It looks as if the botched government program, Operation Gunrunner, will claim its first casualty according to this article because the acting head of the ATF, Kenneth Melsonis, is set to resign amidst growing pressure. I say “first casualty” because in my opinion this is just the beginning and this news alone is not good enough; it is a beginning, but that is all it is.
Darrell Issa claimed last week that the Department of Justice was actively involved in a coverup over this growing scandal and it seems highly unlikely to me that Eric Holder–if he is engaged in a coverup–would simply be covering up for the acting head of another organization. Eric Holder is trying to make Kenneth Melson the fall guy in the hope that this will satiate the public and ameliorate the crisis his department now finds itself embroiled in.
If Darrell Issa is right, and Eric Holder and the DOJ are involved in a coverup, they were trying to protect one of their own–possibly Eric Holder himself, and maybe even Barack Obama. Why would Eric Holder risk the criminal charges of a coverup to protect someone that doesn’t work in his department? This idea simply does not hold water with me, it would be too risky a proposition for Eric Holder to protect a person who cannot indict the Attorney General directly, so there must be more to this story. If Eric Holder was involved in a coverup then Darrell Issa owes it to the American people to investigate this matter all the way to the bitter end.
Darrell Issa cannot be content with this one resignation, he must pursue this matter until we know exactly who knew what and when they knew it, for this order came from the highest levels in the Obama regime. I find it hard to believe that the United States government was allowing the sales of guns to known foreign criminals and Barack Obama was not notified about this beforehand, but even if we take this news at face value and we concede the point that Kenneth Melsonis is indeed the man responsible for authorizing Operation Gunrunner, and we concede the point that Melsonis was the man whom Eric Holder was trying to protect, it still does not take away from the accusation that Eric Holder and the Department of Justice was engaged in a coverup–or that this coverup was possibly ordered by Barack Obama.
If Darrell Issa is satisfied with Kenneth Melsonis’s resignation he should not be satisfied with the coverup that he alleged took place within the Department of Justice and he should open up a new inquiry into the DOJ, because as we learned with Watergate; it isn’t the crime, it’s the coverup.
As Father’s Day winds down, and as I sit at the computer pondering the future of this nation, as I do most nights, I find myself asking the question; how much longer will political correctness allow us to honor our mothers and our fathers on these days?
We live in an age where the words “Christmas” and “Easter” have been replaced with “holiday and “spring” in the politically correct interest of not offending people.
Easter Eggs are now spring spheres and Christmas trees are now holiday trees even though neither of these symbols have anything to do with Christianity. They are Pagan symbols which have been intertwined with Christianity and as such they have been banned from public places.
Celebrating diversity has taken hold and we are no longer allowed to express our beliefs in public for fear of offending those who do not believe the same things that we believe in.
What is most interesting about this is the fact that the first amendment and the “separation of church and state” was designed to ensure that people would be free to exercise their religion but the liberals and political correctness have actually used the first amendment to do the reverse. What was once a guarantee against religious persecution has turned into a ban on all things Christian in all public places and one only needs to read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists to understand this. Yet the Supreme Court ruled exactly the opposite while using Thomas Jefferson’s words against the concept he was defending to the Connecticut Baptists.
So in this age of political correctness I have to ask, when will Mother’s Day and Father’s Day be ruled insensitive and be condemned to public excoriation in the same manner as have been Christian displays? Does this seem like an odd question to ask? After all, how can the concept of honoring ones father and ones mother be considered controversial? Well, in order to accept the premise that there are mothers and fathers based on certain roles and genders you have to accept a heteronormative point of view, and as can be seen below this can be quite to controversial perspective to hold in today’s anti-family society.
Speaking in front of a Harvard audience in 2005, Jada Pinkett Smith had this to say:
Women, you can have it all—a loving man, devoted husband, loving children, a fabulous career,” she said. “They say you gotta choose. Nah, nah, nah. We are a new generation of women. We got to set a new standard of rules around here. You can do whatever it is you want. All you have to do is want it
This was supposed to be an uplifting and inspiring speech geared toward women. She was simply saying that a woman could have a family and wouldn’t have to sacrifice her career to have a husband and a family; she was saying a woman could have it all.
Imagine her surprise when she came under fire for this sentiment because it was considered an extremely “heteronormative” position to take.
After some students were offended by Jada Pinkett Smith’s comments at Saturday’s Cultural Rhythms show, the Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Supporters Alliance (BGLTSA) and the Harvard Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations have begun working together to increase sensitivity toward issues of sexuality at Harvard.
