Federal Confusion in Arizona

The ruling came from the Supreme Court on Monday with a split decision in the President Obama’s appeal to the pending immigration policy in Arizona, known as SB-1070. The decision was made to eliminate several elements, but upheld the controversial “papers please” provision. The latter has sparked protest nationwide with accusations of racial profiling and being unconstitutional.

This "papers please" provision is what will require authorities to request immigration documentation from any person stopped, arrested, or restrain in Arizona, if an authority judiciously suspects a person is in this country illegally. Additionally, officers are also required to review all arrestees' immigration status with the federal government before being released from jail.

This is where confusion comes in with "racial profiling," versus standard protocol when it comes to seeking documentation. In Arizona, driver's licenses and identification cards are valid until the person is 65 years old. For immigrants residing in the state on a visa, those licenses and identification cards are valid until the expirations date on their visas. Here's the first red flag.

When any person has a run-in with an authority, regardless of the event, disorderly conduct, domestic disturbance, traffic violation, etc. the FIRST thing an officer demands is identification. How is that racial profiling if everyone is required to show ID? Now, if that person's Arizona identification is expired, now there's another problem. That is also for anyone. Typically, the next source of valid or current identification is your passport. Oh, no passport? Red flag number 2.

When traveling internationally, would you say it's safe and common to keep your passport with you at all times? Yes. That's because there's nothing to hide, right? And heaven forbid anything happens that would require you to need your passport in an instant. So an illegal immigrant has an expired identification or doesn't have identification at all. Yes, the authorities are going to investigate you. They do the exact same thing when you get pulled over and accidentally leave your wallet at home. Racial profiling is being confused with standard protocol that has been in effect for decades. An officer doesn't question you without providing them identification, and you don't travel in foreign countries without your passport. The signs are so obvious; an officer could be blind and identify illegal immigrants in Arizona.

Posted by bigtex at June 25, 2012 3:23 PM
Comments
Comment #347219

The first question I would have is; what happens to an American in Mexico if he has no identification?

“A Mexico tourist card, also called an FMT, is a government form declaring that you have stated the purpose of your visit to Mexico to be tourism, and which must be carried while you are visiting Mexico. Although more than one kind of Mexico visa exists, this is a simple declaration of your intention to vacation in Mexico for not more than 180 days.”

http://studenttravel.about.com/od/mexicostudenttravel/f/border_mexico.htm

So, if I understand Mexican law correctly; if I am a tourist, must have my FMT at all times.

Next question; are Mexicans required to carry ID in their own country?

Evidently the Mexican government is working on a plan for all Mexican citizens to have a national identity card that would include a facial photograph, all ten fingerprints, and an iris scan.

http://jeromecorsi.com/article.php?id=43

So, if it is required in Mexico; why would Mexicans in the US be outraged at needing a valid ID?

Last question: is the SCOTUS in the process of guaranteeing their own job? Instead of passing or failing the AZ law; they chose to just kick the can down the road so they can rule on other parts on another day.

The original outrage of the AZ law was upheld; but they failed to give AZ the teeth needed to enforce the part of the law they upheld.

Conclusion: the SCOTUS is as useless as the do nothing House, Senate, and WH.

Posted by: TomT at June 25, 2012 9:10 PM
Comment #347236

If you are driving a car, you must have a legal driver’s license. Simple as that. It is not profiling to require that.

Indeed, any foreigner needs to carry identification showing his/her status in the U.S. It is no profiling to ask for that.

In fact, there is really no way that an American citizen or anyone legally in the U.S. can suffer anything more than a minor inconvenience based on this law EVEN if he is driving w/o his license, which is against the law in general. Anybody who is not breaking other laws will not even be inconvenienced at all. The idea that this is some kind of racial profile is just posturing and dishonest.

Posted by: C&J at June 25, 2012 9:52 PM
Comment #347237

When we become overweight, losing weight fast is what we want to do. And I think most of overweight people also have the same opinion with me. But the question is how can we lose weight fast? Here are some tips I will share with you.


Avoid purchasing processed foods such as wheat products, corn oil or high fructose corn syrup, refined wheat flour, soy protein soybean oil to mention a few. Food such as marinades and salad dressing also contain loads of high calories. The best way on how to get slim fast is to avoid these foods all together.

Posted by: When we become overweight at June 25, 2012 10:48 PM
Comment #347241

Do you expect anything less than posturing and dishonesty from those on the left? It’s all about class warfare and promoting racism.

I am in total shock at what the left is trying to do to our country. It used to be done under the cover of darkness and behind closed doors; but Obama has blatantly chosen to force his will upon the American people in broad daylight. The only part of his “transparency” is executive orders. The left has become quite silent at the rulings of the SCOTUS; and if thy shut down part or all of Obama’s HC on Thursday, Obama will be running against the Conservative SCOTUS. It will be the SC justices fault.

Posted by: TomT at June 25, 2012 10:51 PM
Comment #347243

The Supreme Court struck 3 of 4 provisions of SB1070. The provision left standing lets AZ request ID from folks stopped for some lawful reason.

Kind of amazing the SC would take this position as it doesn’t support commerce, the NAU, globalization, NAFTA, any of that. The SC actually went with the Constitution on this one.

It does seem logical that the SC wouldn’t/couldn’t support an administration and congress that have continuously abrogated their responsibility as elected officials to uphold US law and violated their sworn oath to the Constitution.

This administration, headed by a person degreed in Constitutional law, seems to thwart the Constitution at every turn. We have rule by Presidential decree: the President overriding congress on immigration law to provide pseudo amnesty to some millions of young people, failing to enforce immigration law, and of late, pulling all immigration support from a single state for a certain class of illegal immigrant. Even setting up an 800 number to monitor for civil rights violations for a state that has had one incident brought to the courts for racial profiling in 36 yrs and that case was deemed to be without merit.

The SC gave AZ the right to hold illegal immigrants but the President acted to stop ICE from acting, under 287G, to pick up and deport those individuals. Makes little difference since ICE hasn’t been deporting this class of illegal immigrant.

The AG was supposed to decide, in May as to whether an individual could sue federal officials for violating their sworn oath of office to uphold the Constitution. Like in ‘F&F’, the AG is ignoring or stalling for as long as possible.


The DemReps have played the voters for suckers beginning with the Nixon/Carter era. Regan promised border control in exchange for amnesty. The taxpayer is stuck with the status quo while the Corpocracy has access to more cheap labor than they can use.
Pre-election the President said his first move would be a push for comprehensive immigration. The first two years he had control of House and Senate and never introduced an immigration bill. Now, 5 mo’s prior to an election he pulls out the stops for immigrant votes. How pithy, IMO.

One can vote to remove incumbents from office this November.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 25, 2012 11:18 PM
Comment #347252

Roy,
Actually, the Democrats introduced the DREAM act twice in 2010, and both times it was filibustered by the GOP. In addition, an attempt was made during the Bush administration by McCain and Kennedy to introduce immigration reform. That was also stopped by the GOP.

I’m not passing judgment on the worthiness of past efforts, just noting that it’s been attempted, and that the GOP has stopped it. Obama did what he could using an Executive Order, which less desirable than passing legislation. If it were only politics, why not wait until October?

The SCOTUS ruled just as one would expect in this case. I am a little surprised they let the papers portion stand, but they were very clear that this would be subject to review if that portion were used inappropriately.

The more important SCOTUS decision involved denying the state of Montana the ability to prevent corporations from corrupting the political process by buying elections.

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2012 11:39 PM
Comment #347254

Perhaps the Supreme Court said it best:

Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) Opinion of the Court

The history of the United States is in part made of the stories, talents, and lasting contributions of those who crossed oceans and deserts to come here.

The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.


Posted by: Cube at June 26, 2012 1:13 AM
Comment #347276

Tom T,

“Do you expect anything less than posturing and dishonesty from those on the left?”

How about those that continually hire illegals, do you have any vitriol left for them?

Seems to me that if the jobs weren’t readily available there would be far fewer illegals.
Why hasn’t there been as much effort to prosecute employers of illegals?

Perhaps if we followed the money…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 26, 2012 7:07 AM
Comment #347277

First, they will consider challenges to the “Papers Please” aspect of the law, which is all that remains apparently, if it seems like it’s not being used properly. You can’t have laws that are drilled down on some, and not on others. This is how the sodomy laws got struck down, since nobody applied them on heterosexuals anymore.

If this gets similarly abused, if you have a whole bunch of citizens or legal immigrants pulled over and jailed on this? The Supreme Court will revisit, and not positively.

But let’s get down to what the law itself was: an attempt to grab for the states an expressly federal power which has no counterpart, constitutionally, for the states. States can regulate the commerce within, the Federal Government between the many states. But only the Federal government is given, and plainly given, the power to regulate immigration and naturalization.

How could the Constitutionalists of the Right miss this?

Me? My opinion? I think many on the right these days have rather rigid interpretations of the constitution that depend less on the text, as they may kid themselves that it does, and more on what they want the country to be like. They’ll berate Democrats for being judicial activists, even as their justices move to fulfill party agenda items and clear the way for their party’s imperatives through judicial action.

