready position,” one of several details about the attack showing that Mexican smugglers are becoming more aggressive on the U.S. side of the border.

According to the indictment, the Mexicans were “patrolling the area in single-file formation” a dozen miles northwest of the border town of Nogales and — in the darkness of the Arizona night — opened fire on four Border Patrol agents after the agents identified themselves in Spanish as police officers.

Two AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene came from the failed Fast and Furious operation.

Using thermal binoculars, one of the agents determined that at least two of the Mexicans were carrying rifles, but according to an affidavit in the case by FBI agent Scott Hunter, when the Mexicans did not drop their weapons as ordered, two agents used their shotguns to fire “less than lethal” beanbags at them.

At least one of the Mexicans opened fire and, according to the affidavit, Terry, a 40-year-old former U.S. Marine, was shot in the back. A Border Patrol shooting-incident report said that Terry called out, “I’m hit,” and then fell to the ground, a bullet having pierced his aorta. “I can’t feel my legs,” Terry told one of the agents who cradled him. “I think I’m paralyzed.”

Bleeding profusely, he died at the scene.

After the initial shots, two agents returned fire, hitting Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, 33, in the abdomen and leg. The others fled. The FBI affidavit said Osorio-Arellanes admitted during an interview that all five of the Mexicans were armed.

Peck Canyon is a notorious drug-smuggling corridor.

Osorio-Arellanes initially was charged with illegal entry, but that case was dismissed when the indictment was handed up. It named Osorio-Arellanes on a charge of second-degree murder, but did not identify him as the likely shooter, saying only that Osorio-Arellanes and others whose names were blacked out “did unlawfully kill with malice aforethought United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry while Agent Terry was engaged in … his official duties.”

The indictment also noted that Osorio-Arellanes had been convicted in Phoenix in 2006 of felony aggravated assault, had been detained twice in 2010 as an illegal immigrant, and had been returned to Mexico repeatedly.

Bill Brooks, U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s acting southwest border field branch chief, referred inquiries to the FBI, which is conducting the investigation. The FBI declined to comment.

The case against Osorio-Arellanes and others involved in the shooting has since been sealed, meaning that neither the public nor the media has access to any evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.

The U.S. attorney’s office in San Diego, which is prosecuting the case, would confirm only that it was sealed. Also sealed was the judge’s reason for sealing the case.

The indictment lists the names of other suspects in the shooting, but they are redacted.

In the Terry killing, two Romanian-built AK-47 assault rifles found at the scene were identified as having been purchased in a Glendale, Ariz., gun shop as part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF) failed Fast and Furious investigation.

A number of rank-and-file Border Patrol agents have questioned why the case has not gone to trial, nearly a year after Terry’s killing. Several also have concerns about the lack of transparency in the investigation, compounded now by the fact that the court case has been sealed.

Shawn P. Moran, vice president of the National Border Patrol Council, which represents all 17,000 nonsupervisory agents, said it is rare for illegal immigrants or drug smugglers to engage agents in the desert, saying they usually “drop their loads and take off south.”

“The Brian Terry murder was a real wake-up call,” Mr. Moran said. “It emphasizes the failed state of security on the U.S. border, which poses more of a threat to us than either Iraq or Afghanistan. We have terrorism going on right on the other side of the fence, and we’re arming the drug cartels.

“My biggest fear is that someday a cartel member is going to go berserk, stick a rifle through the fence and kill as many Border Patrol agents as he can,” he said.

Mr. Moran said he understood the “rationale of working things up the food chain,” as suggested in the Fast and Furious probe, but had no idea how ATF planned to arrest cartel members who ultimately purchased the weapons since the agency lacks jurisdiction south of the border and never advised Mexican authorities about the operation.

“It was a ridiculous idea from the beginning, and it baffles us on how it was ever approved,” he said.

Mr. Moran also challenged the use of less-than-lethal s in the shooting incident, saying field agents have been “strong-armed” by the agency’s leadership to use nonlethal weapons. He said they were not appropriate for the incident in which Terry was killed.

“That was no place for beanbag rounds,” he said, noting that the encounter was at least 12 miles inside the U.S. and was carried out by armed men looking specifically to target Border Patrol agents.

CBP has said Terry and the agents with him carried fully loaded sidearms, along with two additional magazines, and were not under orders to use nonlethal ammunition first.

Mr. Moran, himself a veteran Border Patrol agent, said he also was “surprised” that the suspected Mexican gunmen were carrying their weapons at the ready position, meaning that the butts of the weapons were placed firmly in the pocket of the shoulder with the barrels pointed down at a 45-degree angle. He said this probably meant they had some level of military training.

More than 250 incursions by Mexican military personnel into the United States have been documented over the past several years.

