Sadly, scandals have become all too common in American public life. Today a significant scandal is brewing within the Obama administration. What is known at this point is that the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives facilitated the delivery of thousands of high powered firearms to Mexican drug cartels. The scandal has been brewing since January and at this point we know that at least two US Federal Agents have been killed with these weapons, as well as about 200 Mexican nationals, both police and civilians. It has been front page news in Mexico since the beginning of the year and was the primary reason that Mexico demanded the recall and replacement of the US ambassador. Mexico has demanded the extradition of those responsible for trial in Mexican courts. Although most of the media has intentionally ignored this story, it is big enough to bring down a president – and if Obama does not move quickly, it will do just that.
Ironically, both the best and the worst ways of handling a scandal like this have been modeled by Republican presidents.
The worst way of handling a scandal that threatens to remove you from office was modeled by President Nixon in the Watergate scandal. By obstructing, lying, delaying and generally trying prevent the truth from coming out – Nixon committed felonies and turned a third rate burglary of the oppositions offices into a career ending move. Nixon stubbornly stalled until a bill of impeachment was voted out of committee and a delegation of Republican Senators lead by Barry Goldwater told him it was all over and if he did not resign, he was going to be impeached and convicted. It is widely believed that Goldwater told Nixon that if he stood trial before the Senate, he would vote to convict.
About 15 years later, President Reagan faced a scandal that could have, if handled poorly, have resulted in his removal from office: The Iran – Contra Affair. This involved the direct breaking of US law by using funds earned from the illegal sale of US weapons to Iran to fund the Contra Rebels fighting the Marxist government then in power in Nicaragua (a second violation of US law). In contrast to Nixon, Reagan moved quickly to take responsibility as president, to fire those obviously involved and to appoint a commission composed of prominent politicians of both major parties to investigate. Congress also investigated and several people were convicted of federal crimes.
Sadly, it appears that President Obama is following Nixon’s example of cover up and obstruction. House and Senate investigators have traced the scandal as high as the number two man at the Justice Department – and while both President Obama and AG Eric Holder have denied any knowledge or involvement there is ample evidence of a cover up. It has been almost six months since we first heard about the “Inspector General’s investigation”, yet there have been no firings and no arrests. That is except for the BATFE’s firing of one of the whistleblowers who brought the scandal to light. In response to lawful congressional subpoenas, DOJ sent documents with every page blacked out. The only problem for the administration is that congress already has the documents – they have been supplied by the whistle blowing agents. The latest move in the cover up was the promotion of two of the BATFE officials responsible for the operation to prominent jobs in Washington DC.
With the investigation closing in on the highest levels of the administration, President Obama needs to think about what happened to the last president who decided to cover everything up. Congressional investigators are being aided by agents within BATFE who take their oath to “preserve, protect and defend the constitution of the United States” very seriously. He would also do well to remember that no one died in Watergate. Time is running for our president to come clean, fire some people and take responsibility. If he stays on the present course there is a very good chance that he will not politically survive to run in 2012.
Saturday, August 20, 2011
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Wisconsin, Unions and 2012
Yesterday there was a huge showdown in the state of Wisconsin. Shortly after the downgrade of US debt, the voters Wisconsin showed that they "get it". They understand that the days of huge government spending, and "gold plated" benefits and pay for government workers is over.
Under the leadership of Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin became one of the first states to face the reality and make the hard choices in order to balance their budget. This included taking on the public employee unions.
This is even more significant because of the changes in recent decades in union constituencies. In my father's day, unions mostly represented workers in the private sector. FDR actually stated that union should be forbidden to organize government workers. This gave unions a huge incentive to make their companies profitable and gave then a huge stake in the free enterprise system.
Sadly, this has all changed. Now 80% of union workers are employed by government. The effect has been to eliminate unions interest in the free enterprise system, replacing it with an interest in promoting an ever expanding government and ever higher taxes. Today, unions are no longer champions of the little guy working for a private employer - they are defenders of government workers collecting pay and benefits far above those in the private sector. It also has made today's unions into radical proponents of socialism.