You know, this is just a thought, but perhaps the framers foresaw that folks would get this stuck up about what they believe, and that is why they structured the court and the way its members are chosen. I mean, if we get away from the ridiculously arrogant approach that only our people know or can have an opinion about what’s judicially correct under the constitution, we can see that everybody, every President and Congress would have its opinion on what is legitimate under the Constitution. The way the Supreme Court is structured is supposed to provide some balance on that, while leaving the courts independent enough to act on their own to check and balance Congress, the President, and the states.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2012 8:11 AM
Comment #347279

“Roy,
Actually, the Democrats introduced the DREAM act twice in 2010, and both times it was filibustered by the GOP. In addition, an attempt was made during the Bush administration by McCain and Kennedy to introduce immigration reform. That was also stopped by the GOP.

I’m not passing judgment on the worthiness of past efforts, just noting that it’s been attempted, and that the GOP has stopped it. Obama did what he could using an Executive Order, which less desirable than passing legislation. If it were only politics, why not wait until October?

The SCOTUS ruled just as one would expect in this case. I am a little surprised they let the papers portion stand, but they were very clear that this would be subject to review if that portion were used inappropriately.

The more important SCOTUS decision involved denying the state of Montana the ability to prevent corporations from corrupting the political process by buying elections.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 25, 2012 11:39 PM

Phx8, to make statements like “the Democrats introduced the DREAM act twice in 2010, and both times it was filibustered by the GOP” is disingenuous. Tell us what was in those Bills intoduced into the Senate. There are many reasons for filibustering a Bill and most of them are due to ammendments and attachments to a Bill.

Re/executive orders; Obama did exactly what he spoke against just a couple of years ago. So you say, because he is not able to compromise a deal with the Legislative branch of the government, it is okay to invoke executive orders and rule as a king or dictator? This will come back to bite Obama in the butt.

The SCOTUS is disappointing; they ruled the safe route and made no decision at all.

Cube; yes, and the Court also had a real problem with a government who would not enforce existing law.

Rocky Marks; yes I have a problem with illegals being hired. The ones doing the hiring should be arrested and sent to jail. If the government followed existing law, this is what would happen.

Stephen Daugherty; if the Federal Government had been enforcing Federal laws over the past 50 years, we would not even be discussing this problem. The Demcrats have looked at illegals as votes and the Republicans have looked at them as cheap labor (even though many companies who hire them are run and owned by Democrats). You explain to me what we are to do when a president blatantly says he will not uphold the Constitution? Isn’t his oath of office to protect and defend the Constitution?

I am a conservative (leaning libertarian) and I am having a real problem with the liberal Democratics and the establishment Republicans. It is not about protecting the Constitution or serving the public; it’s all about power. It’s about who controls the power, who is in charge of the committees, and who controls the money. These people are supposed to be defending the Constitution and working for us; but instead, the only time we (as citizens) could feel safe was when they were in recess; but now we have a president who uses the recesses as an oportunity to use executive privilage and to appoint people who could never pass muster. If you or anyone else don’t have a problem with the shenanigans, then God help us.

Posted by: TomT at June 26, 2012 10:01 AM
Comment #347280

So many of you want to use scare tactics and fear pedaling in the rants and outright false statements above and more to come.

Here is how a traffic stop works

There may be an off the cuff remark like “on your way to a fire” although that is rarely used.

The first words are normally, “May I see your drivers license and proof of insurance, please”.

If there is no drivers license, that is step one. In order for anybody to have an AZ drivers license, there has to be proof of residency. If the driver has no drivers license, the officer will try to get some ID to check with dispatch for proof of proper ID. It moves on from there.

If there is no auto traffic involved, then for what ever the contact is made for, an ID is one of the first things to establish and contact with dispatch is made to confirm the ID is correct.

“Papers please” is never used in the conversation. Too many watch garbage TV and get their sources from TV in general without documentation of how things are done.

Now, Obama has ordered ICE to not deport any illegal aliens. That is a Congressional law that he has no right to change or not enforce.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2012 10:21 AM
Comment #347281

Good response, TomT.

Stephen, the framers foresaw the need for Article V Convention as a solution to problems the gov’t can’t seem to fix.

As I noted, the AG is stonewalling on a citizens attempt to sue federal officials for failing to carrying out their sworn oath to office, relative to Article V.

Indeed, we are ruled by Corpocracy and the status quo is a win, win, win for that group. In that the more immigrants that can be shoe horned in are more votes for the Corpocratic, tenure driven elected officials and plenty of cheap labor for those who will hire them and work to break the back of the middle class worker, etc.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 26, 2012 10:26 AM
Comment #347282

TomT,
Do you really care about whether invoking executive privilege is a problem, or is it mere partisanship? Bush invoked it six times. Was Bush behaving like a king? Did you denounce him then? Do you denounce him now?

I don’t like to see executive privilege invokved. It hinders transparency. The people in office are there to do the people’s business. Period. However, the SCOTUS recognized executive privilege as part of the separation of powers doctrine… so there it is. It exists, and at least according to the SCOTUS, it is constitutional.

Obama has now invoked it once. This came only after a prolonged investigation by Issa found nothing, and kept demanding more and more in a desperate search to find… something… anything. Without going into the details, I’ll just say Obama invoked it properly, and leave it at that.

tom humes,
When I lived in AZ, I talked with the latinos doing work on my house. They were very afraid of the police. The police would pull them over and give them a really hard time. Sometimes they would beat them, and no one could do anything about it. Your view of a police stop is incredibly naive. For a poor latino in AZ, it is a scary experience far beyond what any white person undergoes.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2012 11:12 AM
Comment #347283

phx8

“Your view of a police stop is incredibly naive.”

Surely you jest. What I explained above is what happens a vast majority of the time. What you were told may because they were illegal and should be fearful for being caught. The tale of being beaten is so rare it is not worth mentioning. If they resisted the authority of a police officer to the point of needing a response from same officer(s) then maybe it is jutified.

I know there will be those who claim to know someone who was mistreated by law enforcement. That is the way it happens.. “I know this person…”. Until you document it, forget it; it didn’t happen.

Let me repeat. What I explained above happens in a traffic stop in a vast amount of the time.

If you are involved in a high speed chase don’t expect them to ask for ID first out of the gate.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2012 12:06 PM
Comment #347285

Inalienable rights are ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’.

CNN noted this morning that uncompensated health care cost is about $56B/yr. CNN made no effort as to break down the cost among the population.

http://immigration.laws.com/illegal-immigration

Posted by: Roy Ellis at June 26, 2012 12:32 PM
Comment #347286

Being asked for identification in AZ or any other state by police for legal reasons is a piece of cake for any legal resident, or visitor to the US.

We visited China about ten years ago and entering and leaving that country was a hair-raising experience. I can not even imagine what would have happened had we been there illegally.

Last year we visited Rome and as soon as we arrived at our hotel we were asked for our passports which were held by the desk clerk overnight for the police to examine.

Illegals in this country would end quickly if the jobs for them dried up. There are laws about this that simply aren’t being actively enforced. We don’t need new legislation, just enforcement of what is already on the books.

We need immigration but it must be controlled and legal. It is a function of the federal government and when they refuse to do the job for which they are charged, it is our job, as voters, to replace them which those who will enfore our laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 26, 2012 12:50 PM
Comment #347287

I agree we should enfiorce the laws that we already have. But if the feds refuse to enforce the laws they themselves are law breakers and should be replaced or fired. This stonwalling about immigration needs to stop.

Posted by: KAP at June 26, 2012 1:13 PM
Comment #347288

I was pulled over by a cop and then thrown in jail for the night. Don’t tell me about how rare it is. I did nothing wrong. I was completely cooperative. The cop was a complete and total a******. Later, I won one lawsuit and lost another for a net loss of $15,000, and a compromised credit record. Ever try suing the police for clear cut cases of wrongdoing? Good luck. Most cops are great. But not all. The last thing we need is to offer cops greater latitude to act on ‘suspicion.’ But of course, the so-called libertarians among you toss that philosophy out the window the minute a partisan advantage appears.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2012 1:30 PM
Comment #347289

Record: Bad Cops-1 Good Cops-a whole lot from what I have witnessed and experienced.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2012 2:10 PM
Comment #347290

So one a****** cop means all are??? I’ve been pulled over a few times in my life and YES there are A******* cops, but on the whole most that I have dealt with are professional, phx8. We shall see what happens with the Arizona law, if the police are A******* then the law is bad but if they act professionaly it’s a good law. The ones that are acting as A******* now are the feds.

Posted by: KAP at June 26, 2012 2:11 PM
Comment #347291

“TomT,
Do you really care about whether invoking executive privilege is a problem, or is it mere partisanship? Bush invoked it six times. Was Bush behaving like a king? Did you denounce him then? Do you denounce him now?”

Bush invoked EP six times and Clinton invoked EP 14 times. There were times when I had no problem with it and there were times when I had a problem. I am sure you will not like my answer no matter what it is. Clinton was the first president since Nixon to be shot down by the courts for using EP.” He had attempted to stop prosecutors from asking his senior aides about Lewinsky, but a federal judge ruled against him.”

• “George W. Bush invoked executive privilege six times, including to avoid handing over documents to a congressional committee on the FBI’s use of mob informants in Boston, and to deny access to Justice Department correspondence about Clinton’s fundraising tactics.

• In 2007, the Bush White House also declined to give Congress documents about the death of Pat Tillman, the football star-turned-Army Ranger, who was killed in Afghanistan. The military initially said Tillman was killed in a firefight with the enemy, but it was later discovered that he was shot in a friendly fire accident. In refusing to hand over the documents, Bush’s counsel said the documents “implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests.”