The Border Patrol has warned agents in Arizona that many of the intruders were “trained to escape, evade and counter-ambush” if detected. The agency cautioned agents to keep “a low profile,” to use “cover and concealment” in approaching the Mexican units, to employ “shadows and camouflage” to conceal themselves and to “stay as quiet as possible.”

Several of the incursions occurred in the same area where Terry was killed, including a 2005 incident in which two agents were shot and wounded by assailants dressed in black commando-type clothing in what law-enforcement authorities said was a planned ambush. More than 50 rounds were fired at the agents after they spotted the suspected gunmen.

Many of the Mexican drug cartels use former Mexican soldiers, police and federal agents to protect drug loads headed into the U.S. Many cartel leaders also have targeted U.S. Border Patrol agents and state and local police, sometimes offering bounties of up to $50,000.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #777 on: November 23, 2011, 07:33:06 PM »



http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/112311.jpg
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2789


« Reply #778 on: November 27, 2011, 04:59:16 PM »

There's been an 800 pound gorilla lurking just out of range or most Gunwalking reporting: how many of the firearms being used criminally in Mexico were first sold by the State Department to the Mexican government? This piece outlines the broad parameters:

U. S. Government May Be Primary Suppliers of Mexican Drug Cartel Guns
by Tom Stilson

With Operation Fast and Furious headlining the news, there is no doubt civilian arms have been trafficked into Mexico. However, many of the arms used by Mexican cartels are NOT supplied by civilian gun outlets in the United States. Based upon the statistics I have compiled, our State and Defense Departments may be the premier suppliers of weaponry to Mexican drug cartels — not the US civilian.

From 2003-2009, over 150,000 Mexican soldiers deserted from their ranks. Drug cartels became so confident in their recruitment of military personnel that they posted help wanted ads for hit men, traffickers, and guards. When these soldiers desert, their US-supplied weapons (grenades, sniper rifles, assault weapons, etc.) often accompany them over to the cartels. In 2008 and 2009, 13,792 and 20,530 small arms were exported to Mexico from the US. Over 92% of these arms were civilian legal semi-automatic or non-automatic firearms, a number eerily similar to the debunked 90% number echoed by the ATF. A 2008 State Department memo to then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi shows a $1,000,000 shipment of select fire M4A2 assault rifles to the Mexican Federal Police Force, (AKA Federales) one of the most corrupt Mexican government agencies.
The most recent numbers from 2010 show the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC) — the State Department agency responsible for overseeing the exportation of military goods — authorized the transfer of 2.5 million units of small arms, weapon optics, silencers, and related components. In that same year, over 11 million units of ammunition and 127,000 units of explosive ordnance were cleared for exportation to Mexico. This amounted to $25 million worth of small arms, ammunition, and explosives shipped to Mexico authorized by our State Department.

In recent months, allegations have surfaced that the State Department’s US Direct Commercial Sales Program and DDTC may have directly shipped arms to the Zetas, the Gulf Cartel’s hit squad. The Zetas were at one time trained and supplied with American weaponry by our own 7th Special Forces Group in the early 1990s. These claims against the State Department arose even after the DDTC recognized the Americas Region in 2009 as having the highest rate of unfavorable traces for their Blue Lantern Program. The Blue Lantern Program involves traces performed by the DDTC to ensure exported military weaponry does not end up with an unauthorized nation or organization. For the Americas, 80% of traces where unauthorized end users were identified involved small arms. Data specifically for Mexico was unavailable from the State Department.

From 2008 to 2009, when President Obama entered office, Defense Department expenditures to Mexico have increased from $12 million to $34,000,000 and State Department expenditures increased from $7.2 million to $356 million. While 2010 data is currently unavailable, it appears our foreign aid to Mexico has continued to increase for 2011. These statistics imply the State and Defense Departments may very well be the top suppliers of small arms to Mexico’s drug cartels and not civilians. Only the information obtained from ATF Firearms Traces will tell. However, those records are not public. After the DOJ and the White House knowingly pursued attemp

http://biggovernment.com/tstilson/2011/11/21/u-s-government-may-be-primary-suppliers-of-mexican-drug-cartel-guns/ts at new gun control legislation, we are left to ask the question; is this just another case of government stupidity or is this something more premeditated?
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #779 on: November 28, 2011, 05:00:42 AM »

http://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/european-economic-crisis-highlights-an-increasingly-important-reason-to-oppose-gun-control/

European Economic Crisis Highlights an Increasingly Important Reason to Oppose Gun Control

November 27, 2011 by Dan Mitchell


About a year ago, I spoke at a conference in Europe that attracted a lot of very rich people from all over the continent, as well as a lot of people who manage money for high-net-worth individuals.
 
What made this conference remarkable was not the presentations, though they were generally quite interesting. The stunning part of the conference was learning – as part of casual conversation during breaks, meals, and other socializing time – how many rich people are planning for the eventual collapse of European society.
 