In the wake of Wisconsin's government cutbacks, the unions pulled out all the stops in an effort to reverse them. They targeted every vulnerable Republican lawmaker for recall. They poured millions of dollars and thousands of workers into the effort The elections were held yesterday. The result? Only two lawmakers were recalled. It was a huge defeat for the unions - and a clear indication that the people "get it". Unions are no longer their friends.
What are the long term implications?
First, unions need to return to their roots. They need to sell their services to workers in the private sector and abandon their push for an ever expanding government and socialism. They need to stop complaining that it is too hard to organize Walmart and instead recognize that no one is going to beat them up, turn dogs on them or shoot them. Compared to unions in the past, they have it easy!
Second, this election indicates that Democrats are going to have a very hard time in 2012. Wisconsin is a liberal state, the unions and their democratic allies put forth a huge effort and they lost big. The American people are mad and they want change. They are greatly disappointed in the current administration and want to move to the right. For the Democrats to have any chance in 2012, they must do the same - if they can.
Under the leadership of Gov. Scott Walker, Wisconsin became one of the first states to face the reality and make the hard choices in order to balance their budget. This included taking on the public employee unions.
This is even more significant because of the changes in recent decades in union constituencies. In my father's day, unions mostly represented workers in the private sector. FDR actually stated that union should be forbidden to organize government workers. This gave unions a huge incentive to make their companies profitable and gave then a huge stake in the free enterprise system.
Sadly, this has all changed. Now 80% of union workers are employed by government. The effect has been to eliminate unions interest in the free enterprise system, replacing it with an interest in promoting an ever expanding government and ever higher taxes. Today, unions are no longer champions of the little guy working for a private employer - they are defenders of government workers collecting pay and benefits far above those in the private sector. It also has made today's unions into radical proponents of socialism.
In the wake of Wisconsin's government cutbacks, the unions pulled out all the stops in an effort to reverse them. They targeted every vulnerable Republican lawmaker for recall. They poured millions of dollars and thousands of workers into the effort The elections were held yesterday. The result? Only two lawmakers were recalled. It was a huge defeat for the unions - and a clear indication that the people "get it". Unions are no longer their friends.
What are the long term implications?
First, unions need to return to their roots. They need to sell their services to workers in the private sector and abandon their push for an ever expanding government and socialism. They need to stop complaining that it is too hard to organize Walmart and instead recognize that no one is going to beat them up, turn dogs on them or shoot them. Compared to unions in the past, they have it easy!
Second, this election indicates that Democrats are going to have a very hard time in 2012. Wisconsin is a liberal state, the unions and their democratic allies put forth a huge effort and they lost big. The American people are mad and they want change. They are greatly disappointed in the current administration and want to move to the right. For the Democrats to have any chance in 2012, they must do the same - if they can.
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
What's Wrong With The ATF's New Reporting Requirement
In recent weeks the BATFE, currently under fire for itself arranging for guns to be smuggled to Mexico, has issued a new regulation requiring Federally licensed dealers to report sales of more than one semi-auto rifle. Of course the press has been quick to hail this as a perfectly reasonable step to stop the completely fictional "river of guns" from flowing to Mexico. So what is wrong with this requirement?
First, this regulation has nothing to do with stopping gun trafficking. The real motive is to change the focus from ATF's own criminal conduct in the "Fast and Furious" debacle. For those who do not know, in this "operation" over 2,500 guns were sold to known gun traffickers by the ORDER of ATF management. ATF agents were then directed to watch while these guns were smuggled over the boarder. Both gun dealers and line ATF agents protested this crazy policy. By issuing this requirement ATF hopes to shift the focus from their own misconduct to law abiding gun dealers.