• Barely a month later, Bush used the privilege to allow Karl Rove, his senior adviser at the time, to avoid testifying before Congress during its investigation into the firing of nine federal prosecutors, allegedly for partisan reasons.”

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/government-elections-politics/when-presidents-invoke-executive-privilege/?amp&

I had no problem with these EP invocations. I’m sure you supported not releasing Clinton’s fundraising tactics; releasing names of mob informants would have meant heir death; I supported the Tillman decision; and I know you wanted Karl Rove to testify because Rove was public enemy #1 to all liberals. It was nothing more than a witch hunt.

Re/Obama invoking EP on the DOJ documents; Holder and Obama both said they had no knowledge of the F&F, and yet Obama invoked EP for what reason? If they had nothing to do with F&F, then they should have no fear of what is in the documents. This whole thing appears to be a cover up; and as the courts have ruled in the past, the courts will rule in this too. The only problem is that the truth will not come out until after the 2012 election. It will eventually come out, but stalling until after the election is what Obama wants.

Re/acting like a king: there can be no doubt Nixon was trying to block information from getting out that would hurt him. Re/Bush, if he was wrong in invoking EP, why didn’t the Democrats take him to court?

“Obama has now invoked it once. This came only after a prolonged investigation by Issa found nothing, and kept demanding more and more in a desperate search to find… something… anything. Without going into the details, I’ll just say Obama invoked it properly, and leave it at that.”

Phx8, you mistake lack of news coverage by the MSM for lack of evidence. You are quoting the left’s talking points when you say there is no evidence of wrong doing, and I am sure you will next repeat the left’s talking points that F&F was just an extension of Bush’s “Operation Wide Receiver”.

Sheila Jackson Lee is pushing this untruth. Here is part of the whole story:

“On several occasions during the multiple hearings at which he’s testified, Attorney General Eric Holder has repeatedly (and smugly) tried to assuage his investigators by insisting that Operation Wide Receiver, which was implemented under the Bush administration, was the template for Operation Fast and Furious. Firstly, as Rep. Dennis Ross noted during this morning’s Oversight Committee meeting, comparing F&F and Wide Receiver is a “red herring” the DOJ is using to try and redirect blame back on the Bush administration — the tactics used in the two operations were fundamentally different. Secondly, the DOJ just retracted Holder’s statement last week that his Bush-administration predecessor had been briefed on the operation. Here’s the memo from Sen. Chuck Grassley:”

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/20/sheila-jackson-lee-this-ff-debacle-started-under-bush/

“tom humes,
When I lived in AZ, I talked with the latinos doing work on my house. They were very afraid of the police. The police would pull them over and give them a really hard time. Sometimes they would beat them, and no one could do anything about it. Your view of a police stop is incredibly naive. For a poor latino in AZ, it is a scary experience far beyond what any white person undergoes.”
Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2012 11:12 AM

Perhaps phx8 could answer a question since he is such a world traveler and is in touch with the minorities. Who would be more afraid? The white man/women/child who walks through an Hispanic or black area of the inner city, let’s say LA; or the black or Hispanic man/woman/child in the rural farm area of flyover America, or the rural area of Florida, Georgia, or any other Bible belt state?

While you’re pondering that question, how about another; what part of the country faces the largest murder or crime rate? Is it the rural areas of America, where firearm ownership is very high and encouraged; or is it the urban areas of the inner cities where Democrats have restricted gun ownership?

The DOJ has already said they would have an eye on the way AZ enforces the law. Do you really think the law enforcement will beat Hispanics?

Posted by: TomT at June 26, 2012 2:14 PM
Comment #347292

I am always amazed at the left’s ability to throw all cops in the “Bad” and “Thug” catagory; and yet they are the first to complain that Republicans are trying to cut cops, firefighter’s, and teachers.

I can’t remember a conservative on WB ever condemning the police, as a whole, for being corrupt; but the left, when not defending the right to hire more police with tax dollars, are always inferring the police are corrupt and racists.

I don’t guess I should be surprised; the left loves to say they are “Patriotic” and support the military, until they have an excuse to condemn “ALL” the military for being baby and women murdering thugs who want to torture everyone.

Is there a pattern here?

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 26, 2012 2:24 PM
Comment #347293

“Most cops are great. But not all.”

I’ll stand by my previous statement.

TomT,
Re EP, you left out the case where Cheney met with oil industry executives and then refused to inform the American people about what was discussed. It doesn’t get much worse than that. Government should be transparent. Virtually everyone would agree with that.

It’s hypocricical to denounce Obama for behaving like a king or dictator by using EP, and then simply say it’s ok when Bush used it.

Face it: a lot of you are caught in a bind. When it comes to EP, you’re fine when Bush used it, but condemn Obama. You want to give police wide powers, yet you claim to be libertarians, or conservatives favoring small government and minimal government intrusion in our lives. Think about what you really believ. Stand by it. Puut the partisanship in second place, or las-, not first.

Posted by: phx8 at June 26, 2012 2:42 PM
Comment #347294

phx8, you are wrong. I have said I am not happy with people on both sides of the isle. I give you my opinions and then you go ahead and give your spill about we had no problems with Bush, but have problems with Obama. I have problems when an American border agent is murdered and hundreds of Mexican citizens are nurdered by the very guns that Holder’s DOJ allowed to cross the border. I want to know why an American was killed by guns involved in the F&F program; I want to know who authorized F&F, and I want someone held accountable.

Do you consider Cheney’s meeting with oil execs on the same level as the murder of an American and Mexicans? What evil resulted from Cheney meeting with oil exec?

“You want to give police wide powers, yet you claim to be libertarians, or conservatives favoring small government and minimal government intrusion in our lives.”

What power does the police department have now, that they didn’t have a year, or even 10 years ago? Answer that question. You claim they have more power, what is it???

I said Obama and Hoder claimed to not know anything about F&F; if that is so, then why is Holder stalling on releasing the documents, and most of all, why is Obama even getting involved?

The talking points of the left are that the F&F investigation is the result of a conspiracy theory that Obama and Holder want to impose gun control. The following are comments by Holder and his anti-gun stand, including a video. He does not believe the 2nd Amendment rights refer to the individual right to own weapons. The question, is Holder and Obama capable of using F&F as a means to invoke guns laws; by-passing the legislators?

“Holder was addressing the Woman’s National Democratic Club. In his remarks, broadcast by CSPAN 2, he explained that he intended to use anti-smoking campaigns as his model to “change the hearts and minds of people in Washington, DC” about guns.

“What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes.”

Holder added that he had asked advertising agencies in the nation’s capital to assist by making anti-gun ads rather than commercials “that make me buy things that I don’t really need.” He had also approached local newspapers and television stations, he said, asking them to devote prime space and time, respectively, to his anti-gun campaign.

Local political leaders and celebrities, Holder said, including Mayor Marion Barry and Jesse Jackson, had been asked to help. In addition, he reported, he had asked the local school board to make the anti-gun message a part of “every day, every school, and every level.”

Despite strict gun control efforts, Washington, DC was and remains one of the nation’s most dangerous.”

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/03/18/Holder-Fight-Guns-Like-Cigarettes


“Earlier this year, Eric Holder—along with Janet Reno and several other former officials from the Clinton Department of Justice—co-signed an amicus brief in District of Columbia v. Heller. The brief was filed in support of DC’s ban on all handguns, and ban on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home. The brief argued that the Second Amendment is a “collective” right, not an individual one, and asserted that belief in the collective right had been the consistent policy of the U.S. Department of Justice since the FDR administration. A brief filed by some other former DOJ officials (including several Attorneys General, and Stuart Gerson, who was Acting Attorney General until Janet Reno was confirmed)took issue with the Reno-Holder brief’s characterization of DOJ’s viewpoint.


But at the least, the Reno-Holder brief accurately expressed the position of the Department of Justice when Janet Reno was Attorney General and Eric Holder was Deputy Attorney General. At the oral argument before the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Emerson, the Assistant U.S. Attorney told the panel that the Second Amendment was no barrier to gun confiscation, not even of the confiscation of guns from on-duty National Guardsmen.


As Deputy Attorney General, Holder was a strong supporter of restrictive gun control. He advocated federal licensing of handgun owners, a three day waiting period on handgun sales, rationing handgun sales to no more than one per month, banning possession of handguns and so-called “assault weapons” (cosmetically incorrect guns) by anyone under age of 21, a gun show restriction bill that would have given the federal government the power to shut down all gun shows, national gun registration, and mandatory prison sentences for trivial offenses (e.g., giving your son an heirloom handgun for Christmas, if he were two weeks shy of his 21st birthday). He also promoted the factoid that “Every day that goes by, about 12, 13 more children in this country die from gun violence”—a statistic is true only if one counts 18-year-old gangsters who shoot each other as “children.”(Sources: Holder testimony before House Judiciary Committee, Subcommitee on Crime, May 27,1999; Holder Weekly Briefing, May 20, 2000. One of the bills that Holder endorsed is detailed in my 1999 Issue Paper “Unfair and Unconstitutional.”)


After 9/11, he penned a Washington Post op-ed, “Keeping Guns Away From Terrorists” arguing that a new law should give “the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms a record of every firearm sale.” He also stated that prospective gun buyers should be checked against the secret “watch lists” compiled by various government entities. (In an Issue Paper on the watch list proposal, I quote a FBI spokesman stating that there is no cause to deny gun ownership to someone simply because she is on the FBI list.)


