Fast and Furious

In the fall of 2009, the department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), under direction of the U.S. Justice Department, began a gun-walking operation known as "Fast and Furious."  Here was the premise:  allow "straw purchasers" (someone who buys weapons for someone who cannot buy them themselves) to obtain automatic weapons, including .50 caliber sniper rifles, from a dealer in Arizona, cross the border into Mexico with those weapons (hence the "walking") and get them into the hands of Mexican drug cartels where they would then be arrested for possession of illegal weapons.  ATF had GPS tracking devices on the weapons and would track them until the cartels obtained them.  Here's where it all went south, no pun intended.  First of all, the batteries for the GPS devices died, so the weapons all but vanished.  Granted, they still had the serial numbers of the guns, but serial numbers don't emit a signal.  Next, neither ATF nor the Justice Department notified the Mexican authorities of what they were doing.  Oops.  But what really set this off was the murder of U.S. Customs Agent Brian Terry.
     A total of 2,020 weapons were purchased and walked into Mexico.  To date, over 1,400 of those weapons are still unaccounted for.  Over 500 have been linked to violent crime in Mexico.  At least 2 were found at the crime scene where Agent Terry was murdered.  A botched operation no doubt, but it gets worse.  When Attorney General Eric Holder was questioned about it on May 3 of this year by the Senate Judiciary Committee, he said that he had heard of Fast and Furious "a few weeks ago."  But a memo that later surfaced from November 2010, Assistant AG Lanny Breuer notified Holder of a sealed indictment against alleged gun traffickers in Arizona that would remain sealed "until another investigation, Phoenix-based 'Operation Fast and Furious', is ready for takedown."  And in a memo from July 2010 by Michael Walther, director of the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC) claimed Holder was notified that NDIC and a Phoenix drug enforcement task force would assist ATF with an investigation of a suspected gun trafficker being run under Fast and Furious.  Again, oops.  So not only will Holder not admit how long he's actually known about Fast and Furious, even when under oath, he accepts no responsibility for this operation nor will he apologize to the family of Brian Terry, only saying he "regrets" what happened to Terry.  Now the White House has sealed the documents about Agent Terry's death.  This is getting dangerously close to the textbook definition of a cover-up.  Democrats have tried to lessen the impact of Fast and Furious by pointing out that there was a similar operation run under the Bush administration, operation Wide Receiver.  While this is true, there are 2 key differences:  1) Under Wide Receiver, Mexican authorities were notified and involved and, 2) No federal agents lost their life under Wide Receiver.  So Democrats are going to justify Fast and Furious with "Bush did it too?"  Really? I'm not saying Wide Receiver was acceptable DOJ policy, but why can't Dems come down on one of their own for such an egregious error in judgement?  As heat has increased on Holder to resign in the wake of Fast and Furious, he is growing agitated.  He actually confronted a reporter from the Daily Caller, saying, "You guys need to - you need to stop this.  It's not an organic thing that's just happening.  You guys are behind it."  Why is it when liberals are caught in scandals, it's always some "right-wing conspiracy?"  What makes this even worse is someone in the White House knew about this.  According to Human Events, during recent Congressional testimony, former Phoenix area ATF special agent in charge William Newell claims he "discussed the operation with the national security director for North America, Kevin O'Reilly."  This proves a White House official knew about Fast and Furious.  President Obama claims he had no knowledge of Fast and Furious, yet $10 million was set aside for the operation as part of the 2009 stimulus package and he talked about "gun tracing" and "gun enforcement policies" at a joint press conference in Mexico City with President Felipe Calderon in April 2009.  So, obviously someone is lying.  The bigger question is who and about how much?  Obama continues to stand by Holder enacting no discipline upon him whatsoever.  I fear as more details unfold in this investigation, the fallout could be so immense it could make Watergate look like child's play.  Personally, I think this whole operation was botched on purpose to push an all-out assault on the 2nd Amendment.  I hope I'm wrong.  I really, really do.