Second, the reporting requirement is completely unnecessary - because dealers already report suspicious attempted transactions. Gun dealers scrupulously follow the law. A recent audit of all gun dealers in boarder state turned up absolutely no misconduct. Indeed, it is the dealers who enable ATF to catch gunrunners - as one agent testified, "Dealers are our friends, they make our cases." No matter how many or what kind of guns are involved, dealer are quick to call ATF is anything does not look right. In fact, dealer have a name for it: "Stall and Call". They stall the suspect and call the ATF - who before "Fast and Furious" would come out and investigate. If they attempted transaction was illegal, they would make an arrest. Of course, since the buyer would have filled out the purchase form (and lied on it), conviction was easy. By both requiring and announcing the parameters of the reporting requirements all they have done is create a lot of paperwork and tell the bad guys what not to do. Straw buyers will just buy smaller quanities over a longer period of time in order not to be reported - something the smart ones were already doing.
Third, this requirement is illegal. Proponents point to a section of US firearms law that allows ATF to require dealers to report anything in their records. However, this provision is intended to allow ATF to compile statistical data. Clearly, it was not intended to allow ATF to collect identifying information. If it was, ATF could just require every sales form to be reported and instantly create a national gun registry - something congress clearly did not intend to do.
In contrast to the cited provision, there is a completely applicable provision in the US firearms code. In 1986, congress decided to codify something ATF had been doing for quite a while. They wrote a reporting requirement for multiple handgun sales into the 1986 revision of federal gun law. At the same time, mindful that up to that point ATF had been requiring reporting multiple handgun sales administratively, they included a provision forbidding the routine reporting of any other transactions. That's right - what ATF is trying to do is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL LAW. This is why the acting director of ATF, Kenneth Melson, has stated that an act of congress may be required in order to require this reporting.
This is the real reason why NRA has filed suit to stop the reporting. If ATF, an agency that has recently been involved in clearly criminal behavior, is allowed to write their own guns laws, the 2nd Amendment might as well not exist.
If you are a non-shooter, consider this: How would you feel about the DEA requiring all prescriptions for any drug that can be abused to be reported to them? No debate in congress, no respect for the laws that protect patient privacy - just an administrative ruling. How about requiring all bank deposits to be reported to the IRS, just because they say so? Would you be concerned about such things? I hope you would!
The first thing we need to do is abolish the ATF. This agency has gotten us into all the federal law enforcement debacles in the last 20 years; Waco, Ruby Ridge and now "Fast and Furious". Although other agencies became involved these all began with the ATF. This is strong evidence that ATF is a dysfunctional agency. This is not to say that there are not MANY good agents - there are many, the whistle blowers in "Fast and Furious" included - but the agency clearly has a toxic culture.
This is not to say that gun laws would not be enforced. Enforcement responsibility could and should be given to a functional agency, such as the FBI. Licensing of dealers, manufacturers and collectors could be handled by the Treasury Department. Agents could transfer from ATF on a case by case basis.
The Second thing we need to do is get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious, or Gunwalker scandal. If you don't know what that is, check out my blog on the subject. Clearly, multiple felonies have been committed on both side of the boarder. The Mexican government wants to prosecute ATF agents in Mexico. Thousands of guns have been funneled into criminal hands and will be used to kill people for years. This is the most serious scandal since Watergate - and we should not let ATF - or the Obama administration - change the subject.
First, this regulation has nothing to do with stopping gun trafficking. The real motive is to change the focus from ATF's own criminal conduct in the "Fast and Furious" debacle. For those who do not know, in this "operation" over 2,500 guns were sold to known gun traffickers by the ORDER of ATF management. ATF agents were then directed to watch while these guns were smuggled over the boarder. Both gun dealers and line ATF agents protested this crazy policy. By issuing this requirement ATF hopes to shift the focus from their own misconduct to law abiding gun dealers.
Second, the reporting requirement is completely unnecessary - because dealers already report suspicious attempted transactions. Gun dealers scrupulously follow the law. A recent audit of all gun dealers in boarder state turned up absolutely no misconduct. Indeed, it is the dealers who enable ATF to catch gunrunners - as one agent testified, "Dealers are our friends, they make our cases." No matter how many or what kind of guns are involved, dealer are quick to call ATF is anything does not look right. In fact, dealer have a name for it: "Stall and Call". They stall the suspect and call the ATF - who before "Fast and Furious" would come out and investigate. If they attempted transaction was illegal, they would make an arrest. Of course, since the buyer would have filled out the purchase form (and lied on it), conviction was easy. By both requiring and announcing the parameters of the reporting requirements all they have done is create a lot of paperwork and tell the bad guys what not to do. Straw buyers will just buy smaller quanities over a longer period of time in order not to be reported - something the smart ones were already doing.