Not stagnation. Not gradual decline. Collapse.
 
As in riots, social disarray, plundering, and chaos. A non-trivial number of these people think the rioting in places such as Greece and England is just the tip of the iceberg, and they have plans – if bad things begin to happen – to escape to jurisdictions ranging from Australia to Costa Rica (several of them remarked that they no longer see the U.S. as a good long-run refuge).
 
This was rather sobering. I’ve never been an optimist about Europe’s future, as I explain here and here, but is the situation really this bad?
 
Well, the U.K. government seems to think things will get worse. Here are some excerpts from the Telegraph.
 


British ministers privately warned that the break-up of the euro, once almost unthinkable, is now increasingly plausible. Diplomats are preparing to help Britons abroad through a banking collapse and even riots arising from the debt crisis. The Treasury confirmed earlier this month that contingency planning for a collapse is now under way. …Recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office instructions to embassies and consulates request contingency planning for extreme scenarios including rioting and social unrest. …Diplomats have also been told to prepare to help tens of thousands of British citizens in eurozone countries with the consequences of a financial collapse that would leave them unable to access bank accounts or even withdraw cash. …Analysts at UBS, an investment bank earlier this year warned that the most extreme consequences of a break-up include risks to basic property rights and the threat of civil disorder. “When the unemployment consequences are factored in, it is virtually impossible to consider a break-up scenario without some serious social consequences,” UBS said.
 
Let’s think about what this means, and we’ll start with an assumption that European politicians won’t follow my sage advice and that they’ll instead continue to kick the can down the road – thus making the debt bubble even bigger and creating the conditions for a nasty collapse.
 
I’ve learned over the years that things are usually never as bad as they seem (or as good as they seem), so I don’t expect that a nightmare situation will materialize, but I certainly can understand why wealthy people have contingency plans to escape.
 
But what about the rest of us? We don’t have property overseas and we don’t have private jets, so what’s our insurance policy?
 
Part of the answer is to have the ability to protect ourselves and our families. As explained here, firearms are the ultimate guarantor of civilization.
 
In my discussions and debates about this issue, I’ve traditionally relied on these four arguments:
 
1. Respect for the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were wise to include “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” in the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment recognizes the value of a well-armed citizenry, and today’s politicians (or courts) shouldn’t be allowed to weaken that fundamental freedom.
 
2. The presumption of liberty. It’s sometimes said that everything that isn’t expressly forbidden is allowed in the United States, whereas in Europe it’s the other way around, with everything forbidden unless explicitly permitted. This certainly seems to be the case for guns, with most European governments prohibiting firearms ownership for the vast majority of people.
 
3. Personal protection against crime. As the first image in this post powerfully illustrates, it doesn’t really matter if cops are only a few minutes away when a person only has a few seconds to protect against danger. And since the evidence is overwhelming that gun ownership reduces crime, this is a powerful argument for the Second Amendment.
 
4. Ability to resist government oppression. Totalitarian governments invariably seek to disarm people, as this poster indicates. And with the majority of the world still living in nations that are not free, private gun ownership is at least a potential limit on thuggish governments.
 
But perhaps we now need to add a fifth reason:
 
5. Personal protection against social breakdown. If politicians destroy the economic system with too much debt and too much dependency, firearms will be the first and last line of defense against those who would plunder and pillage.
 
Here’s a thought experiment to drive the point home. If Europe does collapse, which people do you think will be in better shape to preserve civilization, the well-armed Swiss or the disarmed Brits?
 
I hope we never have to find out, but I know which society has a better chance of surviving.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #780 on: November 30, 2011, 12:55:26 PM »

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/obama-admin-seals-records-murdered-border-patrol-agent-implicated-fast-and-furious_610783.html

Obama Admin Seals Records of Murdered Border Patrol Agent Implicated in Fast and Furious


11:45 AM, Nov 30, 2011 • By MARK HEMINGWAY


And to think that Attorney General Eric Holder is getting testy about congressional calls for his resignation. After all, the Justice Department has nothing to hide, right?
 

The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.

This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona’s Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.
 
The murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent is related to a Justice Department willingly turning over thousands of guns to Mexican criminal gangs, and Obama administration is hiding information about his death from the public. Amazing.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #781 on: November 30, 2011, 05:27:56 PM »

Unfg real  angry
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #782 on: November 30, 2011, 06:47:48 PM »

Woof,
 This is some of what was in the records before Holder sealed them.

  www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/22/armed-illegals-stalked-border-patrol/?page=all#pagebreak

                                        P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #783 on: December 01, 2011, 03:05:55 PM »

http://pjmedia.com/blog/fbi-criminal-informant-complicit-in-brian-terrys-death-pjm-exclusive/?singlepage=true

FBI Criminal Informant Complicit in Brian Terry’s Death (PJM Exclusive)

From multiple sources come shocking charges of deadly ineptitude and an FBI coverup in Fast and Furious.





by
Bob Owens

December 1, 2011 - 7:00 am

In the growing Fast and Furious scandal, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry’s death in Peck Canyon, Arizona was previously described as a chance meeting that led to a firefight: an illegal alien “rip crew” working for the Sinaloa cartel was hoping to find other illegal aliens and to rob them at gunpoint. Instead, they stumbled across a Border Patrol unit and murdered Agent Terry.
 
