ATF Project Gunrunner

DOJ received Rosemary Award for worst open govt performance

This week the Department of Justice received the Rosemary Award for worst open government performance. The award, named after Rosemary Woods, Richard Nixon's secretary who infamously took the fall for a 17 1/2 minute gap in a key Watergate tape, is given annually by the George Washington University National Security Archive.

Great accomplishment for Eric Holder...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2012/02/14/gIQA9W6SER_story.html
 
Essentially, buried within the budget is language to repeal the prohibition of using founds to walk guns, that was passed in the Oct. budget, passed last year.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, so President Obama, AG Holder, Lanny Breuer, Dennis Burke, the House Oversight Committee, etc. - in short practically every person in the government, regardless of what branch of government or party has said that gun walking is fatally flawed, horrible practice that should never, ever happen...

Yet someone decided to strip the law that forbids it from happening again out of the proposed Presidential budget? Who did that? Gnomes?
 
Janet Napolitano questioned about Fast & Furious and the death of agent Zapata

The hearing on President Obama’s 2013 proposed budget for the Department of Homeland Security turned into an inquiry about Fast & Furious and specifically about Customs Enforcement agent Jaime Zapata's murder.


http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/201...ts-of-mistakes-in-fast-and-furious-gun-sting/

One of the things that bothers me about her "mistakes were made" comments is that on her first trip to the Hill, she said she knew almost nothing of Fast & Furious, didn't talk to Eric Holder about it, Eric Holder didn't talk to her...

According to her, no one from DEA, FBI, or ATF talked to her.

She was like Sergeant Schultz from Hogan's Heroes :rolleyes:

But now she knows enough about it to say "mistakes were made" and insinuate that it's time to move on...

And if mistakes were really made, should the budget try to repeal the prohibition of using funds to walk guns?
 
Last edited:
Alloy

"I wonder if the recent rumors suggesting that Boehner may be stalling the investigation for a politically motivated fall impeachment of Holder carry any weight. "

On another forum I saw a good piece that asserts that Boehner has reached a deal with administration for use F&F as an election tool, but to not enforce the subpeona, and that is why Issa has not filed contempt charges.

I don't know the validity of the argument, but the writer urged all to write to Boehner objecting to the deal. It was well written and seemed plausible. I hope it is not.
 
Why would Obama, or someone in his cadre, want to use fed funds to run more guns, have ATF or other federal personnel commit felony violations of gun laws? And to whom?" US gangs, this time?

I may be venturing off-topic, but it is stunning to me this language is in Obama's budget without all kinds of people going into low-earth orbit.

F+F has evolved into something so close to the Reichstag Fire of 1935(?), any civil libertarian on any side of any aisle should be enraged past redemption that Obama wants the liberty to to do it again. He has a great knack for picking failed ideas of the past and doubling down on them, but this is pretty incredible even for DC. Maybe with what has been learned, they think they can do it without getting caught next time?

Are covert ops planned requiring felony violations of other laws by federal personnel, for other political objectives Obama and/or cadre find attractive and useful? And what so far in F+F makes anyone say, "Nah, they wouldn't do THAT."
 
I don't understand. Where does it say in Sec. 8017 that M-1s etc. will be destroyed?

[SEC. 8017. None of the funds available to the Department of Defense may be used to demilitarize or dispose of M-1 Carbines, M-1 Garand rifles, M-14 rifles, .22 caliber rifles, .30 caliber rifles, or M-1911 pistols, or to demilitarize or destroy small arms ammunition or ammunition components that are not otherwise prohibited from commercial sale under Federal law, unless the small arms ammunition or ammunition components are certified by the Secretary of the Army or designee as unserviceable or unsafe for further use.]

(emphasis mine)
Click to expand...

Does "dispose of" mean selling them on the open market? No funds would be necessary to support such sales as the funds from the sales would more than pay for the administration of such sales without using any budgetary funds.
 
jimpeel

As to the meaning of "dispose" as used in what you posted, I should think that that means to "demilitarize"as with to destroy, or render unusable for their intended original purpose. Of course, given that I still believe that 2 + 2 = 4, I might well be wrong.

As to The Secretary of Defense or his "designee", given that the "designee" serves at the pleasure of The Secretary, The Secretary also a political appointee, serving at the pleasure of the president, who knows what might "please" the president, what either of these worthies might certify, or be brought to "certify" could be something of that proverbial open question.

Then there is always the possibility that I'm simply overly suspicious.
 
Bartholomew Roberts wrote, asking at the end, "Who did that? Gnomes?"


Quote:
Essentially, buried within the budget is language to repeal the prohibition of using founds to walk guns, that was passed in the Oct. budget, passed last year.
Hmmm, so President Obama, AG Holder, Lanny Breuer, Dennis Burke, the House Oversight Committee, etc. - in short practically every person in the government, regardless of what branch of government or party has said that gun walking is fatally flawed, horrible practice that should never, ever happen...

Yet someone decided to strip the law that forbids it from happening again out of the proposed Presidential budget? Who did that? Gnomes?

-------------------------

Likely the same people who insert those "little noticed" clauses and paragraphs that find their way into pieces of "omnibus legislation". Think the budget proposal wo8ld qualify as an "omnibus" proposal?
 
Re HarrySchell in post# 2025, it might well be that Obama turns out to be, respecting constitutional rights, one of the most dangerous men to have ever occupied in The White House, as President of this country.
 
No more Lake City once fired brass for sale. No more DCM/CMP guns or ammo. Captain Crunch fired up once again. Irreplaceable pieces of history turned into manhole covers.
 
it might well be that Obama turns out to be, respecting constitutional rights, one of the most dangerous men to have ever occupied in The White House, as President of this country.
Click to expand...
Let's be careful to keep this related to guns, and not drift into straight politics.
 
Tom Servo:

Re my reference to "constitutional rights", perhaps I should have been more specific, but I was referencing the constitutional rights to arms, rights that can be undermined in more ways than one. Obama approaches his hearts delight, undermining gun rights in any number of ways, including via indirection or "through the backdoor".
 
Re the quote, see white box, contained in post # 2016 by Al Norris about Obama using his budget to advance an anti-gun agenda, while the reporter actually noticing this factor, in anyone surprised?
 
jimpeel mentioned the following:

Washington Times' Emily Miller NRA video interview on Fast and Furious and the Obama budget.

VIDEO LINK

I just finished listening to Ms. Miller at the video link. The lady was, at times, somewhat difficult to understand, lousy speakers on my old desktop, combined with damaged hearing, the result of exposure to industrial noise and gun fire over a period of years, but what she had to say was most interesting, an should be heard by one and all, whether or not they are gun owners.

Anyhow, having heard Ms. Miller, one is given recall admonitions about not waking the sleeping giant, in the vernacular that was China. In this case, that sleeping giant MIGHT turn out to be The Fourth Estate, unlikely as that might seem.

Thank you Jim.
 
Anyhow, having heard Ms. Miller, one is given recall admonitions about not waking the sleeping giant, in the vernacular that was China. In this case, that sleeping giant MIGHT turn out to be The Fourth Estate, unlikely as that might seem.
Click to expand...

You could be onto something there. They may be rabidly anti-gun on the whole, but many of them are viciously opposed to corruption as well. Besides, nothing gets ratings like a big juicy scandal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top