An Open Letter To The Tea Party

Dear Tea Party,
     Congratulations on being a true grass roots political movement that is the first of its kind in quite a long time to actually affect change in Washington, D.C.  The results of the 2010 mid-term election showed not only that the voice of the people could be heard, but that together citizens could shake up the establishment in our federal government.
     Now a "common goal", if you will, of the Tea Party is to make Barack Obama a one-term President.  You claim that it is because of his failed policies and his "tax and spend" and overtly socialistic philosophy.  Opponents of the Tea Party claim that your desire to defeat Obama is racially motivated.  So let's fast forward one year.  It's now November 2012, and Barack Obama has failed in his bid for a second term.  To the Tea Party I ask this:  now what?  Mission accomplished, let's go home?  Because if it is, all your opponents will get a big "I told you so" to play over all forms of media.  So if you were formed or if your members joined for the sole reason of getting rid of Obama, do us all a favor and leave now.  Leave and don't look back.
     Now those that joined the Tea Party for it's fundamental principles of smaller, limited government and adherence to the Constitution, I pose a stern warning:  Be careful what you wish for.  You need to understand that drastically cutting spending and eliminating many government programs and departments will hurt.  Bad.  But stick with it because it will turn around, and sooner than you think.  Look up "Great Depression of 1920" and you'll see precedence that shows it will work and work quickly.  However, there is one important thing you absolutely have to do.  Stay involved.  Don't assume that because Republicans are in control that all your demands will be met.  They won't.  Stay on them.  Make them fear for their jobs.  Because, as I've said before, the "D" and the "R" next to a politician's name is meaningless.  Just because you elected them doesn't mean they'll do as you wish.  I needn't go any further than Scott Brown to prove my point.  If you want adherence to the Constitution, you had better know the Constitution and all the things the government is NOT allowed to do.  You can't pick and choose which parts you like and label the ones you don't as "open to interpretation."  It isn't.  It never has been and it never will be.  So stay focused, stay informed and above all stay involved, and you will indeed put this country back on the path to greatness.

It's the Constitution, Stupid!

In June or July of 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the ongoing battle of 26 different states suing the federal government over the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare, and more specifically, the individual mandate that requires American citizens to purchase health insurance or face a penalty in the form of a fine from the federal government.  The states all claim that the mandate is unconstitutional.  So let's look at the Constitution, specifically amendments 9 & 10, the last 2 amendments of what is commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

The 9th Amendment says:
     "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The 10th Amendment says:
     "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."

So here's the deal.  The Congress does not have the authority to force the American people to purchase ANYTHING under penalty of a fine.  And since they do not have this authority, it is reserved to the states.  This is why Massachusetts has a state-run health care program implemented under then-Governor Mitt Romney, known as "Romneycare."  It is perfectly within the rights of each individual state to have a state government-run health care system, or any other system if they so desire, as long as it is not prohibited by the Constitution.  If the citizens of said state do not like the policies of their state government, they can as Ronald Reagan once said, "vote with their feet."  In essence, move to another state.  They can also vote all their state representatives and senators out of office and elect people who will repeal the unpopular program(s).  But those powers were never given to the federal government.  That's what is important to remember here.  Each state has the authority, under the Constitution, to implement any program they feel would be in the best interest of it's citizens, as long as those citizens have some say in the process.  But when it comes to the federal government, it does not apply because the citizens cannot move to another country and still keep all the rights allotted them as a U.S. citizen.  So, if Obamacare and the individual mandate are upheld by the Supreme Court, it will essentially render the 9th and 10th Amendments null and void and open the door for Congress to require Americans to do whatever they wish under penalty of a fine or other form of punishment. Further, if the court invalidates the 9th and 10th Amendments, what's to stop them from going after any other part of the Constitution they don't agree with?  Free speech?  The right to bear arms?  Freedom of religion?  Protection from illegal search and seizure?  Does anyone remember Germany in the 1930's?  It's a worst-case scenario I know, but it is not outside the realm of possibility.  Bottom line, the Constitution is not a "living document."  It is not open to interpretation.  It is what it is, the law of the land.  And if Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court, be afraid.  Be very afraid.