Last week, the Washington Times offered a new version of the encounter: they reported that the rip crew was not hunting illegals, but Border Patrol teams — with the intention of engaging them in combat.
 
Sources now tell PJ Media that neither version of events is accurate: the rip crew was not waiting for a chance encounter with other illegals, nor did the members intend to engage American law enforcement agents.
 
The rip crew was in Peck Canyon that evening with the intention of stealing money and drugs from a specific shipment of which they had prior knowledge.
 
Sources claim the Department of Justice has been trying for almost a year to hide the key information — how the rip crew knew the shipment was coming through that night.
 
Criminal informants (CIs) are a common tool of law enforcement agencies. When agencies apprehend criminals, agencies often reduce or drop charges in exchange for information leading to the arrests of higher-ranking criminals. Earlier this year, reports claimed that Operation Fast and Furious weapons smuggled over the border were actually chosen by an FBI informant, and paid for with money provided by the federal government.
 
The rip crew knew to be in Peck Canyon that December evening because a CI working for the FBI found out about a smuggling run — from the FBI.
 
It is not clear if the information was provided intentionally, but a possible motivation for the FBI to provide the information is known to exist: the CI had previously lost a shipment of drugs, and wanted to regain the trust of the cartel with an offering of drugs or money. The other possibility is that the FBI mistakenly allowed the CI to discover the information.
 
The CI used this information to organize an ambush of the drug convoy. A source tells PJM that the FBI knew from wiretaps that the CI was using their information to set up an ambush.
 
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) — through its own CIs and communications intercepts — was also aware of the planned assault.
 
Neither the DEA nor FBI warned Border Patrol about the expected criminal activity.
 
The federal government will still not reveal if one of the two WASR-10 AK-pattern semi-automatic rifles located near the scene — provided to the Sinaloa cartel via Operation Fast and Furious — was the weapon that put a bullet through Brian Terry’s heart. The existence of a third recovered gun, an SKS carbine, has been disputed by the FBI despite the fact it had been talked about openly in the beginning of the investigation among federal agents.
 
Multiple sources tell PJM that this third weapon “disappeared” because it was the weapon carried by the FBI CI who ran the rip crew. When it was recovered near the scene of the murder and subsequently traced by the ATF, it traced back to the FBI CI via the gun shop in Texas where it was purchased.
 
Deconfliction is a major element of high-risk undercover law enforcement work. Undercover agents and informants often cross jurisdictional paths, and deconfliction is the process whereby agencies warn off other agencies so that their assets don’t end up in conflict, putting investigations and lives at risk.
 
In this case, the FBI and DEA failed to deconflict. Neither agency bothered to warn Border Patrol to keep their BORTAC teams out of Peck Canyon that evening. As a direct result of this FBI and DEA failure — combined with Homeland Security forcing BORTAC units to carry less-lethal beanbag rounds in some of their primary weapons — Brian Terry’s under-armed four-man unit walked into an ambush against a heavily armed rip crew, at least five of whom were carrying rifles.
 
Brian Terry’s murder was entirely preventable. The incompetence of the DEA and FBI let his Border Patrol unit walk into an ambush. After the ambush, it appears the FBI tampered with evidence to cover up that one of their informants was involved with the murder of a federal agent.
 
The government has recently sealed the case against the only suspect the FBI chose to keep behind bars.
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #784 on: December 02, 2011, 05:02:46 AM »

Woof,
 Whoa GM, this just keeps getting worse all the time.
                          P.C.
Logged

G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #785 on: December 02, 2011, 05:09:37 AM »

Woof,
 Whoa GM, this just keeps getting worse all the time.
                          P.C.

Yes it does.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #786 on: December 03, 2011, 04:42:46 AM »

Justice Dept. details how it got statements wrong
PETE YOST
From Associated Press
December 02, 2011 10:56 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Justice Department on Friday provided Congress with documents detailing how department officials gave inaccurate information to a U.S. senator in the controversy surrounding Operation Fast and Furious, the flawed law enforcement initiative aimed at dismantling major arms trafficking networks on the Southwest border.

In a letter last February to Charles Grassley, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms had not sanctioned the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser and that the agency makes every effort to intercept weapons that have been purchased illegally. In Operation Fast and Furious, both statements turned out to be incorrect.