Students said that some of Pinkett Smith’s remarks concerning appropriate gender roles were specific to heterosexual relationships.
In a press release circulated yesterday by the BGLTSA—and developed in coordination with the Foundation—the BGLTSA called for an apology from the Foundation and encouraged future discussion of the issue
The BGLTSA release acknowledged that the Foundation was not responsible for Pinkett Smith’s comments. But the Foundation has pledged to “take responsibility to inform future speakers that they will be speaking to an audience diverse in race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality, gender and class,” according to the release.
Pinkett Smith was honored as the Foundation’s “Artist of the Year” at its 20th annual Cultural Rhythms show, which she also hosted.
BGLTSA Co-Chair Jordan B. Woods ’06 said that, while many BGLTSA members thought Pinkett Smith’s speech was “motivational,” some were insulted because they thought she narrowly defined the roles of men and women in relationships.
“Some of the content was extremely heteronormative, and made BGLTSA members feel uncomfortable,” he said.
Calling the comments heteronormative, according to Woods, means they implied that standard sexual relationships are only between males and females.
“Our position is that the comments weren’t homophobic, but the content was specific to male-female relationships,” Woods said.
Margaret C. D. Barusch ’06, the other BGLTSA co-chair, said the comments might have seemed insensitive in effect, if not in intent.
“I think the comments had a very strong focus for an extended period of time on how to effectively be in a relationship—a heterosexual relationship,” Barusch said. “I don’t think she meant to be offensive but I just don’t think she was that thoughtful.”
In a country where an uplifting speech can be considered offensive simply because it includes the traditional family structure and does not acknowledge that there are people who choose not to live within the confines of this family structure–seeking an alternative lifestyle–how can we expect that we will be able to celebrate the mothers and the fathers in this nation for much longer? If we are acknowledging the concept of parenthood, aren’t we ignoring those that chose to enter relationships where conception and parenthood is not possible?
By honoring our mothers and our fathers are we not also condoning an “extremely heteronormative” lifestyle which may be considered insensitive to the gay and lesbian community who cannot–or more accurately, choose not to–become mothers and fathers through the natural process?
While the war in Libya rages on so does the battle between the president and the Congress over whether or not Barack Obama needs to seek Congressional approval to continue the war under the War Powers Act. Barack Obama claims that the actions we are taking in Libya do not amount to “hostilities” so there is no need for him to step before the Congress and ask for permission to continue the bombing, while the Congress naturally disagrees with that assessment.
The excuse that the president is using in my opinion is both laughable and insulting to the American people at the same time; It is absolutely laughable that an alliance of countries can bomb another country with the goal of killing the head of that country, and the president can claim that this does not constitute “hostilities.” And it is equally insulting to the American people that the president thinks we are stupid enough to buy into the lame excuse for his usurpation of Congressional authority.
Now we are learning that Barack Obama ignored the advice of two top lawyers in the Justice Department when he made his decision to ignore the demands of the Congress to appear before them. Both the Pentagon General Counsel and the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel informed the president that they believed bombing a sovereign nation was in fact an act of “hostility” which would require the president to ask for Congressional approval.
The global warming–or climate change or global climate disruption or whatever the hell they are calling it now–agenda of overburdensome regulations, government control, and the global redistribution of wealth took a serious hit when it was revealed in Climategate that “scientists” had been cooking the books in an effort to “hide the decline” and promote their agenda.
These “scientists” tried to tell the people that while some of the data used to determine the destruction that was soon to be set upon us if we did not change our ways was based on faulty–I would say purposely tampered with–data, but that didn’t change the fact that the world was indeed warming, and we faced certain annihilation if we did not turn over our freedoms and our money to the government so they could save them from ourselves.
While Climategate was downplayed and in some cases ignored by the media, this scandal rocked the climate change agenda in Washington and ground the cap and trade legislation into the ground. Or should I say, to the EPA where they look to do an end run around the Constitution and pass Barack Obama’s agenda without using the Congress, but that is a story I have covered before, and is not the focus of this post.
Gunrunner chief: “if you are going to make an omelette, you need to scramble some eggs”
According to this story the Congressional report on Operation Gunrunner has determined that the Obama regime’s botched Operation Gunrunner program has resulted in countless deaths.
The lethal fallout from a botched operation by the US Department of Justice which allowed almost 2,000 illegally purchased firearms to be transported from the streets of Arizona to drug gangs in Mexico has been laid bare in a scathing Congressional report, which concludes that it resulted in countless deaths.