After the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the D.C. handgun ban and self-defense ban were unconstitutional in 2007, Holder complained that the decision “opens the door to more people having more access to guns and putting guns on the streets.”

http://www.volokh.com/posts/1227228105.shtml

Posted by: TomT at June 26, 2012 3:00 PM
Comment #347295

Since there was the death of a law enforcement officer resulting from Operation Fast and Furious one would think that those responsible would be anxious to clear this up as soon as possible.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 26, 2012 3:07 PM
Comment #347296

Royal, there was a reason why Nixon did not want to release WH records; there was a reason why Clinton did not want his people questioned; and there is a reason why Obama is using EP to block the House from getting the F&F documents.

Posted by: TomT at June 26, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #347297
I want to know why an American was killed by guns involved in the F&F program; I want to know who authorized F&F, and I want someone held accountable.

TomT, The person and or persons responsible for the killing of the American and others is the person pulling the trigger. If you are trying, for partisan purposes, to hold a politician or the DOJ responsible for the murder of these people, because they knew about the guns, your cutting off your nose to spite your face. After all guns don’t kill people, people kill people.

The politicians and the DOJ are responsible for a bad idea or bad execution of a good idea. It was an attempt to track the Mexican drug gangs behind the murders and it blew up in their face. That happens. The alternative is to not take chances and hope the bad guys decide to turn themselves in.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2012 4:00 PM
Comment #347304

j2t2, you can’t have it both ways. Ever since the gun control laws began to be pushed earnestly in November of 1963, the left has been trying to restrict gun ownership because in their words, “guns kill people, remove the guns and murders will stop”. So now you are saying people and not guns, kill people. This statement flies in the face of what every liberal believes.

We know that Holder and Obama were not involved in the F&F scandal because they told us they weren’t. Isn’t that true? And if they weren’t involved, why not let the investigation be thorough? What I want to know is who authorized the F&F and the allowing of US guns to get in the hands of drug gangs, and did not even attempt to follow the guns?

Tell me j2t2, since you got in this conversation, did you blame Bush for the alleged torture of Al Qaida by water boarding or did you say “Shit happens” as you did about the death of an American Border agent? “It was an attempt to track the Mexican drug gangs behind the murders and it blew up in their face. That happens.” Sorry, but there was no attempt to follow the guns.

I bet if we were to check the achieves on WB we would find you as well as other liberals calling for a full investigation into how much Bush knew about the “tortures” and who authorized them. Your two faced, double standards are what’s wrong with this country and our politics. Tell me j2t2, did you call for the head of Bush over the alleged torture?

“The alternative is to not take chances and hope the bad guys decide to turn themselves in.”

Is this how you feel about getting information out of Al Qaida? That the alternative to water boarding is that they will volunteer to give us the information?

Again, double standards.

Posted by: TomT at June 26, 2012 4:50 PM
Comment #347306

TomT-
Obama’s been deporting more people than Bush had been. He’s been enforcing the law better than the last guy, and not getting an ounce of credit. Why? Because it would mess up the nice little narrative that Democrats are weaker on such things.

He’s decided the federal government has better things to do than chase off hard working kids who grew up here, who didn’t have any choice about coming here, who have lived responsibly and sought to support themselves. He’s exercised the same discretion every other President of recent times has in regards to who goes and who stays. It’s written into the laws that some folks can’t be bothered to consult before they declare something illegal, or in your melodramatic pronouncement, a failure to uphold the constitution.

As far as filibusters go, whatever the excuse, they not only filibustered those bills, but didn’t even bother to enter into negotiations to modify whatever they objected to. If you’re going to argue that the reason that nothing gets passed is that Democrats put in objectionable things, then show me the Republicans trying to get those objectionable things removed to pass what they consider reasonable. Otherwise, it’s a simple legislative blockade, mindless and partisan, and itself something of a corruption of the constitutional order, which prescribes no such threshold for the passage of legislation.

As far as the court decision goes, go back and read the constitution, you constitutionalist you! Go back and read me the part where the states are given power to regulate immigration. Oh! That’s right! There isn’t!

The states are not delegated that power by the constitution, the power is expressly given to the Federal Government alone. So, anything that takes on that authority at the state level is by the plainest of interpretations unconstitutional.

As far as executive privilege goes, are you the kind of person who thinks that documents from ongoing investigations should be part of this fishing expedition that Issa has engaged in?

Tom Humes-

Now, Obama has ordered ICE to not deport any illegal aliens. That is a Congressional law that he has no right to change or not enforce.

From ICE:

Overall, in FY 2011 ICE’s Office of Enforcement and Removal Operations removed 396,906 individuals — the largest number in the agency’s history. Of these, nearly 55 percent or 216,698 of the people removed were convicted of felonies or misdemeanors — an 89 percent increase in the removal of criminals since FY 2008. This includes 1,119 aliens convicted of homicide; 5,848 aliens convicted of sexual offenses; 44,653 aliens convicted of drug related crimes; and 35,927 aliens convicted of driving under the influence. ICE achieved similar results with regard to other categories prioritized for removal. Ninety percent of all ICE’s removals fell into a priority category and more than two-thirds of the other removals in 2011 were either recent border crossers or repeat immigration violators.

Are you interested in the truth, or just in badmouthing Obama on everything? I guess with your latest statement, it’s obvious.

He’s not ordered ICE not to deport any illegal aliens. That’s demonstrably untrue. He has set aside a particular set of undocumented immigrants, people who came over as minors, who have stayed here, who have sought to be gainfully employed, educated, or who are serving our country in the military. They had to come here before age 16, had to be in the country for five years, and they have to apply for the waiver and renew it every two years.

Does that even remotely resemble the absolute refusal to deport any immigrants, or are you unconvinced that you can persuade people to be as outraged as you are without such dishonest exaggerations?

Roy Ellis-
And what are you going to suggest, even if you do get that Article V convention? Allowing fifty different immigration policies? It is the mark of a sovereign nation that it can define who is a citizen, who is not, and how people can cross over into its borders.

As for the basic underlying concept you’re working off of, it’s a rather lame attempt to bypass the need for the kind of political consensus you don’t want to be bothered with trying to create. Sorry, but that’s why you insist on this notion that it’s cumulative, rather than something states have to gather to do.

But the high threshold was put that high for a reason. Too many revisions can make a charter like ours effectively useless. Additionally, this is our national charter, and we all have to live with the results. It’s a lot easier to argue for the legitimacy of changes, or proposals for changes if you have that consensus already built into the process.

Which your version doesn’t. It’s a lazy interpretation of the provision that defeats the obvious reason for such a high standard: preventing an effort to propose revisions to the constitution the states abide by that most states don’t want, changes that could unsettle the integrity of our union.

Billinflorida-
I am not amazed at your ability to portray Liberals as being evil and stupid. It’s your go-to argument.

I’ve long advocated on the side of our soldiers, and I’m a big proponent of law and order. I unfortunately don’t rise to your level of authoritarian faith in those who are given the monopoly on force in our nation, so you brand me and others like me bigots against the military and the police.

My sensibility, my real notion of things, is that the framers put limits on our military and our police and law enforcement agents for a reason. Power can corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Go look over in Egypt, where the military just decided to chuck their Democratically elected parliament. Doesn’t that seem like a hair-raising move to you?

It’d be like the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Obama suddenly vacating the next election if it doesn’t go the President’s way. Would you accept that?

Or how about somebody torturing a son or daughter of yours because they got caught up in some criminal activity? Oh, sure, most of their activity might be aimed towards real criminals, but in many of these places, being an innocent person, minding your own business is no defense from having your life invaded by their attentions.

They’re only human. They might think they’re doing the right thing, and might be angry that you suggest anything else is the case. But from your side of things, their behavior might not seem so good, so benign.

We do need law and order, criminals caught and punished for what they’ve done, but we need the police and other investigators focused on the real bad guys, the folks who are provably involved with a crime. We need the police to do their jobs and leave the rest of us in peace. That’s a critical part of our freedom, and all too often, people on the right are willing to trade that away to avoid facing some fear.

As far as our soldiers go? We demand a lot of them, and with good reason. We cannot coddle them about the things all too many Republicans have been quick to deny, or minimalize. We cannot countenance torture, cannot look the other way on mistreatment of civilians.

We also can’t be hiding terrible policy that gets soldier killed behind the pride of the soldiers in their mission, their dedication to it. The motivations most of us went into these wars with were genuinely good, and the soldiers most likely didn’t go there to get into a politically charged insurgent nightmare. But the policy’s consequences are what determine the outcome, and the policies that were used to carry out these wars were wrong in great part. Most of these soldiers had no hand in writing these policies, writing up the missions that carried them out. They didn’t decide how many soldiers would go in, or what kind of technology or tactical approach would be used.

My early critiques were about winning the war. When the events of 2006 convinced me there wasn’t much we could do to salvage the mission, I focused on the question of how we would withdraw in good conscience, to end the increasingly useless bloodshed and cost to our soldiers and our country.

But your side continues to hide behind the soldiers, continues to treat criticism of their policy as criticism of the soldiers who were ordered to carry it out.