Third, this requirement is illegal. Proponents point to a section of US firearms law that allows ATF to require dealers to report anything in their records. However, this provision is intended to allow ATF to compile statistical data. Clearly, it was not intended to allow ATF to collect identifying information. If it was, ATF could just require every sales form to be reported and instantly create a national gun registry - something congress clearly did not intend to do.
In contrast to the cited provision, there is a completely applicable provision in the US firearms code. In 1986, congress decided to codify something ATF had been doing for quite a while. They wrote a reporting requirement for multiple handgun sales into the 1986 revision of federal gun law. At the same time, mindful that up to that point ATF had been requiring reporting multiple handgun sales administratively, they included a provision forbidding the routine reporting of any other transactions. That's right - what ATF is trying to do is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN BY FEDERAL LAW. This is why the acting director of ATF, Kenneth Melson, has stated that an act of congress may be required in order to require this reporting.
This is the real reason why NRA has filed suit to stop the reporting. If ATF, an agency that has recently been involved in clearly criminal behavior, is allowed to write their own guns laws, the 2nd Amendment might as well not exist.
If you are a non-shooter, consider this: How would you feel about the DEA requiring all prescriptions for any drug that can be abused to be reported to them? No debate in congress, no respect for the laws that protect patient privacy - just an administrative ruling. How about requiring all bank deposits to be reported to the IRS, just because they say so? Would you be concerned about such things? I hope you would!
The first thing we need to do is abolish the ATF. This agency has gotten us into all the federal law enforcement debacles in the last 20 years; Waco, Ruby Ridge and now "Fast and Furious". Although other agencies became involved these all began with the ATF. This is strong evidence that ATF is a dysfunctional agency. This is not to say that there are not MANY good agents - there are many, the whistle blowers in "Fast and Furious" included - but the agency clearly has a toxic culture.
This is not to say that gun laws would not be enforced. Enforcement responsibility could and should be given to a functional agency, such as the FBI. Licensing of dealers, manufacturers and collectors could be handled by the Treasury Department. Agents could transfer from ATF on a case by case basis.
The Second thing we need to do is get to the bottom of the Fast and Furious, or Gunwalker scandal. If you don't know what that is, check out my blog on the subject. Clearly, multiple felonies have been committed on both side of the boarder. The Mexican government wants to prosecute ATF agents in Mexico. Thousands of guns have been funneled into criminal hands and will be used to kill people for years. This is the most serious scandal since Watergate - and we should not let ATF - or the Obama administration - change the subject.
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
The Who and Why of the BATFE Scandal
Yesterday the House Oversight and Reform Committee held additional hearings in the ATF gunrunning scandal. In these hearings we learned that in addition to the ATF facilitating the smuggling of thousands of guns to Mexican drug cartels - which were then used to kill hundreds of Mexicans and two US Federal Agents, the scandal extended even further:
1) In addition to BATFE - FBI, DEA, ICE and the IRS were all involved.
2) Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer clearly knew all about the operation. Breuer has been described as Attorney General Eric Holder's "right hand man". Of course, Holder's boss is President Obama.
3) All ATF personnel in Mexico were intentionally kept in the dark.
4) A high ranking ATF manager has admitted to communicating details of the operation to a White House aide.
5) The big question still is, "Who authorized this operation?"
With the news that Lanny Breuer knew of the operation in detail, we have moved from this being an operation supposedly authorized by ATF managers in the South West, to an operation authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department. Would Lanny Breuer or for that matter Eric Holder authorize an operation that sent guns to criminals in a foreign country? Are either of both of these men willing to take the blame - and potentially the jail sentence?
