PostHeaderIcon Fast, Furious and Stupid

The Fast & Furious thing (scandal?, tragedy?, comedy?, soap opera?) just gets curiouser and curiouser. In just the last few days, I have learned:

  • Bush started Fast & Furious. Reality: The Bush administration ran a sting called “Wide Receiver” which released guns to the Mexican drug cartels. The difference is that this sting had the cooperation of Mexican authorities, used guns with RF tracking devices implanted and was meant to snare drug runners, not US gun dealers. This program ended in 2007 after the administration found that the drug runners were removing the tracking devices. This was two years before Fast & Furious was begun.
  • The Congressional hearings on Fast & Furious are nothing more than a partisan attack on Attorney General Holder, intended to distract him from the important work of preventing voter disenfranchisement. (This from House minority leader Pelosi, well known for spouting stupidity.) Reality: For this nonsense to be believed, one must first believe that Mr. Holder handles all Justice Department business by himself. Then one must accept that requiring a photo ID to vote is meant to disenfranchise any legal voter. Ms. Pelosi and her kind would also have us believe that people who have no problem whatever signing up for disability payments, welfare, food stamps, etc. are somehow totally unable to obtain a government-issued photo ID. If photo identification is so onerous, why aren’t the libs protesting “shopper disenfranchisement” when people are required to show an ID to pass a check, or “traveler disenfranchisement” when people are required to show an ID to board certain forms of transportation?
  • Neither Attorney General Holder or President Obama knew anything at all about Fast & Furious prior to the story becoming public. Reality: If this were even remotely true, why the need for (improperly) invoking executive privilege to avoid providing supporting documentation to the Congressional committee? The truth is that before the start of Fast & Furious, both President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton made public statements to the effect that the Mexican drug cartels were obtaining their weapons through illegal gun sales in the USA. When an investigation showed this to be not the case, suddenly we have a program in place that seems tailor-made to, in fact, make these false statements become true. The bottom line is that Fast & Furious was intended to undermine the second amendment’s guarantee of our right to keep and bear arms, just as was secretary Clinton’s recent move to commit the USA to support the UN small arms control treaty.

My personal assessment is that Fast & Furious was indeed intended to undermine the second amendment, hopefully leading to the confiscation of all personal firearms. Realization of the progressive dream of a socialist United States that is part of a one-world dictatorship of the elite is, and always will be hampered by a well-armed citizenry in these United States. And, any reading of the notes, articles and publications left by our Founders leaves NO doubt whatever that this is the very intent of the second amendment.

Members of the Congressional committee investigating Fast & Furious now want to find Attorney General Holder in contempt of Congress. That amuses me in a way because I myself have nothing but contempt for this Congress – but, I digress. Even if the wobbly-kneed bums that pass themselves off as Congressional “leadership” allow this finding of contempt to go forward, so what? The administration ignores our Constitution, they ignore federal court orders and they treat the Congress like an annoying insect. What can we expect a finding of contempt to do?

How about another point of view? We know that at least two federal agents have been murdered with the weapons unleashed by Fast & Furious. Along with the murders of literally thousands of Mexican citizens, and, for all we know, some United States citizens as well. How about holding every federal official who allowed this disgrace to go on be found to be accessories to murder? How about some charges of treason for an act that clearly has aided and abetted people who are attacking the United States? How about articles of impeachment for the President, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State? How about yanking the broadcasting permits of networks that try to hide the truth? You see, I do not believe for one second that the first amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press grants license for publishers to lie and obfuscate. Instead, I believe it was meant to guarantee the citizen’s right to be informed.

How about we the sheeple get Furious for a change? How about we simply stop putting up with this crap? As I have suggested in past articles, if a criminal were breaking into your property, seeking to steal your goods or to harm you or your loved ones, you would know exactly what to do. Why is it not just as obvious what to do when criminals are destroying your Republic and taking away your liberty?

Think about it – then starting doing something about it!!