A mixture of arrogance, over-confidence, and staggering ineptitude by the Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives [ATF] was outlined in a 51-page investigation by two Republican members of a House panel charged with getting to the bottom of what went wrong during a two-year operation called “Fast and Furious”.
The report continues:
The report describes his (Brian Terry) death as “a preventable tragedy”, detailing how many of the ATF agents involved in Fast and Furious began to object to what they saw as the “reckless” nature of the operation, which conflicted with all known protocol and may turn out to have been illegal. But when they raised their concerns, they faced “punishment and retaliation” from their superiors.
In total, agents watched at least 1,730 guns flood on to the black market, knowing they would be used to commit murders and other violent crimes. Their concerns about the policy were ignored. In one email to field staff printed in the report, ATF supervisor David Voth suggested that staff who objected to his orders would be fired.
The people who stood the most to lose–their lives–in this operation expressed their concerns but they were met with condemnation and threats. ATF supervisor David Voth had this to say in an email about those who disagreed with Operation Gunrunner:
I will be damned if this case is going to suffer due to petty arguing, rumours, or other adolescent behavior,” he wrote. “We are all adults, we are all professionals, and we have an exciting opportunity to use the biggest tool in our law-enforcement tool box. If you don’t think this is fun, you are in the wrong line of work, period!”
According to Voth is you were worried about your life you were nothing but an immature adolescent who was engaged in a petty dispute with leadership. He insinuated that this work should be considered “fun” and if an agent didn’t think it was fun that agent was in the wrong business. I would like to know how fun Brian Terry thought this line of work was, and I would like to know if Brian Terry’s family members feel as if this was nothing but fun and games.
But the most damning statement by Voth follows:
With regard to potential loss of life, an ATF boss told him: “if you are going to make an omelette, you need to scramble some eggs.”
John Dodson testified in front of the Congress that his superiors were “giddy” when Operation Gunrunner weapons were found at the scene of a crime because they felt as if this justified the project–apparently neglecting the fact that these crimes were committed because the United States gave the criminals the weapons in the first place, thusly contributing to the crime. But when confronted with the possibility of the loss of human life Voth told Dodson ” if you are going to make an omelette, you need to scramble some eggs.”
Apparently Brian Terry is a scrambled egg according to Voth, and a justifiable casualty of a larger war. The lack of regard for human life here is astounding and appalling!
Meanwhile the Obama regime is denying any knowledge of this operation. I find it hard to believe that the president of the United States was totally in the dark about a mission of this magnitude.
Gunrunner explodes into a major scandal: Gunrunner weapons found at a second murder site
Operation Gunrunner was part of a larger government operation called “Fast and Furious” in which the United States ordered certain gun shops along the Mexican border to sell weapons to criminals in order to track the weapons in the hope of following the weapons to known high level Mexican drug lords. At least that is the official story coming out of the Obama regime now that Gunrunner is on the verge of becoming a huge scandal, but is there another nefarious reason behind this operation?
As I first wrote about here, Hillary Clinton said that the United States–and our insatiable appetite for drugs, and inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border–was responsible for the violence along the Mexican border. In that post I claimed that Barack Obama was going to use the violence at the Mexican border to legitimize new gun control laws, but there are rumors that it goes well beyond this. The United Nations has passed a weapons ban treaty and there are rumors that the Obama regime planned on using the violence at the Mexican border to gain support with the American people for signing onto this treaty.
It turns out that Hillary Clinton may have been right all along when she said that America was responsible for this violence because the Obama regime was actively supplying the weapons to the drug lords that were being used in the violence against Americans. Is it possible that the Obama regime was using this program to help the Mexican drug lords and ensure the violence against Americans in order to drum up support for the United Nations treaty? Conspiratorial, yes. Out of the question, no. This president has such a fleeting relationship with the truth that I simply would not put this passed him.
Barack Obama is coming under intensifying scrutiny for his decision to interfere in Libya’s civil war without the approval of the Congress. Siting the War Powers Act, Barack Obama stated that he need not seek the approval of the Congress. In my opinion this excuse does not hold water as the United States had no interest in Libya and our national security was not threatened. Barack Obama himself admitted, while trying to explain to the American people why the United States needed to become involved in this conflict, that it was our VALUES which were at stake in Libya, not out interests–there is a huge difference between these two terms, but that is what Barack Obama does; he tries to change the argument by using softer terms to describe the same events. But for the sake of argument I will concede to the president and grant him his explanation that he need not seek Congressional approval under the War Powers Act for operations lasting 60 days or less.