The Justice Department letter was responding to Grassley's statements that the Senate Judiciary Committee had received allegations the ATF had sanctioned the sale of hundreds of assault weapons to suspected straw purchasers. Grassley also said there were allegations that two of the assault weapons had been used in a shootout that killed customs agent Brian Terry.

In an email four days later to Justice Department colleagues, then-U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke in Phoenix said that "Grassley's assertions regarding the Arizona investigation and the weapons recovered" at the "murder scene are based on categorical falsehoods. I worry that ATF will take 8 months to answer this when they should be refuting its underlying accusations right now." That email marked the start of an internal debate in the Justice Department over what and how much to say in response to Grassley's allegations. The fact that there was an ongoing criminal investigation into Terry's murder prompted some at the Justice Department to argue for less disclosure.

Some of what turned out to be incorrect information was emailed to Lanny Breuer, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Justice Department's criminal division. Breuer sent an email saying "let's help as much as we can" in responding to Grassley.

The emails sent to Capitol Hill on Friday showed that Burke supplied additional incorrect information to the Justice Department's criminal division that ended up being forwarded to Breuer. For example, Burke said that the guns found at the Terry murder scene were purchased at a Phoenix gun shop before Operation Fast and Furious began. In fact, the operation was under way at the time and the guns found at the Terry murder scene were part of the probe. Breuer was one of the recipients of that information. In written comments this week to Grassley, Breuer said that he was on a three-day official trip to Mexico at the time of the Justice Department response and that he was aware of, but not involved in, drafting the Justice Department statements to Grassley. Breuer says he cannot say for sure whether he saw a draft of the letter before it was sent to Grassley.

Where Burke got the inaccurate information is now part of an inquiry conducted by the inspector general's office at the Justice Department.

Burke's information was followed by a three-day struggle in which officials in the office of the deputy attorney general, the criminal division and the ATF came up with what turned out to be an inaccurate response to Grassley's assertions.

The process became so intensive that Breuer aide Jason Weinstein emailed his boss, "The Magna Carta was easier to get done than this was." A copy of the latest draft was attached to the emails.

Initial drafts of the letter reflected the hard tone of Burke's unequivocal assertions that the allegations Grassley was hearing from ATF agents were wrong. Later drafts were more measured, prompting Burke to complain in one email: "Every version gets weaker. We will be apologizing" to Grassley "by tomorrow afternoon." Regarding the allegation that ATF sanctioned the sale of assault weapons to a straw purchaser, the Justice Department denial was scaled back slightly from "categorically false" to "false." ''Why poke the tiger," Lisa Monaco, the top aide to the deputy attorney general, explained in an email to Ron Weich, the assistant attorney general for legislative affairs whose signature was on the letter.

In another email, Burke wrote, "By the way, what is so offensive about this whole project" of response "is that Grassley's staff, acting as willing stooges for the Gun Lobby, have attempted to distract from the incredible success in dismantling" Southwest Border "gun trafficking operations" and "not uttering one word of rightful praise and thanks to ATF — but, instead, lobbing this reckless despicable accusation that ATF is complicit in the murder of a fellow federal law enforcement officer."

On Friday night, Grassley spokeswoman Beth Levine said that "Burke personally apologized to Sen. Grassley's staff for the tone and the content of the emails" after learning from the Justice Department that the emails would be released.

It is unusual for the Justice Department to provide such detail of its internal deliberations as it did on Friday with Congress.

The department turned over 1,364 pages of material after concluding "that we will make a rare exception to the department's recognized protocols and provide you with information related to how the inaccurate information came to be included in the letter," Deputy Attorney General James Cole wrote Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, which is looking into the Obama administration's handling of Operation Fast and Furious.

Operation Fast and Furious involved more than 2,000 weapons that were purchased by straw buyers at Phoenix-area gun stores. Nearly 700 of the Fast and Furious guns have been recovered — 276 in Mexico and 389 in the United States, according to ATF data as of Oct. 20.

Amid probes by Republicans in Congress and the IG, the Justice Department in August replaced Burke, acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson and the lead prosecutor in Operation Fast and Furious.

Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #787 on: December 03, 2011, 07:42:51 AM »


TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 > § 1001
 



§ 1001. Statements or entries generally
 



(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
 
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
 
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

 
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
 
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
 
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
 (1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
 
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.
Logged
Body-by-Guinness
Power User
***
Posts: 2789


« Reply #788 on: December 05, 2011, 11:26:12 AM »

Gunwalker: Justice Dept. Violated U.S. Laws Beyond Those Being Investigated
I know, because I was the principal drafter of some of the legislation.
by
JAMES K. STINEBOWER
Bio
December 5, 2011 - 12:00 am
Tweet     
As we continue to watch the general uproar over the Operation Fast and Furious program, and specifically what Attorney General Holder knew and when he knew it, it needs to be noted that perjury is not the only apparent violation of law to have occurred.