Troy L Robinson

27 Responses to “Fast, Furious and Stupid”

  • Good synopsis, Troy. The Second Amendment is nothing less than the reset button on our Constitution. If these Stupid fools aren’t careful, they are going to trigger some Furious Patriots into pushing it. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    I happen to agree with a lot of this, in fact, I did a blog entry on this that traced the timeline of events. Something that I don’t seem to see a lot of people talking about is this:

    ^ This is Congressmen Issa on Face The Nation (CBS (TM)) discussing why he was trying to get answers. Look at the number of blank/blacked pages he has received as a result of his first inquiry. He actually brings PROOF as to why something is fishy. This was in 2011, NOT an election year, by the way.

    I find it to be rather ridiculous to say that Issa is doing this purely as a political maneuver. Sure, that COULD be PART of it, but this thing reeks of Watergate to me.

    What are your thoughts on this?

    • Agreed, Greg. I read your blog post on this yesterday, and it was a pretty good synopsis, as far as it went. You left out the number of times Justice department officials flat out lied to Issa’s committee, even in writing, about what they knew and when they knew it. They, including Holder himself, had to ‘walk back’ their earlier false testimony. Why is that not perjury? Do regular citizens get to retract perjures for a do over?

      Also, you may have missed that recently a disgusted whistle blower leaked unredacted e-mails to Issa’s committee, which prove there is a coverup in process. Such e-mails are precisely what they have subpoenaed, which is why they won’t release them. The media is doing yeomanly work trying to downplay this, but Issa has the goods, and he is a bulldog. It won’t go away… â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    I don’t know… is “contempt of Congress” the Congressional way of saying “You were lying/hiding things from us,” or does it mean something else? THat is a PERFECT example of the media dumbing things down, to follow from an earlier example: They’ve dumbed down “Contempt of Congress” so much that we don’t know what it actually means! I will provide a link in a moment.

    As far as what you’re talking about, I think citizens can retract statements (it happens, but rarely after trials, years after trials–it’s called “recanting”), but I’m not sure of legal circumstances, etc. etc. etc.

    What I long for is the days of Watergate. No, not in terms of scandalous atmosphere. But if you remember the case (Regardless of true motive behind it), Congress thought the President was wrong, they did something about it!

    • Troy says:

      Best I can tell, “contempt of Congress” means “now you have really pissed us off!”. Beyond that, I know not what it implies… so, I got the following from Wikipedia:

      Contempt of Congress is the act of obstructing the work of the United States Congress or one of its committees. Historically the bribery of a senator or representative was considered contempt of Congress. In modern times, contempt of Congress has generally applied to the refusal to comply with a subpoena issued by a Congressional committee or subcommittee — usually seeking to compel either testimony or the production of documents.

      Following a contempt citation, the presiding officer of the chamber is instructed to refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia; according to the law it is the “duty” of the U.S. Attorney to refer the matter to a grand jury for action.

      The criminal offense of “contempt of Congress” sets the penalty at not less than one month nor more than twelve months in jail and a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $1,000.

      Were there to be such a fine, no doubt it would be paid with OUR money. More at:


  • Greg says:

    The saga continues. A few things to note:
    1) Of the 7,000+ documents that Issa has been given, several of them do not even relate to the case.
    2) Fast and Furious had been active under the Bush administration, stopped (under the guise of “Whoops. This was a bad idea.”), and then RESTARTED under the Obama administration (if I understood Issa rightly that is. May not have).

    Issa was also on This Week with George Stephanapoulos.

  • Greg says:

    Nope, I looked at the full interview again. That’s wrong: Issa was saying that Fast and Furious is essentially the reboot of Wide Receiver. To a certain degree, people saying that Bush started it is legitimate–but he was also smart enough to end it. Obama REstarted it.

    • There are a couple of huge differences between Wide Reciever and Fast & Furious. First, they actually tracked the guns with GPS devices hidden in them during WR. Second, it was done in full cooperation with the Mexican government. They stopped it when the gangs discovered the devices and started removing them.

