Thursday, December 8, 2011

Fast and Furious

I just heard Eric Holder say YET AGAIN something about the guns program "whether it was this administration OR THE LAST ONE."    Does he not know that the LAST ONE didn't plan to have guns disappear?  Hasn't he read the words of agents who were stunned that with THIS administration's directions were to drop off guns and leave, keeping no surveillance on them?  Is Holder unaware of the story or does he truly not understand?   The truth is HERE.........would that Americans would pay close attention to the Truth vs Lies outlined in the linked article.    Watching Holder, while we know the truth, is almost painful.


Scotty said...

Republican, Congresswoman Maloney (D-NY) wrote an op-ed piece for the New York Daily News last week entitled "Fast and Furious 'scandal' is a Republican red herring: What we really need are tougher gun laws."

Ahhhhh, the democratic mantra! As if we don't have enough gun laws on the books!

Holder needs to step down.

Michael G Miller said...

How come Scooter Libby went to prison for "lying" during the phony Valerie Plane investigation about who tipped off the media on her supposed CIA status and Holder blatantly lies to a Congressional oversight committee without any repercussions?

Anonymous in Anderson IN

Lisa said...

This is how the democrats solve problems,more bureaucracy(which is code for more power over the people),throw more money at it, or just blame the Republicans.

sue hanes said...

Z - The Gun thing does not have to be such a big deal.

We simply need to have more responsible gun checks so that the Insane Shooters can not get their hands on them.

Also irresponsible gun stockpiling needs to be dealt with.

It is not the responsible citizens who have gun collections that are a problem - but it always goes back to the IRRESPONSIBLE element in our Society.

and's also about packing heat openly in bars. :)

Fredd said...


Our 2nd Ammendment rights allow a well armed citizenry. Even in bars in many states. If a nut is going to kill somebody, a government edict taking away every gun from everybody will not stop the nut from killing: he will use a knife. Then, if liberals want to enact knife laws that take all knives away from everybody, then the nut will use a baseball bat. After every conceivable weapon has been confiscated, the nut is still a nut. He will use a rock. Or she, let's not be sexist here.

I am not quite sure why this is not crystal clear to even the most obtuse among our population.

Need I go on?

Michael G Miller said...

Yeah! Let's have lots of new laws to control guns. Insofar that the criminal element ignores laws anyway, I'm sure they will be just lining up to cooperate. We have a governemnt that won't enforce existing federal law on our borders and yet sadly, they will zealously enforce an unconstitutional one that strips our 2nd Amendment protections, not from criminals, but from law abiding citizens. At some point we have to acknowledge that the majority of the people in our present government are not for this country but are in fact,the enemy of this country and the enemy of the American people. More restrictive and confiscatory laws are the necessary proof.

sue hanes said...

Fredd - Did I not say in my comment that the problem with Guns does not lie with responsible gun owners but with irresponsible gun owners - more specifically irresponsible gun stockpilers.

Not the good people who have gun collections because they love guns -but the people who STOCKPILE guns -
which by the way CAN be dangerous in the hands of Insane Shooters.

Now as far as packing heat in bars - I am not looking to change the laws in Arizona.

That is just my opinion.

I think it is insane to allow people who are drinking to openly pack heat.

But if Arizona wants to allow that - so be it.

I just won't be going into a bar in Arizona for any reason - in case a fight breaks out.

CJohnson said...

How about reading him his rights, telling him that he has the right to remain silent ? And arresting him.

beamish said...


The guns would have never made it into Mexican gangsters hands had Holder's Justice Department not GIVEN them away to them.

This has absolutely nothing to do with guns in the hands of American citizens.

Silverfiddle said...

It depends on what the meaning of the word, is, is...

Anonymous said...

"but the people who STOCKPILE guns -
which by the way CAN be dangerous in the hands of Insane Shooters."

You had we worried there Sue. I think you were talking about decent law abiding, licensed owners and dealers....Phew.

Now I see you were really referring to Holder, the "DoJer's" and the ATF.
They're the only ones smuggling guns to criminals and killing border agent and mexicans.

I feel safer when it's my government that are the real criminals....cause I know even in that venture....they're incompetent and suck at it.

Epecially with a moron and an AA pick like Holder in "charge".

Anonymous said...

"I think it is insane to allow people who are drinking to openly pack heat." your self a favor and look up the laws in AZ about open carry and bars, lounges and alcohol.


They only do that in Indiana & Illinois. Where they have to hide their guns under their jackets or shirts.

christian soldier said...

guess I'm wondering who Sue would put in charge to determine who is a 'responsible' gun owner and what exactly represents a STOCKPILE-
would it be bho- or alinsky- or bill ayers - or - Hmmmmmmmmmmm

sue hanes said...

christian soldier - I say we put in charge of responsible gun control the people who love guns the most.