I refer to the apparent violation of at least one (probably two) major U.S. laws by the Holder Justice Department. A few years ago, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1701, the follow-on to the Trading with the Enemy Act) was expanded in order to criminalize any transactions between U.S. entities — to include departments and agencies of the U.S. government — and all foreign drug cartels.

I am familiar with these prohibitive statues because several years ago, while serving as the senior drug analyst for the Senate Intelligence Committee, I was tasked to initiate and became the principal drafter of legislation which became known as the Kingpin Act (21 U.S.C. §§ 1901-08). The Kingpin Act is an extension of the highly successful IEEPA sanctioning program specifically targeting Colombian drug cartels. It expands sanctions authority against various drug cartel operations worldwide — including Mexico — which have been determined by the president to be threats to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States.

A violation of any of the IEEPA sanctioning programs or the Kingpin Act carries stiff penalties, both criminal and civil, and potentially totaling decades in prison and tens of millions of dollars in fines. It is not necessary that an individual or governmental entity be shown to have “knowingly” violated any of these programs: it is illegal for any U.S. entity or individual to aid, abet, or materially assist — or in the case of Operation Fast and Furious, to facilitate others to aid, abet, or materially assist — designated drug traffickers. There are no exceptions within IEEPA programs for unlicensed U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agency operations.

Based on the July 5, 2010, memo to Eric Holder, it would appear that Fast and Furious facilitated the delivery of weapons to — at a minimum — the Sinaloa cartel in Mexico. The U.S. Department of the Treasury, which administers both the IEEPA and Kingpin Act programs, has designated numerous members of the Sinaloa cartel under both programs. IEEPA prohibitions apply to the U.S. government as well as to individuals, and as stated there are no exceptions within IEEPA programs for unlicensed U.S. law enforcement or intelligence agency operations.

There is a provision in the Kingpin Act for “authorized” law enforcement and intelligence activities, however the only procedure by which an Operation Fast and Furious program could have been “authorized” under the Kingpin Act was by the U.S. attorney general requesting a waiver (known within the Treasury Department as a Specific License), prior to any such operation being undertaken. To illustrate and emphasize this point: even during the run-up to war in Iraq, the U.S. secretary of Defense had to obtain waivers (specific licenses) from the Treasury Department to allow U.S. Special Forces and their necessary equipment (to include weapons, intelligence gathering, and targeting gear) to go into Iraq, as Iraq at the time was under separate IEEPA sanctions.

As an aside: having spent many hours in discussions and negotiations over the exception in the Kingpin Act for authorized law enforcement and the intelligence community, I can assure the reader that the intent of this provision was not to allow for the transfer of thousands of semi-automatic weapons to cartel members. The intent of this portion of this particular Act is to allow for cash payments by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to confidential informants and intelligence sources within cartels to aid in their dismantlement, and not to facilitate the transfer of weapons used to murder hundreds of innocent civilians in Mexico and a U.S. Federal Border Agent.

As part of Congress’ ongoing investigation, as well as its constitutionally mandated oversight activities, it should be asked of Attorney General Holder if any such specific licenses were requested or granted by the Treasury Department. Additionally, Treasury Secretary Geithner should explain whether his Department has begun an investigation into these apparent violations of IEEPA and the Kingpin Act.

Interestingly, and of serious note — if Secretary Geithner finds that the laws and programs which his Department administers have been violated, Treasury procedures mandate that the matter be referred to Eric Holder’s Justice Department for enforcement!

Perhaps the appointment of a special prosecutor is necessary after all.

Mr. Stinebower is a former Navy Intelligence Officer, Professional Staff Member to the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Naval Attache.

http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-justice-dept-violated-us-laws/?singlepage=true
Logged
prentice crawford
Power User
***
Posts: 775


« Reply #789 on: December 06, 2011, 12:24:53 AM »

Woof,
 Holy sh#t balls! If only we didn't have such a thoroughly corrupt government; someone might be held accountable.
                                                                 P.C.
Logged

bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #790 on: December 06, 2011, 05:22:39 AM »

That is an excellent post, BBG. 
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #791 on: December 06, 2011, 05:31:59 AM »

Real glad to have you back BBG cool

================

Fast & furious lies

By MICHAEL A. WALSH

Last Updated: 11:31 PM, December 4, 2011

Posted: 10:54 PM, December 4, 2011


It was all a lie. The angry denials, the high dudgeon, the how-dare-you accuse-us bleating emanating from Eric Holder’s Justice Department these last nine months.

Operation Fast and Furious — the “botched” gun-tracking program run by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — did, in fact, deliberately allow some 2,000 high-powered weapons to be sold to Mexican drug cartel agents and then waltzed across the border and into the Mexican drug wars — just as Sen. Chuck Grassley and Rep. Darrell Issa, who are leading the congressional investigations, have charged all along.