      Fast & Furious was done without the Mexican government’s knowledge, and they did not try to track the guns. The rather obvious intent of the operation was to make true the Obama administration’s earlier debunked assertion that Mexican cartels were being armed by American gun dealers. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    Then, using my link above, when Issa speaks of “Restarting” something, can you explain to me what it was he meant? I’m confused then >.<

    • I just watched the clip. He was trying to make it clear that this wasn’t a continuation of a previous operation, that the DOJ had found the tactic of allowing guns to ‘walk’ across the border flawed, yet the Obama administration ‘restarted’ allowing them to ‘walk.’ I suppose in the constraint of time, he did not get into the major differences in them, which I outlined above.

      Please note that the original GW program would have been a real boon to the Mexican government, for the intelligence regarding the movements of the perps carrying these guns, which would be like placing a tracking device on a vehicle, etc. This intelligence component was not part of FF, and the Mexican government was outraged when they found out about it, with over 300 dead citizens on their hands, killed by these guns. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    If I am understanding you correctly, he is not telling us that any operation is being continued/restarted, but that the TACTIC is being restarted?

    • I suppose you could put it that way, if you define allowing someone who probably shouldn’t have passed the background check to purchase firearms in quantity from an American gun dealer, who had duly reported the proposed transaction as suspicious to the Feds, and allowed them to be ‘walked’ across the border into Mexico, as a ‘tactic’ in and of itself. Of course, when GW employed this tactic, they bugged the guns first, let the Mexican government know they were coming, and shared the tracking data with them. When FF employed this tactic, they did not bug the guns, did not inform the Mexican government they were coming, and sat back waiting for them to be used in crimes, eventually captured, and then traced back to America. The motives and implementation of this ‘tactic’ were very different in FF from GW. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Troy says:

      Since taking office, the Obamanation has constantly defended his violations of our Constitution on the grounds that “Bush started it” or “Bush did it too” or “Bush was even worse”.

      To which I reply — SO WHAT?

      Trying to split hairs over which of our last 3 presidents was the worst is an exercise in futility because it makes no difference at all.

      ALL THREE of them were embarrassments to our Republic, ALL THREE ignored if not trampled our Constitution and ALL THREE in now way deserve t be remembered as statesmen.

      Imagine for a moment that the Allies had captured Hitler and then taken him to Nuremberg for trial. Do you think he could have won acquittal with the argument that “Stalin was as bad or worse”?

      A wrong act is a wrong act with out regard to possibly wrong acts committed by others.

      My simple question for the Obamanation is this: If so much of what Bush did was wrong, why are you continuing it? Bush may have been too naive to realize some of his wrongs but here you are telling us that you KNOW they were wrong yet you continue anyway. Why? And how could that possibly lessen your own guilt??


  • Greg says:

    The drama continues… is this a plant, do you think, or is this serious? Further, why is this Congressman commenting on it if he hasn’t even read it?

    • It appeared to me that he was doing his best NOT to comment on it, despite her continued insistance that he should. He has been involved in his own investigation, and has listened to sworn testimony of whistleblowers within the department. The opinion of a reporter, who has interviewed others who claim the whistleblowers are wrong, isn’t very persuasive to him. He wants to review the actual documents, which would confirm or refute that testamony. That seems reasonable to me. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    What I didn’t like about the Congressman is that he said, “I didn’t read it, but I know it’s a lie.” I would rather him say “No comment.” Commenting from a position of ignorance doesn’t exactly go over well with me. 🙂

    • Understood. It was a less than artful response. However, please understand that he has already seen the un-redacted e-mails, leaked by another insider, which prove the veracity of the whistleblower’s testimony. From his perspective, it doesn’t matter how many employees of the department are prepared to lie to a reporter, to try to cover for their bosses; he has objective proof. Nor, is he required to read all of the spin and obfuscation being published, no matter who suggests that he should consider it.

      Let me give you an example. Much has been written to try to cover for the lies contained in Obama’s ghost-written book, “Dreams From My Father.” All manner of people are coming out of the woodwork, willing to lie to cover for him, when there is objective evidence available, which proves they are lying. Let’s take just one small example, to illustrate my point.

      He claims in the book, and repeats often in campaign appearances, that his father abandoned his mother when he was only two-years-old. We have known for several years now, that they never lived together as man and wife. In fact, we have the objective evidence documenting her enrollment and attendance in college in Seattle, beginning just a couple of weeks after his birthdate.