Let them come up with a Plan to responsibly keep guns out of the hands of the latest shooter at Va.
Tech - who according to the news has shot down two more on that already devestated campus in 2007.

We need more background check on people buying guns.

Only shooters are really in a hurry to get a gun.

Let's check them out and separate the maniacs from the just plain responsible people who want guns for responsible reasons.

sue hanes said...

I don't know if anyone else remembers this but I read back in 2007 this Cho shooter got some or all of his weapons from people who were irresponsibly stockpiling guns.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

sue hanes said...

Well - Imp - are you sayin' that someone packing heat openly in an Arizona bar can't be served alcohol?

What are they there for?

Are they just with the people who do get served and then do the shooting and killing while sober if a fight breaks out?

Z said...

Scotty, he SURE does.

Michael...don't look now, but your 'anonymity' was blown :-)

Lis...or lie.

Sue, this has absolutely nothing to do with our gun laws. This is about a sting dumping guns off and trying to see where they go. Our country is too good to do something as stupid as dumping guns off to bad guys and then not watching what happens to them, which was what Bush's operations were about.

CJohnson; I don't know who you are, but I welcome you and say "AMEN TO THAT" :-)

Is it me or has the whole point of Holder's horribly anti-American program and his lying about it's been overtaken by talking about gun laws in Arizona bars?

GeeeeZ :-)

What do we DO when people just don't hear the truth and Holder can sneak out of things like this? That's problematic

Fredd said...


'Stockpilers.' Those are the villains here. I see now.

Nuts are nuts the world around. If a nut wants to kill somebody, they are going to kill them regardless of the law.

If you have one gun, you're OK, right Sue? And if you have two guns, you're iffy? And of course, if you have (OH MY DEAR LOVING GOD!!) THREE GUNS, you are a wicked 'stockpiler!'

Just FYI: I have a a few very good law abiding friends who collect guns, know everything about them, their histories, etc. These guys have never been so much as cited for spitting on the sidewalk in their entire law abiding lives, and are pillars of their communities. Both of them have over 50 guns each, I would estimate. You would have their guns seized, and them labeled as wicked 'stockpilers.'

Man oh man, you are so wrong on so many levels, Sue.

Chuck said...

Z, give Holder a little credit. I think this is the closest any member of the Obama administration has come to taking any responsibility for anything. Of course he could not do it with also including the Bush administration but...

Z said...

Chuck! Has he taken responsibility between 8 AM my time (LA) and 2:22 my time? I hope so....I'll go turn the TV on. thanks

Jarheads Blog said...

I'll tell you one thing, if these Republicans don't stop shooting each other in the foot we are going to wind up with Obama again for another 4 disastrous years.

Jan said... far as I can tell, he hasn't taken responsibility for anything, and probably never will.

I think it is an abomination that this has happened, and a worse one that they don't seem to care about the havoc they have caused, and are totally responsible for.

Who really knows how many have died as a result of this devious act, other than the border patrol officer, and all the people who were killed in Mexico?

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of deaths, and crimes have occurred as a result of it, in many of the border towns in this country, either.

We'll probably never know the extent of the damage this has caused, nor how high up, the people involved.

I've always wanted to believe that Good ,always, overcomes Evil in the grand scheme of things, but I feel that we are facing a kind of evil that we've never faced before.

It's a sad day for our country, and it seems that we are helpless to do anything about it, at the moment.


About as much as muddy water.

Anonymous said...

So let me see if I understand Sue’s position. The solution to a problem created by government agencies illegally transferring weapons to foreign drug cartels is to restrict the rights of American citizens to own or carry firearms. Is that it?

An inalienable right is a right that no one can deny. One of our inalienable rights is “the right to bear arms.” As with all the rights accorded to us by the Bill of Rights, each sovereign state must incorporate the second amendment in order that it applies to the citizens of that state.

In my state, citizens have the right to bear arms, to carry weapons on their person, provided they apply for and receive a state license. This assures citizens that the individual carrying a weapon knows how to use it, understands the law pertaining to the use of deadly force, and other prohibitions and penalties —including prohibitions of carrying a weapon into a bar. Individuals will lose their gun permit and face criminal sanctions if they violate the law.

Each state has its own law. This makes perfect sense because we are first and foremost, citizens of states and because our Constitution limits federal power over citizens and states:

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” —Ninth Amendment

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” —Tenth Amendment

Fredd is right to challenge the claim, “We need more responsible gun checks…” What we need is for the federal government to focus its attention to the things the Constitution provides that it may legally do. Given the incompetence of our federal government, these corrupt bureaucrats should rely upon the states more, rather than less.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Z said...

Mustang said...

So let me see if I understand Sue’s position. The solution to a problem created by government agencies illegally transferring weapons to foreign drug cartels is to restrict the rights of American citizens to own or carry firearms. Is that it?"