That’s the conclusion we can draw from Friday night’s nearly 1,400-page document dump, which gives us a glimpse into the inner workings of the Justice Department as it struggled earlier this year to come up with an explanation for the deadly mess — and “misled” Congress.

Now the man who supervised it, Attorney General Holder, will appears before Congress again Thursday to testify in the exploding fiasco. But there’s really only one question he needs to answer: Why?

Why did Justice, the ATF and an alphabet soup of federal agencies facilitate the transfer of guns across the border — without the knowledge of Mexican authorities — when they knew they couldn’t trace them properly?

The scandal erupted late last year, after at least two F&F weapons were found at the southern Arizona scene of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder. Grassley, the top Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Justice for an explanation.

The response was a Feb. 4 letter from assistant AG Ron Weich, who insisted, “The allegation . . . that ATF ‘sanctioned’ or otherwise knowingly allowed the sale of assault weapons . . . is false.” The ATF, Weich went on, “makes every effort to interdict weapons that have been purchased illegally and prevent their transportation to Mexico.”

That letter has now been formally withdrawn. “Facts have come to light during the course of this investigation that indicate the Feb. 4 letter contains inaccuracies,” wrote deputy attorney general James Cole on Friday.

Nice to finally see the government admitting what we’ve known all along — that according to ATF whistleblowers, Fast and Furious was an ill-advised, poorly supervised mess that was doomed from the start.

Fox News recently unearthed a Feb. 3 memo in which ATF agent Gary Styers recounted to his superiors his conversations with Grassley’s investigators: “It is unheard of to have an active wiretap investigation without full-time, dedicated surveillance units on the ground,” he wrote, adding that objections by agents were “widely disregarded.”

Again — why? Perhaps the point was to put the onus for the Mexican drug violence on the American “gun lobby.” The newly released e-mails show Dennis Burke, the since-fired US attorney in Arizona who supervised the operation, furiously pushing back against Grassley and his staff, calling them “willing stooges for the Gun Lobby.”

Holder has insisted he knew nothing about F&F, but the documents show his underlings’ fingerprints. Weich’s original "misleading" letter, for example, was edited by Jason Weinstein, a deputy to Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer, who forwarded various drafts to his boss.

But Breuer (who reports to Holder) has denied that he had anything to do with drafting or editing Weich’s letter and doesn’t even remember reviewing it before it went to Congress.

So who’s telling the truth?

Meanwhile, Holder spins that F&F was merely a continuation of the Bush-era Operation Wide Receiver, which also lost a few weapons. The difference is that Wide Receiver’s mistakes were inadvertent: That gun-tracking program was under tight surveillance and — unlike F&F — was a joint venture between the US and Mexican authorities.

It’s time for the months of lies to end — but don’t hold your breath. The administration recently sealed the court records relating to agent Terry’s murder and — a year later — the one man arrested hasn’t been tried.

So far, three presidential candidates, a couple of senators and more than 50 congressmen have called for Holder to resign. If he can’t answer the one question that matters — why — that number ought to include his boss.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 05:36:16 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #792 on: December 06, 2011, 05:53:20 AM »

The Next Decisive Date in American History
By Wayne LaPierre
12/5/2011


In all of our nation’s history, a handful of dates stand out – dates that meant life or death for America and our freedoms.

On July 4, 1776, our Founding Fathers put their lives on the line and declared that America would be independent and free. On June 6, 1944, American troops landed at Normandy and America took a critical step toward ending history’s bloodiest war. And on September 11, 2001, we witnessed the deadliest terrorist attack ever to take place on American soil.

These events, and many others, shaped our destiny and still affect our lives today.

And as I travel the country talking to fellow National Rifle Association members, gun owners, and Americans from all walks of life, it is clear to me that the next decisive date in American history will be November 6, 2012 – the day America must decide whether President Barack Obama deserves a second term in the White House.

I say this because so many Americans genuinely, and rightly, fear that something is deeply wrong in our great nation. We fear that the America we know and love is in danger of jumping the tracks and spiraling out of control. We see a President whose values and goals are, in many ways, the exact opposite of our beliefs and what generations of Americans have fought and died for.

This is why all gun owners and freedom-loving Americans must ask this question: “If Barack Obama wins a second term in office, will my freedom, and particularly my Second Amendment freedom, become more or less secure?”

And then, we must consider the facts.

Every one of President Barack Obama’s big decisions – on health care, foreign policy, and the economy – has been rooted in stripping away our freedom and replacing it with increased government control over our lives. And although Obama has held off challenging gun owners and the National Rifle Association directly, he has spent his first term in office setting the stage for a massive second term assault on our gun rights.