We may very well find out soon, as house investigators are now focusing on the highest levels of the Justice department.
I am amazed that no one in the press - right or left - is applying a little critical thinking to this story.
As one committee member asked, "How cold this have ever worked?" He never got an answer.
Consider:
1) Without any coordination with Mexican authorities there was no way anyone in Mexico could have ever been arrested.
2) The only method ATF had of tracking guns in Mexico was to wait for them to be seized - usually after someone innocent was dead. The disdain for the lives of Mexican citizens was incredible.
3) Even when they were able to tie someone in Mexico to the guns, it was only a low level soldier - not someone high up in the cartel.
4) Even if this was the strategy, within the first year they had everything they were ever going to get. Why did they continue?
5) After DEMANDING that cooperating gun dealers sell large quantities of firearms to people they would have otherwise refused to sell even one gun to, ATF then named these very same gun dealers as "sources of crime guns" - citing the very sales they were ordered to make.
6) Given the fact that there was absolutely nothing to be gained investigatively be allowing guns to cross the boarder - what was the purpose?
7) President Obama has told gun groups that he is "working for gun control under the radar".- why are members of the press not asking what this means?
8) If it were not for the courage of the ATF whistle blowers, what kind of scandal would we have? Answer: We would have a dead boarder patrol agent, killed with a gun channeled from a US gun shop to the cartels. We would also have a list of thousands of guns from US retail channels, recovered in Mexico.
Conclusion: The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that the purpose of this program was to create justification for additional gun control laws here in the US. Yes, this is far fetched - yes this is hard to believe - but at this point it is the only explanation that makes any sense at all. The only other explanation is that ATF brass is totally incompetent and there for unable to tell after two years that the operation would not work. I find that even harder to believe.
Perhaps the most frightening thing about this is the evidence that people in our government were willing to kill people on both sides of the boarder in order to limit the gun rights of Americans. So much for the motive being to save lives. What was their true motive?
1) In addition to BATFE - FBI, DEA, ICE and the IRS were all involved.
2) Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer clearly knew all about the operation. Breuer has been described as Attorney General Eric Holder's "right hand man". Of course, Holder's boss is President Obama.
3) All ATF personnel in Mexico were intentionally kept in the dark.
4) A high ranking ATF manager has admitted to communicating details of the operation to a White House aide.
5) The big question still is, "Who authorized this operation?"
With the news that Lanny Breuer knew of the operation in detail, we have moved from this being an operation supposedly authorized by ATF managers in the South West, to an operation authorized at the highest levels of the Justice Department. Would Lanny Breuer or for that matter Eric Holder authorize an operation that sent guns to criminals in a foreign country? Are either of both of these men willing to take the blame - and potentially the jail sentence?
We may very well find out soon, as house investigators are now focusing on the highest levels of the Justice department.
I am amazed that no one in the press - right or left - is applying a little critical thinking to this story.
As one committee member asked, "How cold this have ever worked?" He never got an answer.
Consider:
1) Without any coordination with Mexican authorities there was no way anyone in Mexico could have ever been arrested.
2) The only method ATF had of tracking guns in Mexico was to wait for them to be seized - usually after someone innocent was dead. The disdain for the lives of Mexican citizens was incredible.
3) Even when they were able to tie someone in Mexico to the guns, it was only a low level soldier - not someone high up in the cartel.
4) Even if this was the strategy, within the first year they had everything they were ever going to get. Why did they continue?
5) After DEMANDING that cooperating gun dealers sell large quantities of firearms to people they would have otherwise refused to sell even one gun to, ATF then named these very same gun dealers as "sources of crime guns" - citing the very sales they were ordered to make.
6) Given the fact that there was absolutely nothing to be gained investigatively be allowing guns to cross the boarder - what was the purpose?
7) President Obama has told gun groups that he is "working for gun control under the radar".- why are members of the press not asking what this means?
8) If it were not for the courage of the ATF whistle blowers, what kind of scandal would we have? Answer: We would have a dead boarder patrol agent, killed with a gun channeled from a US gun shop to the cartels. We would also have a list of thousands of guns from US retail channels, recovered in Mexico.