What sickens me is how clueless your side’s become about how tough your policies have made it for those very people. The soldiers in Haditha weren’t simply mustache-twirling villains looking for somebody to murder. They were just average soldiers put in a paranoid pressure cooker of bad policy and worse environment. What’s also true, though, is that being seen to countenance this kind of slaughter doesn’t help us strategically. Nor were the comparisons some Republican Pundits made of Abu Ghraib torments to Fraternity Hazings that helpful, either.

We want the moral high ground in our military adventures? We can’t gain it for real if our policies leave behind massacres of civilians unpunished, and pictures of torment for the world to see. We can’t magically summon rainbow farting winged ponies to undo the damage. Our reputation has been tarnished, and in a way even our supporters have trouble justifying.

My critiques have never been anti-soldier, not in the least. I’m the proud grandchild of a veteran of what many call our last good war. His army didn’t tolerate the failures of discipline or the torments your party would have ours tolerate, even encourage. Your people are enablers of bad behavior, not proud standard bearers of what respect for the military and the police should look like. Respect must come with the demand for high standards. Apologetics for excesses and abuses only build up the kinds of incidents and problems that eat away at the reputations of those you seek to honor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2012 5:08 PM
Comment #347310
So now you are saying people and not guns, kill people. This statement flies in the face of what every liberal believes.

Two things TomT. First of all when you say this “it flies in the face of what every liberal believes” then either that statement is wrong or I am not a liberal. What is it? Second, We must remember that conservatives tell us that only people kill people not guns, why is it in this case you want it both ways?

…or did you say “Shit happens” as you did about the death of an American Border agent? “It was an attempt to track the Mexican drug gangs behind the murders and it blew up in their face. That happens.” Sorry, but there was no attempt to follow the guns.

TomT I didn’t say shit happens. I said it blew in their face, that happens. 700 hundred of the guns have been recovered and some in this country responsible for buying and sending the guns south are in prison TomT so something had to have been done to track the guns. Now this doesn’t seem to successful to me as the higher level cartel members haven’t been caught due to this operation.

Your two faced, double standards are what’s wrong with this country and our politics. Tell me j2t2, did you call for the head of Bush over the alleged torture?

My double standards TomT? Either guns kill people or people kill people which is it? Whether I called for GWB’s head or not is irrelevant TomT to this issue. I called for GWb’s incompetent ass long before the torture issue but it seems he was able to use the same privileges you now condemn. Isn’t that a double standard? So why is it my double standards are ruining the country and yours are aren’t?

“The alternative is to not take chances and hope the bad guys decide to turn themselves in.” Is this how you feel about getting information out of Al Qaida? That the alternative to water boarding is that they will volunteer to give us the information?

Again, TomT, this is irrelevant to this issue. Why are you using the fear of Al Qaida as if we tortured only those that belonged to Al Qaida? My point was the ATF agents tried this fast and furious approach and it didn’t work. But they tried, they learned and instead of persecuting them for political gain why not allow them the lesson learned? This persecution by the right will only serve to have the ATF going after minor violations once again instead of getting the guns out of the hands of those that use them to kill and maim.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 26, 2012 7:02 PM
Comment #347311

SD wrote; “He’s decided the federal government has better things to do than chase off hard working kids who grew up here.”

Or, to put it in actual terms, better things to do than follow existing law. I wonder how SD and obama know that these kids are “hard working”. Are there hard working kids in other nations that also deserve to be here? The illegal “kids” that are here are only here because their parents broke our laws. Can they not return to where ever they came from and be hard working there? Why should I shoulder the cost of their education, health care, food, and shelter? Our founders wrote that “nothing” in the constitution calls for “charity”. Why is obama so charitable with my money?

Can you name me another nation that has the policy that you and obama seem to think so fair and right?

SD wrote; “We want the moral high ground in our military adventures? We can’t gain it for real if our policies leave behind massacres of civilians unpunished, and pictures of torment for the world to see.”

Good Grief kid, are you not aware of the horrible infliction of death and maiming we caused the German and Japanese civilians by our bombing? Have you never traveled in Europe to see for yourself what some of those cities endured to emerge free from Nazi rule?

War is not gentle, war is not kind, war is not fair, war is not anything like what your child-like mind conjures up. We won WWII by using our military as it should be used…to kill people and break things. WWII is the last war we fought and won by military might and determination. All the wars since then have been political in nature and we all have seen the miserable results.

Don’t try and peddle your bullshit to this veteran.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 26, 2012 7:26 PM
Comment #347312

SD

It is widely reported that ICE will not cooperate with AZ authorities when IA’s are involved.

That is the truth.

Your spin or whatever is not the truth.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2012 7:30 PM
Comment #347314

The Obama administration has vigorously deported illegal aliens with an emphasis on those that have committed felonies in the US. Deportations during his administration have been at record levels. That is the truth. That is the data.

Posted by: Rich at June 26, 2012 8:10 PM
Comment #347315

phx8

Re Latinos claiming to be stopped, beaten - People say lots of things. When I was younger, I had friend who were “picked on” by the cops. According to them, they never did anything wrong. My friends were white, BTW. Often the rotten police would also do things like confiscate their pot or make them pour out the beer they were drinking.

When I was 19, I used to go to work at 5am. I rode my bike carrying a bag with my lunch in it. Many mornings the cops stopped me. They asked me where I was going and they wanted to know what was in the bag. I told them where I worked and I showed them my lunch. They told me to move along. This was no big deal. I know some liberals are appalled, but I prefer safety to making a big noise.

There are a few things you might have asked your eager Hispanic workers, of course we assume they were Americans citizens. First, how can the cops tell the ethnicity of a driver in car passing them on the highway at the legal speed of 75MPH? Why would the cops want to stop an innocent person of any ethnicity and beat them?There are risks to doing that, even if you believe cops are racists.


Posted by: C&J at June 26, 2012 8:22 PM
Comment #347317

tom humes-
You accuse me of spin, but it is you who is wrong. Secure Communities is the DoHS replacement for that program.

Royal Flush-
First, let me start on the immigration issue. The Obama Administration will not stop enforcing the law, it’s just not going to do it on the State’s terms. The arrest data is still going to make its way up to ICE, thanks to that program I mentioned before, but it’s going to be the federal government setting priorities.

As for kids returning to their homes… Well, those aren’t their homes. They grew up here, became part of the culture here. In a real sense, they are not Mexican, or Guatemalan or whatever else their birthplace would make them, they are culturally like us, more like second generation immigrants than first generation. You talk of shouldering the costs, but nobody is talking about simply taking in the idle or the criminal, the folks who will simply sit in a jail cell or a slum taking assistance. This program we’re speaking of is tailored to those who, despite their citizenship problems, want to be successful in the land they consider home. Why not let them? They’ll certainly be more ambitious than most of us. Nobody’s talking about charity, we’re talking about the potential of hard working immigrants.

As far as military matters go?

I can’t say I have a personal experience of war. But what I’ve read about hardly supports a rosy picture of war. Stress, hunger, drug abuse, horrific casualties, and every flaw in man amplified by the chaos of it all.

But what I’ve read on the other side of things indicates that such things are challenges that must be successfully met, because war is more than just body counts. War, as Von Clausewitz puts it, is the continuation of policy by other means. You’re not simply trying to rack up a high score, you’re trying to achieve something. If we were trying to create a coherent, non-corrupt, stable Democracy in Iraq, then we failed, and failed long ago.

But why did it end up that way? For one thing, Bush didn’t bring enough people at the beginning to truly control the country, to lock it down and secure it. Rumsfeld and others were too into trying to win everything with technology, despite what everybody was telling them about the need for manpower. Remember, the guys who would later push for the surge, long after the damage was already done, resisted putting in more troops early.

You’re calling me naive. What was this attitude? What was the head in the sand attitude about the growing insurgent threat? I was telling you guys to get a handle on that long before. I mean, to be brutally honest, your people were too trusting in this theory about the end of history, that people simply wanted Democracy, that it wasn’t something that had to develop intentionally, along programmatic lines.

No, this isn’t about me being ignorant of the necessities of war, but of chickenhawks getting there heads full of the glory of war and their theories about how things were supposed to unfold, while more or less obvious problems stared them in the face without getting recognized.

Don’t you dare call me naive. I know things don’t work out that ideally. I also know, though, that some goals and standards need to be worked towards because the alternative sabotages the very effort you’re trying to undertake.

You are naive for believing that we could get away with these things. Counterinsurgency requires that we become more sympathetic in the eyes of the people than those we’re seeking to displace. What about massacring civilians or tormenting prisoners helps that goal?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 26, 2012 8:38 PM
Comment #347333

“All the wars since then [WWII] have been political in nature and we all have seen the miserable results.”

Royal Flush,

What miserable results, excepting Vietnam? Is South Korea not a thriving nation? Did we not honorably and successfully prosecute the Gulf War? Did we not swiftly put an end to the Kosovo conflict in a matter of weeks? Did we not topple the Saddam Hussein regime in a matter of days? Did we not destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in days also? Did we not provide key military assistance to the toppling of Kadaffi? Has not US military power been a key factor in limiting limiting international conflict in the post WWII era?

I don’t think that anyone seriously questions the military capability of the US.

Some, however, may wish for a better political outcome from these conflicts. But, it is not simply a question of military power. It is a question of the political dynamics of the country subjected to US military power. We can destroy tyrannical regimes but it is up to the people of those countries to establish a more viable and self determined alternative. Perhaps, we could exercise more force to extract compliance with our desires and goals. However, wouldn’t that mean that we would have come full circle since WWII to the tactics of those that we fought so vigorously against?