Glad to hear you say that and appreciate all of your comment, Mustang......I just didn't get the connection between the post I did and worrying about boozers in Arizona bars carrying a pistol.......I'm thinking giving guns to Mexican drug cartels is a tad more ABSOLUTELY NUTS?

and unlawful
..let me count the ways.

To say nothing about the stupidity of comparing (which Holder did this morning AGAIN) what Holder's thugs did to what BUsh's agents did (making sure they did constant surveillance on those guns so they can track and trace and ARREST PEOPLE before they KILL our innocent border guards...what a novel thought, huh?)
By the way, I guess THAT 'secret program' is gone now, too.


Michael G Miller said...

Z -
My cover was blown! Was it Scooter Libby?
Was it Richard Armitage (sp?)? Was it Robert Novak? No, he's passed away.
Was it my own account? Yipes!

Z said...

yup! I just had to tease you :-)

Richard Armitage

sue hanes said...

Mustang - As usual - you nailed it.

sue hanes said...

Fredd -

'Man oh man, you are wrong on so many levels, Sue.'

And to you - Dear Fredd - I say:

liar liar pants on fire

Kid said...

Get this sucka ! holder that is.

Well, I do believe there IS a point at which even the tingly legged democrat media will give up on someone. This may be a bridge too far for the holder moron.

Kid said...

Regards guns. I'll guess I'll type this a million times...

Mass murder in America (and many other places) happens in Gun Free Zones.

If you think they can keep guns away from criminals, then you'll have to explain why they can't keep heroin, coke, crack, meth and every other drug away from 12 years old children. After 40 years of the war on drugs.


I think all drugs should be legal btw. I don't care about addicts. It's not my job or financial responsibility to save people from themselves especially when people who want to do drugs will DO THEM ANYWAY whether they are legal or not. Read that last sentence 100 times ok..

The only things to gain here are to stop dumping money down a black hole and eliminate MUCH crime in the process.
With nothing to lose. Since the losers are givens in either environment.

All drugs were legal pre-1920 or so. So some people hurt themselves. So what. People clog the freeways by slamming into the backs of other cars because they're staring at their 'smart' phones. Want to make those illegal? The argument against drugs is pathetic and has nothing to stand on.

Z said...

Kid, excellent input, thanks so much.

I'd like your input more specifically on Fast and Furious, which our gun control laws aren't a part of...
I know you think Holder's lying, too, but you were aware of the difference in how Bush's agents ran this and the nightmare way Holder's agents were told to just dump off guns and leave, right? What are your thoughts?

Kid said...

Z. Regards GWBush

"WASHINGTON — A briefing paper prepared for Attorney General Michael Mukasey during the Bush administration in 2007 outlined failed attempts by federal agents to track illicitly purchased guns across the border into Mexico and stressed the need for U.S. and Mexican law enforcement officials to work together on such efforts using a tactic that now is generating controversy."

My take is I'd say the difference is holding office and not being cognizant of what is going on (GWB) versus actively promoting the events (holder/oblabber)

My general opinion is that GW Bush was a lot more palatable to conservatives because of his visible patriotism and willingness to let loose the dogs of war on our enemy - that being the muslims who had been attacking us since 1970, and more recently, attacking us on our own soil (WTC bombing in 1993 and US Cole) during clinton's [non]watch which was wholly ignored in favor of public opinion polling considerations.
Further, it is my opinion that GW Bush and the 6 year Republican majority Congress was simply incompetent or ignored anything domestic to America. Much flew under the Bush administration radar domestically. Maybe everything.

Summary: Fast and Furious may have happened during GW Bush as an unintentional event, and the same occurred under obama as more of an intentional event with holder in the position of clown denier/liar.
In my opinion.

Fredd said...


'Liar, liar, pants on fire.' Well, I have been put in my place.

Such shame, I should just shut up, and die.

Anonymous said...

"Are they just with the people who do get served and then do the shooting and killing while sober if a fight breaks out?"

How many GD times do I have to tell you that anyone in AZ carrying OPENLY...CANNOT BE SERVED ALCOHOL LEGALLY? What the hells wrong with your comprehension "skills"?

OK...down where I am....I can carry concealed...and because I am a law abiding permit holder...I know that I can carry concealed into a bar. But I also Know that if I'm caught with ALCOHOL while carrying...I"D GO TO JAIL IF I WAS CAUGHT VIOLATING THE TERMS OF MY LEGAL PERMIT...JUST THE DAMN SAME IF I WAS OPERATING A VEHICLE.....DUI.

GO IT NOW? People who carry LEGALLY...would never risk violating THE LAW! WHAT THE HELL IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT THAT?

IT'S all about the creeps and scumbags that don't give a rats ass about the law. They'll carry when they want...where they want...even into places where it's...ILLEGAL!