Conclusion: The only explanation that makes any sense at all is that the purpose of this program was to create justification for additional gun control laws here in the US. Yes, this is far fetched - yes this is hard to believe - but at this point it is the only explanation that makes any sense at all. The only other explanation is that ATF brass is totally incompetent and there for unable to tell after two years that the operation would not work. I find that even harder to believe.
Perhaps the most frightening thing about this is the evidence that people in our government were willing to kill people on both sides of the boarder in order to limit the gun rights of Americans. So much for the motive being to save lives. What was their true motive?
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Will they get away with it?
Imagine that the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) infiltrated a large drug distribution ring based in Mexico. Imagine that when this drug cartel needed more drugs, the head of DEA decided that, in order to track the cartels distribution network, they would supply the cartel with a drug that kills many of those who use it. Imagine that the DEA tells no one about this operation.
Imagine that an under cover FBI agent, in order to maintain his cover, is forced to use some of these drugs. As a result, the agent dies. In addition, many other people – on both sides of the boarder also die. The DEA tracks the deaths, and keeps sending the drugs to the cartel. DEA executives are “giddy” with the number of deaths caused by their drugs.
Even though these drugs are being smuggled into Mexico, and the leadership of the cartel is there, Mexico is never informed of the “program”. Line DEA agents protest the program from the beginning. When several agents go to the press and the program is exposed, DEA arrests a few low level dealers and declares success. No high level cartel members are busted because there is no evidence against them and DEA has no arrest powers in Mexico. It becomes evident that the “program” never had any chance of building a case against the cartel leaders.
In light of this, many people begin to think that the program had another purpose: To make drugs look more dangerous in order to pass more anti-drug laws that DEA could then enforce.
Congressional hearings are held and it becomes apparent that the head of DEA was fully aware of the program. There is evidence that high ranking DOJ and administration officials also knew of the program and did nothing to stop it. Families of drug users killed in the program, as well as the family of the FBI agent testify before Congress. Political pressure rises for the person responsible to be held accountable. The head of DEA is pressured to resign, but he refuses – saying that he will not “take the fall” for the scandal. It is widely expected that when he testifies, he will name higher ups in the administration.
Two to three weeks before the DEA head is to testify, members of the Administration’s party hold their own hearings. They argue that the real problem is not DEA’s conduct – it is weak drug laws. DEA cannot enforce the current laws because they are too weak. They advocate the same new drug laws that the DEA program was possibly designed to justify. Having created the crisis, they now seek to benefit from it.
Could this ever happen? Would a Federal law enforcement agency ever behave this way?
Sadly, it already has happened. Change put ATF in place of DEA, Boarder Patrol in place of FBI and guns in place of drugs and you have the “Gunwalker” ATF scandal. Right down to Democrats attempting to use it to pass more gun control laws.
The only question is: Will the American people let them get away with it?
Imagine that an under cover FBI agent, in order to maintain his cover, is forced to use some of these drugs. As a result, the agent dies. In addition, many other people – on both sides of the boarder also die. The DEA tracks the deaths, and keeps sending the drugs to the cartel. DEA executives are “giddy” with the number of deaths caused by their drugs.
Even though these drugs are being smuggled into Mexico, and the leadership of the cartel is there, Mexico is never informed of the “program”. Line DEA agents protest the program from the beginning. When several agents go to the press and the program is exposed, DEA arrests a few low level dealers and declares success. No high level cartel members are busted because there is no evidence against them and DEA has no arrest powers in Mexico. It becomes evident that the “program” never had any chance of building a case against the cartel leaders.
In light of this, many people begin to think that the program had another purpose: To make drugs look more dangerous in order to pass more anti-drug laws that DEA could then enforce.
Congressional hearings are held and it becomes apparent that the head of DEA was fully aware of the program. There is evidence that high ranking DOJ and administration officials also knew of the program and did nothing to stop it. Families of drug users killed in the program, as well as the family of the FBI agent testify before Congress. Political pressure rises for the person responsible to be held accountable. The head of DEA is pressured to resign, but he refuses – saying that he will not “take the fall” for the scandal. It is widely expected that when he testifies, he will name higher ups in the administration.