Posted by: Rich at June 26, 2012 9:40 PM
Comment #347351

SD

“Secure Communities is the DoHS replacement for that program.”

But Nappy says that AZ will be excluded from that. So it does not matter what program is for what, when the powers that be decide that who cares about the law and the Constitution, we will do it our way. See, Frank Sinatra is still having an influence.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 26, 2012 11:18 PM
Comment #347358

tom humes-
I really wish you folks would document your claims. The best I can find is a report off of NumbersUSA that basically says that Secure Communities won’t include traffic stops, as ICE believes that’s an inefficient use of its resources. Beyond that, nothing. I would think a full ending of the program would register higher on Google.

Is it that hard to admit that people like you can get carried away with their accusations? I’ve had to qualify a few claims in my time here.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2012 8:04 AM
Comment #347359

Rich,

“We can destroy tyrannical regimes but it is up to the people of those countries to establish a more viable and self determined alternative.”

We also, in the end have to accept the will of the people once they are free of those tyrannical regimes. Apparently not everyone wants a Western style democracy, and America cannot tell people how to rule themselves.

America can make suggestions, and give them the tools, but to try to force them into our mold is, as you said, only slightly better than the alternative.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 27, 2012 8:06 AM
Comment #347361

SD

You are guilty of non documention as much as anybody.

It was said in a press release that ICE would not cooperate with AZ authorities in picking up IA’s. The program you speak of applies to the country. But now there are only 49 states instead of 57. Who’s next?

Corruption abounds with Obama’s administration. And you support him without reservation.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 27, 2012 11:21 AM
Comment #347363

tom humes-
I’m having trouble finding the press releases or any other information that backs your point, and it’s not for lack of trying. I don’t like to rebut people out of ignorance.

If nothing else, just copy and paste the damn link. I usually will document claims without being asked, or if I am asked, I will look for back up.

What’s your attitude?

You talk of corruption abounding, but what else is that but Partisan talk, if you can’t offer any real evidence for the fact?

Find me the press release. Put up, or shut up.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2012 12:08 PM
Comment #347364

SD

You have heard them and seen them.

“Put up, or shut up.”

Real class there sonny.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 27, 2012 1:08 PM
Comment #347366

sd

“You talk of corruption abounding,…”

Tomorrow is a sample of two items.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 27, 2012 2:15 PM
Comment #347367

TomT for your use.

http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2012 2:20 PM
Comment #347368

j2t2,
Good link to the Fortune article. But I keep having the terrible feeling that any time spent on Fast & Furious is wasted time.

Issa keeps looking for something scandolous but can’t find anything. Someone must be hiding something! The NRA imagines a bizarre and convoluted conspiracy theory is afoot. Ugh.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2012 2:35 PM
Comment #347376

It’s not wasted time if the conservatives can smear Obama with it phx8. Because they have the liberty to disregard truth and facts on these issues, keeping it going benefits them. Remember how Issa used ACORN to smear Obama in the past.
The real issue here is the witch hunt that is a failure headed by Chief Inquisitor McCarthy er um I mean Issa. This was his goal since taking power in 2010 with the belief that this was the most corrupt administration in history , yes worse than Reagan’s. But they have found nothing in 2 years. Issa is a disgrace to his position and should resign.


http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44850.html

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75552.html

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2012 4:35 PM
Comment #347377

j2t2,
Well, that’s demonstrably correct. Conservatives will conduct smear campaigns with no regard for the truth, and ACORN is a perfect example. Today, the NRA is so far right in its politics, it no longer is grounded in reality. It imagines a conspiracy to discredit gun ownership by providing guns to the Mexican drug cartels, which ignores the obvious fact that gun laws are already so lax in Arizona, it makes the whole idea of a conspiracy redundant and ludicrous.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2012 5:34 PM
Comment #347378

Phx8 & J2t2

Acorn was acting in dishonest ways and breaking laws.

Stephen

“What about massacring civilians or tormenting prisoners helps that goal?”

In war things happen that are illegal. In these case when the U.S. was involved, we have gone through a proper legal process.

You do not need to insult your country’s troops to make a partisan point. Many men risked their lives and some died to protect you. It is okay to have a partisan point of view, but I caution you not to be stupid like this again.

I am probably the only one here who actually participated in a counterinsurgency. You just don’t know what the hell you are talking about.

Posted by: C&J at June 27, 2012 6:40 PM
Comment #347380

I find it amazing how fearful the repub and some dem reps are of the NRA. They would rather falsify their vote to find Holder in contempt of Congress than to upset the NRA. Because the NRA smells a conspiracy, although the same type of operation during the GWB administration was not a conspiracy. What a bunch of losers these extremist wing nut leaders of the NRA have turned out to be. Yet the membership will do nothing but send money based on these conspiracy theories. How pathetic is that?

I find Congress in general and Issa, and his thugs that are so afraid of the NRA, in particular contemptible. What they are doing is contemptible. Any decent American would be in contempt so I am hoping these bought and paid for thugs find Holder in contempt, I also hope that Obama honors Holder for being in contempt of this congressional committee. It is time for a “have you no sense of decency” speech from Obama directed towards Issa and the wing nuts at the NRA as he honors Holder for standing firm against these dishonorable conspiracy nuts.

It’s time for candidate Obama to expose these witch hunts for what they are, an abuse of power by Issa and the repubs on the House oversight committee. Honor the victims of these witch hunts as they are victimized. Expose these corporate fascist for their abuse of power. Show the American people the NRA leaders are using this lame conspiracy theory to fill up the coffers, by extracting donations to fight this conspiracy, from the gullible NRA members.

The gullible NRA members need to hold their leaders fingers to the fire, demand proof not theory. The NRA serves a good purpose but if they continue down this line they will lose any respect they had.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2012 7:10 PM
Comment #347381

If a country enters into a war it should use and do anything it can to win it as quickly as possible. Dropping atomic bombs on Japan was a horrendous decision made by a valiant president. He knew very well that hundreds of thousands of civilians would perish or suffer horrible injuries. But, Harry Truman understood war and what was at stake.

When congress declares war they are asking for the life and liberty of every American to be at risk if it is not won, not just combatants.

Lately, we have not bothered to get a congressional declaration of war, but have called war other names. When we ask our military members to place their lives on the line the civilian population, and our leaders, should be ready to do the same. If we are not prepared to do this, we should not be at war.

The word “war” has lost its meaning for many folks since it is viewed on TV, or read about in their newspaper from the safety of their living room and no personal sacrifice by them is required. For them, life goes on as usual. This must not be the case. Every citizen must participate in some way when we go to war.

Our constitution does not address how the nation should deal with war or the rules under which it should be fought, it only addresses how one must be declared. No nation can afford to be involved in a war if they do not intend to win it as quickly as possible with the lowest possible loss of life of its citizens.

We have signed onto certain international agreements as to what is not acceptable in war time. I would ask, if we were in danger of invasion and of losing a war which meant an end to our way of life, would any of us honor such agreements? I wouldn’t. What the hell good is honor if one is a slave? Will the conqueror admire the vanquished because they obeyed the rules and lost?

In war, there is no desired outcome other than to win.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2012 7:35 PM
Comment #347382

j2t2

The polls are interesting on this issue. A little less than half the people think the Obama folks are hiding wrongdoing and a slightly smaller number think it is a witch hunt. The rest don’t know. I suspect it breaks almost exactly on the lines of who will vote for and against Obama. In other words, what you think about this issue is based on what you already thought about the president’s honesty.

Posted by: C&J at June 27, 2012 7:38 PM
Comment #347383

My, My j2t2, how venomous. It is contempt of congress to ignore or obfuscate subpoenas of records. Holder is in comtempt of congress and all your blustering means nothing.

Posted by: Royal Flush at June 27, 2012 7:41 PM
Comment #347385

“In war, there is no desired outcome other than to win.”

Royal Flush,

The implication is that we haven’t won in recent conflicts. We simply haven’t used enough force. Really! We have annihilated every adversary. Where are the Soviet Union, Saddam Hussein, Bin Laden, etc., today? What you are saying is that you are not satisfied with the outcome of military victory. What do you want us to do, occupy the entire world?

Posted by: Rich at June 27, 2012 8:19 PM
Comment #347386

C&J,

It is a phony issue [Fast and Furious]and you know it.

The rants and weird conspiracy theories from the right fueling this issue are juvenile. Does anybody really think that the Chief Executive and the DOJ hatched some plot to further their 2nd Amendment limitation fantasies? If they had any consideration and support for the operation, it was probably to counter conservative arguments that “liberals” were soft on crime.

The truth of the matter is that ATF botched the whole “Operation Gunrunner” project from the days of the Bush administration to the Obama administration. Granted, the ATF was hamstrung by the law at every turn but they managed to screw up whatever opportunities they had.

Posted by: Rich at June 27, 2012 8:34 PM
Comment #347390

Rich

I think it is much LESS phoney than the Plame case or the attorney affair.

In this case, Holder lied and an American border agent died. If this is not the case, it would be easy for Holder and Obama to prove it wrong.

It is not the program itself that caused the trouble for Holder and Obama; it is the cover up. They should just come clean and put the matter to rest.