Already, Obama has begun to stack our federal courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, with anti-Second Amendment judges who will advance his gun-ban agenda. If he wins reelection, Obama could have the opportunity to tip the fragile balance of the Supreme Court to an anti-gun majority that will reverse the recent Heller and McDonald decisions that affirmed the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Obama has already reversed our country’s strong stance against the coming United Nations gun ban treaty. The U.N. will unveil this sovereignty-killing monster next summer, and Obama’s State Department has publicly declared that achieving a “legally binding Arms Trade Treaty” is a “fundamental policy commitment.” The gun-ban lobby has been working toward this treaty for nearly two decades, and now, they are closer than ever to their goal of controlling civilian firearms ownership worldwide.

Barack Obama falsely accused the United States of arming Mexican drug cartels, and even blamed our Second Amendment rights for Mexican drug crime and murder. Meanwhile, it was the Obama administration that illegally facilitated the transfer of thousands of guns to violent drug cartels in Mexico. To this day, the Obama administration continues to stonewall congressional investigators and hide the details related to its deadly “Fast and Furious” scandal.

In flagrant violation of our rule of law, Obama unilaterally imposed gun registration in four border states – requiring gun dealers to register the sales of any law-abiding citizen who purchases more than one semi-automatic rifle within one week.

And just one month ago, Obama’s Assistant Attorney General, Lanny Breuer, told the U.S. Senate that all Americans should be forced to register their guns. Breuer even hinted at a possible ban on many common handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns, claiming: “Very few hunters in the United States or sports people and law-abiding people really need to have semiautomatic weapons or long guns.”

There can be no question that the Second Amendment, as we know it, may cease to exist should Barack Obama win a second term in office.

This is why I’m asking every NRA member, every gun owner, and every patriotic American to view next year’s election through the lens of freedom. If we fail to draw a line in the sand and defend the future of our Second Amendment rights, then we will lose the one freedom that gives common men and women uncommon power to protect all freedoms. And then, it’s only a matter of time before every freedom in our Bill of Rights is scaled back, diluted or even destroyed.


Wayne LaPierre is the Executive Vice President and Chief Executive Officer of the National Rifle Association of America.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #793 on: December 06, 2011, 09:29:13 AM »

This is offered for consideration only.  I will not be defending this.  I just thought the different view was worth the read. 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/30/mexican_roulette
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #794 on: December 06, 2011, 10:39:56 AM »

This is offered for consideration only.  I will not be defending this.  I just thought the different view was worth the read. 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/30/mexican_roulette

What a steaming pile of MSM product.
Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #795 on: December 06, 2011, 11:30:13 AM »

This is offered for consideration only.  I will not be defending this.  I just thought the different view was worth the read. 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/08/30/mexican_roulette

What a steaming pile of MSM product.

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/06/video-us-approved-large-escalation-of-legal-gun-sales-to-mexico/

Watch the video and see how it guts the aformentioned pile of steaming MSM product.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 31318


« Reply #796 on: December 06, 2011, 11:51:47 AM »

BD:  I am super pressed for time due to catching up from my recent trip.  May I ask you for a summary of the article's hypothesis?
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #797 on: December 06, 2011, 03:10:06 PM »

BD:  I am super pressed for time due to catching up from my recent trip.  May I ask you for a summary of the article's hypothesis?


Blame the gun lobby.  

As I said, GM, you will get zero argument from me.  I just found it and thought it should be read.  Know your enemies (and their specific arguments).  

« Last Edit: December 06, 2011, 03:50:56 PM by bigdog » Logged
G M
Power User
***
Posts: 12055


« Reply #798 on: December 06, 2011, 03:45:12 PM »

BD:  I am super pressed for time due to catching up from my recent trip.  May I ask you for a summary of the article's hypothesis?


Blame the gun lobby. 

As I said, GM, you will zero argument from me.  I just found it and thought it should be read.  Know your enemies (and their specific arguments). 



Copy BD. My fire was directed at the FP piece, not you. Your disclaimer was noted.

Crafty,

If Americans would just stop bitterly clinging to their guns, the ATF wouldn't have to arm the Mexican drug cartels.
Logged
bigdog
Power User
***
Posts: 2165


« Reply #799 on: December 06, 2011, 03:52:02 PM »

BD:  I am super pressed for time due to catching up from my recent trip.  May I ask you for a summary of the article's hypothesis?


Blame the gun lobby. 

As I said, GM, you will zero argument from me.  I just found it and thought it should be read.  Know your enemies (and their specific arguments). 




An even better synopsis.  And sorry... I am not used to not being the object of the fire!!!   cheesy
Copy BD. My fire was directed at the FP piece, not you. Your disclaimer was noted.

Crafty,

If Americans would just stop bitterly clinging to their guns, the ATF wouldn't have to arm the Mexican drug cartels.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 32 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!