The problem for the president now is the fact that the war against Libya has passed the limits placed upon the president by the War Powers Act and Barack Obama has decided not to seek Congressional approval even though he is now required to do so. Barack Obama claims that the involvement of the United States is now so limited that he doesn’t need to ask the Congress for approval.
Brian Terry was doing his job patrolling the border, armed only with a beanbag gun, when he was shot and killed by an illegal alien using a weapon that the United States government knowingly sold to the criminal under the “Project Gunrunner” program.
Gunrunner was part of a larger government operation called “Fast and Furious” in which the United States ordered certain gun shops along the Mexican border to sell weapons to criminals in order to track the weapons in the hope of following the weapons to known high level Mexican drug lords.
But as noted above something went horribly wrong and one of the weapons was used in the killing of a United States border patrol agent. The Congress opened up an investigation into this remarkably irresponsible covert operation and we are learning that those who have the most to lose–their lives–expressed their concerns about the program but there were not only ignored but were repudiated for expressing their concerns.
The FBI looks to expand its investigative power
With the FCC, ICE, DHS, and the EPA already expanding their powers beyond the original intent of these agencies it seems only natural that the FBI would also want to get into the fun, and now they are.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is giving significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents — allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention.
The FBI soon plans to issue a new edition of its manual, called the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, according to an official who has worked on the draft document and several others who have been briefed on its contents. The new rules add to several measures taken over the past decade to give agents more latitude as they search for signs of criminal or terrorist activity.
This is what Michael German, a former FBI agent who now works for the ACLU, had to say about this story:
Claiming additional authorities to investigate people only further raises the potential for abuse
It is not often that I agree with the ACLU, but this is one such case. What is most frightening to me about this story is how the FBI is going to get away with this.
She also said the bureau — which does not need permission to alter its manual so long as the rules fit within broad guidelines issued by the attorney general — had carefully weighed the risks and the benefits of each change.
The FBI is justifying this by claiming it is simply changing its manual, and this fits within broad outlines issued by Eric Holder, therefore it is legal for the FBI to expand its “investigative techniques.” And the FBI does not need “firm evidence for suspecting criminal or terrorist activity” to begin this new intrusive policy; the fourth amendment be damned.
But it is not at the feet of Eric Holder alone that blame can be placed for this usurpation of our rights; in December of 2008–when Bush was still the president, and under his watch–the FBI was allowed to create a new investigative category called “assessment” and it is this category which is being used to create these new guidelines.
I have read that the natural progression of democracy is toward tyranny as our leaders–in the effort to appear as if they are doing something–pass more and more laws which inevitably infringe on our rights, and judging by what I see going on in Washington I have to agree.
America had better wake up soon or there will be no America to wake up to.
When Egypt’s President Mubarak stepped down Barack Obama hailed this as a new birth of freedom in the Middle East, this is some of the coverage of this historic event:
After more than two weeks of anti-regime protests in Egypt that had sometimes caught the United States off balance, President Obama Friday hailed the resignation of President Hosni Mubarak, saying “the people of Egypt have spoken, their voices have been heard, and Egypt will never be the same.”
Mubarak’s exit came as welcome news after days of uncertainty. The event that Obama and administration officials had been hoping for did finally happen Friday, a day later than some had expected.
Obama said Friday “this is not the end of Egypt’s transition — it’s the beginning. I’m sure there will be difficult days ahead and many questions remain unanswered.”
But he added he had confidence that the Egyptian people “can find the answers and do so peacefully.”
He compared the change of power in Cairo to the fall of the Berlin Wall and quoted Martin Luther King’s statement that “there’s something in the soul that cries out for freedom.”
This was supposed to be the beginning of the “Arab Spring” where the peoples of the various countries in the region embraced freedom and democracy and made the world a better place, and Barack Obama was basking in the glory; his famous Cairo speech was credited with beginning the freedom movement across the region.
But many of us wondered who it was the the United States was supporting in these uprisings and nobody was able to answer these questions. There were rumors of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood fighting together to bring about this so-called change in the Middle East, and now we are seeing that freedom and democracy in Egypt might not mean the same thing to the Egyptian protesters as it does to the people of the United States.
Since Mubarek’s resignation over 7,000 people have been jailed; meet the new boss, same as the old boss. These people have been jailed for speaking out against the government, so much for this revolution leading to a new Egypt. The Arab Spring is being portrayed by the Obama propaganda machine as being a victory of freedom throughout the Middle East; Obama even went so far as to quote Martin Luther King and compared this moment to the fall of the Berlin Wall, but it is becoming obvious that this new birth of freedom might not be all of what we were told it was after all.
America's Watchtower 