Posted by: C&J at June 27, 2012 9:05 PM
Comment #347391

C&J-
I am a pragmatist at heart. I know that there’s often a distance between the formal way an organization is expected to run, and the informal way it actually runs.

I came here to critique a policy that I saw as deadly to those soldiers. If we have such gratitude about their brave willingness to die for their country, then we shouldn’t be waiting three years to fix what was going wrong in the first year of the war!

How many soldiers have died, or lost heart about the military they once devoted themselves to, on account of the Iraq war, and its mistakes? We were in a much better place concerning our military and our patriotism before your people abused the trust of the American people by using that pride to get us into an unnecessary war.

Far from insulting the soldiers, or holding cynical views about them, I hold them in high respect. Which means, in my sense of things that if they’re not getting the supplies and equipment they need, if they’re not getting the strategy that helps them win, if the leaders are putting them in unconscionable moral positions, I want their to be accountability, and I want something to be done to fix the situation.

I understand nothing runs perfectly, but when I hear of raw sewage dripping into lamps from above, and soldiers getting electrocuted in showers, when I hear for years of the rise of an insurgency, and I see the administration doing little effectively to stem that tide, I certainly believe that things can be done better.

Your personal experience? It doesn’t entitle you to expert status on everything. You have a range of issues you can speak with more authority on, certainly, but it doesn’t allow you to simply cut off debate, or speak in the name of all the soldiers out there. You’ve earned some credibility about speaking about a particular time and place in the war.

You’ve participated in counterinsurgency. And so have a lot of the sources I consulted on the matter. You’re not the only person who can comment from personal experience on the subject.

For my part, I think it should never have been necessary to fight this war as a counterinsurgency. I think a non-naive perspective on war is that nobody on the other side is going to quite see what you see as well-intentioned and necessary in quite the same positive light that you do. There is always going to be some kind of friction as an occupying force, and people will want to be rid of you, one way or another. Go look at Japan, and their attitude towards our base in Okinawa.

Going into this war with this, “we’ll take all the time in the world to do this war” attitude was a monumental act of foolishness. Many a world power throughout history has lost its prominence going broke on an overextended campaign they didn’t want to admit defeat on. Even Sun Tzu talked quite a bit of the cost of an extended foreign campaign, saying “There has never been a protracted war from which a country has benefited”. Whether you were talking about a medieval Chinese or European war, or the modern blockbusters of today, wars cost money, and long wars cost excessive amounts of money.

We’ve been lazy and unrealistic about how we set goals, and too willing to stay the course, despite it’s downward trajectory, into quagmire.

Short and sweet. You do not gain control over time. People lose morale and enthusiasm, even if the war was necessary, as it was in Afghanistan. The bodies pile up, and with it the grudges. The complexities of the war only build, as everybody involves becomes sick and tired of the whole affair.

I am far from and idealist on war. It’s more accurate to say that I’m the sort of person who believes that the human elements of war don’t change much over time, and that technology only changes the character of how these universal aspects of war play out, not the universal aspects themselves.

Royal Flush-
The Cold War kind of put the kibosh on declared wars, since treaty obligations tended to suck in the major superpowers into a Nuclear World War neither side wanted. Thus, Kennedy’s efforts to avoid calling the blockade a blockade, rather a quarantine instead.

But all that came from the development and use of the Atomic Bomb! The question of how far to, and when to go to such lengths is also the question of whether such victories are worth the consequences of going to such lengths.

Folks think you free yourself when you repudiate binding treaties and such, but you’re freeing your enemy of certain constraints, too, when you do such things. If we decide we’re not going to observe the Geneva convention in our wars, our opponents will cut the same corners to win.

And really, if you look at it, much of insurgency and terrorism is about provoking these kinds of image-destroying, reputation burning sort of actions, and using those actions as a pretext to justify their extremist actions. There are more dimensions to war than just killing enemies. There are more ways to suffer defeat than just getting all your soldiers killed.

I would venture that some of the dark-side tactics that the Bush Administration allowed, particularly the kind we saw at Abu Ghraib, backfired on the War efforts they were involved with. Going to all lengths does not necessarily profit us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 27, 2012 9:31 PM
Comment #347392

Fast & Furious seems to me like an opportunity for the Obama administration. During the hearings over whether public businesses should be able to deny contraception as a matter of religious freedom, Issa provided an undreamed opportunity: he prevented women from testifying at the hearing and instead put five old men before the cameras. Thank you! It was a phenomenally stupid move. Now the same congressman seems hellbent on pursuing Fast & Frivolous at the behest of the NRA. He has precisely nothing, yet he will push for contempt before the Congress, because surely Holder must be hiding… I dunno… something.

It seems like a wonderful opportunity. We have a less-than-savvy Congressman wildly overstepping his bounds, and virtually no chance of turning up anything whatsoever. Even diehard Republicans have no idea why they should be behind this. A caller asked Rush Limbaugh about this, and Rush suggested, well, there was a cover up. Of what, the caller asked. Rush didn’t know. Just… you know… something… Because the Obama administration was soooo corrupt. They just hadn’t found anything. But boy, when they did- just you watch out!

Fast & Frivolous serves two useful purposes for the Obama administration. First, it distracts the public from the economy. While the economy might do better than expected, the absorbtion of bandwidth by a gross overreach on the part of Issa is a good deal. Moderates will be put off by the partisanship of Republicans, just as they were in 1998, when a GOP effort to impeach Clinton resulted in the loss of the House during a midterm election- the first time since 1934- and booting of Gingrich from his speakership for being so stupid.

It also serves the Obama adminstration another way. Bandwidth absorbed by a non-existent scandal prevents Romney from pushing his message- that the election is a referendum on the economy, not a choice between Romney & Obama. Romney wants Issa to stop it, but he can’t prevent the, uh, less-than-savvy Issa from pushing a bizarre NRA conspiracy. In the meantime, while national polls show Obama with a three or four percentage point lead, polls in 12 swing states show an eight point lead. Associated SuperPACs are filling the airwaves in those twelve states with messages about Romney and Bain. Romney is being defined and characterized by the Democrats, and Fast & Frivolous prevents Romney from putting his message on the front burner. Perfect!

So keep it up conservatives! The Obama campaign is very, very formidable. This is the bunch that beat Hillary Clinton for the nomination. Do you really want to hitch your wagon to Issa? Really? Are you sure?

Tee hee.

Go for it.

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2012 9:42 PM
Comment #347396

“In this case, Holder lied and an American border agent died.”

C&J,

Nonsense! But, you know that. It is a good line though. Has a kind of a Jessie Jackson or Johnnie Cochran ring to it.

Posted by: Rich at June 27, 2012 10:03 PM
Comment #347399
It is contempt of congress to ignore or obfuscate subpoenas of records. Holder is in comtempt of congress and all your blustering means nothing.

It is much more than that Royal. It is the NRA making fools out of it’s members as they pander for money. It is the NRA leadership disgracing the organization with these foolish conspiracy theories.It is the hold the NRA has on elected officials, Royal. The debasing of our elected officials as they vote out of fear rather than knowledge,Royal.

It is the abuse of power Issa is exerting upon the administrative branch of our government. It is the knowledge that he proudly declared this administration to be corrupt without a shred of evidence to back up his lies, and then started this ongoing witch hunt without cause. It is the onerous stench of McCarthyism that permeates the halls of Congress when people like Issa are allowed to ply their dishonorable trade at the expense of our system of government. It is the sadness we experience when we watch our elected representatives drenched in fear as they bow to extremist wing nut conspiracy theories to hold their jobs. It is the disgrace we see in the eyes of our representatives as they knowingly do the wrong thing but cannot muster the courage to do anything else due to the fear of the being attacked themselves by these false conspiracy theorist.

No Royal it is much more than a wrongful contempt charge.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 28, 2012 12:40 AM
Comment #347403


The NRA doesn’t get spun up on Fast and Furious without this gem from the ATF:

“(I)n light of our request for Demand letter 3, this case could be a strong supporting factor if we can determine how many multiple sales of long guns occurred during the course of this case.” Link

The hearings don’t begin without an ATF whistleblower talking to CBS and another ATF guy resigning after being sickened to his stomach upon reviewing documents that DOJ has not released. Nobody questions DOJ testimony without the two “inadvertant” statements that were made that had to be later retracted. The one about Mukasey (and made twice at two different hearings) was made by Holder himself. And his vague “I learned about it a few weeks ago” is up there with what a definition of is is. Add in the Executive Privlidge claim and you’ve got a real White House winner.

If this is a witch hunt and non-issue then you have to wonder why ATF and DOJ are so eager to fuel it. Even Grassley and Issa can’t lay off the hanging curves….

Posted by: George at June 28, 2012 10:10 AM
Comment #347404

Comment #347376
“It’s not wasted time if the conservatives can smear Obama with it phx8. Because they have the liberty to disregard truth and facts on these issues, keeping it going benefits them”; J2t2.

If you read in your link, you will find Henry Waxman (D) held 203 oversight hearings in the 2 years the Democrats controlled the House while Bush was president. So I ask, is it unusual for oversight hearings to be held; and were you outraged at 203 hearings held for the purpose of going after Bush? And that is certainly what Waxman was doing.

Issa is also investigating the tracking of the Stimulus money, Countrywide Financial VIP loans, Fannie and Freddie’s role in the financial collapse, and “larger sums of cash controlled by the executive branch at a time of huge deficits.”