GOT it...bonehead?

Anonymous said...

" openly pack heat.

Just where did you get that "heat" crap from?

Netflix....Sopranos....? Godfather maybe?....Heat...hmmmmmm....some silly program like...Bill Bowell Movement Mahers?

Course...he uses his "heat" that he packs in his fruit of da tempt underage virgin coeds into his suite of "horrors"....rape? No problem for BM....the coeds aren't packing.....errrrr....heat.


Z said...

Kid "Much flew under the Bush administration radar domestically. Maybe everything"

With OUR media hatred for GWB? I don't think so...
And, from what I understood, the surveillance is what was lacking in the HOlder situation; I think you're right that it's a more intentional event with HOlder (well put, by the way, Kid)

I think the agents during Bush's admin. did try to keep an eye on the guns they'd give the 'bad guys' in a hope of tracking them and arresting, etc.? Does that make sense?

Fredd, buck up, PLEASE. Steady, man......this, too, shall pass :-)

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Kid said...

Z, I did not communicate well. When I said much flew under the Bush administration radar domestically, I was thinking:
- Promised SS reform - nothing
- Promised Tax reform - nothing
- 6 yrs of Repub majority and Nothing to show for it.
-middle eastern CSers with expired visas taking commercial airliner flying lessons but don't need to know how to land? And this was brought to the attention of intelligence superiors and ignored.
You have to know that the intelligence was there at the Oval Office level that there was a major plan in the works by the long hair and a beard jihad people, and as much as I liked GWB from a patriotic and military respect standpoint, I simply cannot reconcile how atta and friends were so easily able to do 9-11.
After all is said and done, these are my core feelings about those 8 years.

Z said...

"I simply cannot reconcile how atta and friends were so easily able to do 9-11."

So you think it was an inside job? That anybody in our gov't can keep something that HUGE quiet? And that when the Bushies heard airplanes might be hit, they should have closed down all airports indefinitely?
Kid, wassup?

Mizz Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mizz Anonymous said...

Impertinent, thank you, please keep on saying it like it is... loud and proud, you are getting to them.
If the left thinks that we are going put up with him, and just stand aside and shut up and let the Barack Obama regime just walk all over is and our constitution,, they have another thought coming. All this Jackass-In-Chief knows how to do is to make speeches and campaign, he don’t know a thing about leadership or how to be an American.

Mizz Anonymous said...

Impertinent, keep telling it. Not enough people are convinced yet. But at least the smart ones understand.

Kid said...

Z, no way I think it was an inside job. I think it was a combination of several main things:

-the gutting of our intelligence departments by bill clinton.

I'm sure GW Bush was appraised of the high potential for some sort of attack, but not the individuals or the what.

So, I'm backing away from the "so easily' comment. Wishful thinking on my part. Unreasonable demands that something could have been done in the Sept 10 world...

Thanks for keeping me Honest Z. Sometimes I post late and slightly buzzed ;-)

Z said...

Kid, no problem! I just couldn't imagine you thinking it was an inside job.
I love it when the liberals say "Bush knew it was going to happen"....yes, the knew terrorists might hit airports...
Imagine them doing the only thing to really stop ANY attack: CLOSE ALL AIRPORTS UNTIL THEY DECIDE NO ATTACK COULD POSSIBLY COME?

This is, apparently, what leftwingers actually think should have been done because they're constantly saying BUSH KNEW SOMETHING MIGHT HAPPEN.

amazing, isn't it?

Kid said...

Z, yes, in fact, since I've sobered up from last night or whenever it was, I have the following thoughts.

Keep in mind this is a September 10, 2001 world.

-box cutters were legal carry on an aircraft.
-no one knew who all the individuals were and even if they did what could be done with them? Killing them or deporting them would have been the Only remedy.
-Pilots were under orders to not resist hijacking.
-Passengers had never heard of mulsims or people using planes as suicide missiles until flt 93 passengers were advised via cell phone.
-How many sleeper cells were out there to take atta and crew's place of they were taken out somehow.

I will maintain that Nothing could have been done to stop this. The very best that could have been done is all the pieces were in place and ready to act, would have been to put a large number of fighters in the air around significant locations. DC, the South Tower of the WTC, etc with orders to shoot down any aircraft deemed to be an attacker. That's the absolute best that could have been done.

I absolutely blame our ignoring muslims since their attacks began in 1970 and most especially bill clinton for his NO response to two direct attacks on our soil. WTC 1993 bombing and USS Cole.

Personally, I also add TWA800 and Egyptair 990.

Lisa said...

I'd really like to see how far this goes. Remember those nasty democrats getting Alberto Gonzalez to step down? And just their overall nastiness thought Bush's term.

I bet Obama just told Holder not to worry about it because it's only just a bunch of republicans asking the questions anyway.