Two to three weeks before the DEA head is to testify, members of the Administration’s party hold their own hearings. They argue that the real problem is not DEA’s conduct – it is weak drug laws. DEA cannot enforce the current laws because they are too weak. They advocate the same new drug laws that the DEA program was possibly designed to justify. Having created the crisis, they now seek to benefit from it.
Could this ever happen? Would a Federal law enforcement agency ever behave this way?
Sadly, it already has happened. Change put ATF in place of DEA, Boarder Patrol in place of FBI and guns in place of drugs and you have the “Gunwalker” ATF scandal. Right down to Democrats attempting to use it to pass more gun control laws.
The only question is: Will the American people let them get away with it?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Questions for the Obama DOJ and ATF
I have a few questions for the Obama DOJ and ATF:
1) Why did you send guns into Mexico over the objections of both gun dealers and field ATF agents?
2) If you wanted to track the guns to the "big fish" in Mexico, why in two years of the program did you never notify your Mexican counterparts so they could arrest the 'big fish"? What was your plan to catch the "big fish"?
1) Why did you send guns into Mexico over the objections of both gun dealers and field ATF agents?
2) If you wanted to track the guns to the "big fish" in Mexico, why in two years of the program did you never notify your Mexican counterparts so they could arrest the 'big fish"? What was your plan to catch the "big fish"?
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
The ATF Fast and Furious Scandal: An Overview and Timeline
Note: This blog's timeline will be updated several times per week in order to keep this reference current
Note: Timeline updated September 11, 2012
HTML Hit Counter
Note: Timeline updated September 11, 2012
News Archives and Timeline
January - March 2011
April - May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
Fast and Furious FAQs
What questions remain to be answered? Why is it important that the investigation continue?
I have heard reports that DOJ has turned over all documents related to the Fast and Furious operation – that the only documents being withheld are those after the operation shut down. Is this true?
I have heard over and over that 70-90% of crime guns recovered in Mexico come from US gun shops. Is this true?
Didn't this all start under Bush? Didn't he do the same thing? Didn't his "Wide Receiver" operation use the same tactics?
Wasn't Fast and Furious Just a Botched Sting Operation?
Hasn't Fortune Magazine Proved That No "Gun Walking" Took Place?
I've heard that "straw purchasers" aren't really punished - that it's like a traffic ticket. Democrats are calling Federal "gun trafficking" law. What laws are on the books now? What are the penalties?
January - March 2011
April - May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
Fast and Furious FAQs
What questions remain to be answered? Why is it important that the investigation continue?
I have heard reports that DOJ has turned over all documents related to the Fast and Furious operation – that the only documents being withheld are those after the operation shut down. Is this true?
I have heard over and over that 70-90% of crime guns recovered in Mexico come from US gun shops. Is this true?
Didn't this all start under Bush? Didn't he do the same thing? Didn't his "Wide Receiver" operation use the same tactics?
Wasn't Fast and Furious Just a Botched Sting Operation?
Hasn't Fortune Magazine Proved That No "Gun Walking" Took Place?
I've heard that "straw purchasers" aren't really punished - that it's like a traffic ticket. Democrats are calling Federal "gun trafficking" law. What laws are on the books now? What are the penalties?
How Could Fast And Furious Have Been Used To Promote Gun Control?
Why has so much of the media ignored this story? Why have many who have covered it failed to make the connection to gun control?
Who is Bill McMahon? What was his role in the scandal? Why do many people believe he has been "bought off"?
Why has so much of the media ignored this story? Why have many who have covered it failed to make the connection to gun control?
Who is Bill McMahon? What was his role in the scandal? Why do many people believe he has been "bought off"?
HTML Hit Counter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
3) Why should we not believe the obvious and logical conclusion
4) Why do we need more gun control (which may very well be unconstitu
No new laws are needed. Stop the ATF from sending guns south and enforce the laws we have now.