      We have her address there well documented, pictures of the documents, the building, and descriptions of the apartment. Contemporaneous witnesses recall her living there, and Barry’s babysitter at the time has even been interviewed. I have never seen these facts disputed by anyone, only ignored and/or obfuscated with bluster, and dismissed with derision, for anyone daring to mention them.

      Meanwhile, it is well documented that Obama Sr. was attending college in Honolulu during this time, and she never returned to Hawaii, until well after he had left there to attend Harvard. There was no loving family in his infancy, which was torn asunder by his father’s abandonment of his mother. If anything, she abandoned him, before Barry was even born. There is no record of a marriage (although there is of a divorce), no pictures, nobody claiming to have attended the ceremony, and no family friends who remember them as a couple.

      Except… with great fanfare, Neil Abercrombie, a long-time Hawaii congressman, now their Governor, has claimed to have known them in his college days at U of H, and claimed to have met them socially frequently, as a couple with Barry in arms. He is lying through his teeth, plain and simple; because it never could have happened. Yet partisan journalists like Soledad O’Brian, accept it as fact, regard both of these politicians as unimpeachable, and get their knickers in a twist if a guest dares challenge their integrity.

      Now, knowing what I know, from my own in depth research into the subject, would I be wrong to reject out of hand, without reading it, any news article citing an interview with Abercrombie, as evidence to the contrary? I think not. I have never watched her show; but I have seen several clips lately of O’brian badgering a guest, which are embarrassingly partisan in tenor. I wonder why conservatives even bother to appear with her. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    To the greater point about partisanship, absolutely. I can’t stand O’Brian, even as she’s filling in for Anderson– which is supposed to be a “somewhat” balanced show. It always seems as though even a question like “How the weather” is always asked with a motive on her end, absolutely. I’m just saying, being how I am, logic appeals to me. So, if I was him (which I’m not and would never actually want to get into politics >.< ), I would go on the show AFTER the investigation and say, "Look. We have this evidence here to the contrary of this report here. Since we have the actual documents, this lady is wrong, enough said."

    Or even go on the show NOW, say, "Yes, I have read the report. However, we have more than just circumstance to proof this report wrong. You can say what you want, and obviously you're going to try to prove your point. If you'll excuse me, I have to prepare my case for contempt and start building my legal case–both of which matters are far more pressing than being on your show and having you claw at my face."

    Point is, whenever you get on a show where you know you're going to badgered, it is bad, both for the host and for the Congressman. At the very least, Soledad should have let the man finish.

    So, to conclude this argument (Which you helped me elaborate on, thanks! 🙂 ), 1) Don't comment on anything from a position of ignorance, 2) If you're going to have a Congressman (or anyone for that matter!) on your show, show him the respect and decency he deserves… even if you don't agree with him. The world would be a much better place if people just listened to each other instead of shouting each other down and making the other side out to be "evil," would it not? 🙂

  • Greg says:

    Exactly. I’ve longed for a discussion on the issues. Your blog has actually allowed me to discuss issues, go in-depth, and this really is something I have been wanting to do for ages. 🙂

    • If you are interested in some ‘in depth’ straight reporting of the facts and timeline regarding this issue, to inoculate yourself from the spin of your usual news sources, pour yourself a cup of coffee and read this. â—„Daveâ–º

    • Also read this much shorter article, for some newly released details, regarding what was in the leaked documents that the committee received, proving the whistle blower’s testimony.

      Do notice that in this particular investigation, the Republican principles tend to discuss facts and ask questions, demurring on conjecture regarding motives; while the Democrat principles tend to ignore and/or dodge facts, and go straight to ad hominem attacks on the purported partisan motives of the Republicans. â—„Daveâ–º

  • Greg says:

    I have no objections with how the Republicans are doing this, by the way. As an American, it is ALWAYS your right to ask questions in my opinion 🙂

  • A good interview by Lou Dobbs:

    …of the bloggers who broke this story, discussing its current status. â—„Daveâ–º

Leave a Reply

Political Spectrum
Political Circle

Think Up/Down not Left/Right

Internal Links