“We really want to study presidential earmarks and the grant-making process: How do we take all this discretionary money and see what is necessary,” Issa said. “The debate on how to shrink the federal government is at the core of our problem of government not doing its job.”

Your second link deals with Obama’s corrupt administration. You believe this is wrong, but you and the left are in a minority. I will not list the areas in which “likely” American voters are upset with Obama’s administration but I will include the link:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics

Comment #347377
“j2t2,
Well, that’s demonstrably correct. Conservatives will conduct smear campaigns with no regard for the truth, and ACORN is a perfect example. Today, the NRA is so far right in its politics, it no longer is grounded in reality. It imagines a conspiracy to discredit gun ownership by providing guns to the Mexican drug cartels, which ignores the obvious fact that gun laws are already so lax in Arizona, it makes the whole idea of a conspiracy redundant and ludicrous.”

Posted by: phx8 at June 27, 2012 5:34 PM

Phx8, the NRA is made up of dues paying American voters, who have the right to voice their concerns about Obama and Holder’s attack on gun ownership. We have all seen the videos of Holder’s personal claim that the 2nd amendment does not include the individual’s right to own guns. The NRA has a single purpose of protecting the American’s right to bear arms. The left has always been against this right. And you say the NRA and American gun owners are WRONG; based on what, your word? Should we believe your spin or should we believe the words which come directly from the mouth of Obama and Holder?

There are currently about 4 ½ million NRA members, and there are many other gun rights organizations such as CCRKBA, and the Second Amendment Foundation who have also demanded that Holder release the documents. These organizations are not corporations, they are not companies, and they are made up of dues paying members who want answers. You can decry them; you can say they do not have the right to have answers to their questions, but you only represent a small group of people who would willingly trash the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in order to protect Obama and Holder.

C&J said:

Stephen
“You do not need to insult your country’s troops to make a partisan point. Many men risked their lives and some died to protect you. It is okay to have a partisan point of view, but I caution you not to be stupid like this again.

I am probably the only one here who actually participated in a counterinsurgency. You just don’t know what the hell you are talking about. “

Posted by: C&J at June 27, 2012 6:40 PM

C&J, this is typical of the left; they like to proclaim their patriotism and support for the troops, or their support for the police. But they are the first to disparage the troops and the police. I have NEVER, NEVER heard a conservative on WB attack the military or the police. But the double speak of the left praises and condemns in the same sentence.

J2t2 said:

“I find it amazing how fearful the repub and some dem reps are of the NRA. They would rather falsify their vote to find Holder in contempt of Congress than to upset the NRA.”

Bill Clinton told Al Gore, when Gore ran for President in 2000; he lost WV because of the NRA.

Tell me, are you also amazed at how fearful the dems are of the unions? We know that Obama and the dems have catered to the unions for many years.

“The NRA serves a good purpose but if they continue down this line they will lose any respect they had.”
Posted by: j2t2 at June 27, 2012 7:10 PM

The only respect the NRA has is from the gun owners of America. Since when did a liberal ever respect the NRA?

Posted by: TomT at June 28, 2012 10:56 AM
Comment #347405
So I ask, is it unusual for oversight hearings to be held; and were you outraged at 203 hearings held for the purpose of going after Bush?

TomT, Is it unusual? No in fact it is customary. What is unusual is more than doubling these hearings as you claim the administration to be corrupt without offewring any proof. Then when you “walk the lie back” you lose any credibility IMHO. You claim Waxman’s purpose was to go after GWB but did he or did he just do what the oversight committee was supposed to do? Did Waxman go on the record like Issa did with false allegations about the GWB administration? Certainly you can see the difference between the two committee chairman.

“To give an idea of how expansive Issa’s oversight plans are, look at the record of Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) when he chaired the oversight committee during in the 110th Congress during George W. Bush’s presidency. Waxman held 203 oversight hearings in two years; Issa has signaled he’s prepared to hold about 280 in just one year.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44850.html#ixzz1z6iTsGxY

Your second link deals with Obama’s corrupt administration. You believe this is wrong, but you and the left are in a minority. I will not list the areas in which “likely” American voters are upset with Obama’s administration but I will include the link:

No TomT it deals with the fantasy of conservatives that the Obama administration is corrupt. They offer weird conspiracy theories but no proof of corruption. They talk amongst themselves as if the rumors are true but they cannot back up these falsehoods with facts. Of course the gullible movement followers then drink the cool aid unquestioned. Then they refer to Rasmussen polls as evidence of something, how pathetic is that?
Yes some likely voters believe this, but they believe it based upon the propaganda of the far right, not facts. They of course then vote based upon this illusion and we then get the government that we deserve.

The only respect the NRA has is from the gun owners of America. Since when did a liberal ever respect the NRA?

Which is my point TomT. When groups such as the NRA get so extreme it loses the respect of many of us that have some critical thinking skills. Many liberals are what we call gun toting liberals, many moderates are also gun owners as well, but that doesn’t mean we have to fall for the propaganda of the far right. We can discern what is BS and what is not. The differentiates us from the far right extremist who see a conspiracy everywhere. Were the NRA to become more moderate the level of respect would grow IMHO.

At some point in time the use of fear to raise money for the NRA must come under question TomT, even from those on the right. Ask for some proof from the NRA leadership before you sign the check. Hold them accountable and ask them to stop the fear tactics that have proven false the past 3 years.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/where-to-shoot/

Posted by: j2t2 at June 28, 2012 1:17 PM
Comment #347415

J3t3 said:

“TomT, Is it unusual? No in fact it is customary. What is unusual is more than doubling these hearings as you claim the administration to be corrupt without offewring any proof. Then when you “walk the lie back” you lose any credibility IMHO. You claim Waxman’s purpose was to go after GWB but did he or did he just do what the oversight committee was supposed to do? Did Waxman go on the record like Issa did with false allegations about the GWB administration? Certainly you can see the difference between the two committee chairman.”

Yes, Waxman certainly did make accusations against Bush without proof; in fact the talking points of the left were in condemnation of Bush and the war with Iraq with no evidence provided.

“This article appears in the June 13, 2003 issue of Executive Intelligence Review.
The Henry Waxman Letter:
Who Knew What, and When?
by Jeffrey Steinberg
U.S. Representative Henry Waxman (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to President George W. Bush, demanding a full explanation from the Administration, as to why senior officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and the President himself “cited forged evidence about Iraq’s efforts to obtain nuclear materials.” (Representative Waxman’s letter and the Executive’s reply appear below in Documentation.)”

Waxman made charges against Bush, not on evidence, but on the accusation of forged documents. Waxman wanted to know who knew what and when. Please tell me the difference between what Waxman wanted, based on forged documents, and what Issa wants, based on false information given to the oversight committee on several occasions and later retracted by the DOJ?

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/20/DOJ-Retracts-Holder-s-Inadvertent-False-Statement-to-Congress

j2t2 goes on to say:

“Which is my point TomT. When groups such as the NRA get so extreme it loses the respect of many of us that have some critical thinking skills.”

J2t2, I don’t think the gun owners of America, who belong to the NRA and any other gun rights organization, or even those who support these rights, care about a “by your leave” attitude from you or any other liberal. I have to say, I have never heard such an elitist, arrogant comment as “many of us that have critical thinking skills”. The left are arrogant son-of bitches for inferring they are the intelligent ones who are able to make decisions for the rest of the ignorant masses in America. You claim that Americans who belong to the NRA are in danger of causing the left to lose respect for the NRA. Tell me j2t2, when did the left ever have respect for the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, or conservatives right to voice their opinions? If we put the NRA in danger of disrespect by the left, then what does liberals like you put in danger by telling us we are stupid and you are intelligent?

The number of liberals who own guns is miniscule; unless you are referring to inner city blacks and Hispanics who own guns illegally, under Democrat city laws, and use them to kill each other in every city, every day of the year.

I support the NRA, and will continue to support the NRA with financial aid. If I did not agree that the NRA should hold our politicians feet to the fire on this issue, I would stop supporting them.

http://www.theliberalgunclub.com/where-to-shoot/

Nice link, now why don’t you go back and check the records and see who fought for the right for a handful of liberals to shoot their weapons in “State and National Forests”? It was the NRA. It was the NA that has fought for the right to carry concealed weapons, it was the NRA who fought for the right to hunt on public lands, and it certainly was not the left.

Why don’t you show us a link where liberals have worked for gun rights in NY, IL, CA?

Posted by: TomT at June 28, 2012 3:33 PM
Comment #347422
J2t2, I don’t think the gun owners of America, who belong to the NRA and any other gun rights organization, or even those who support these rights, care about a “by your leave” attitude from you or any other liberal. I have to say, I have never heard such an elitist, arrogant comment as “many of us that have critical thinking skills”. The left are arrogant son-of bitches for inferring they are the intelligent ones who are able to make decisions for the rest of the ignorant masses in America.

TomT. It isn’t arrogance or elitist Tom T as I am neither. I consider it to be arrogant and elitist to believe only conservative NRA members own are gun owners. I find the NRA to be exclusionary with their extremist attitude as well. I know it sounds crazy to think that anyone would oppose critical thinking skills but the Texas GOP is against just that.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/blogs/news/2012-06-27/gop-opposes-critical-thinking/

The left are arrogant son-of bitches for inferring they are the intelligent ones who are able to make decisions for the rest of the ignorant masses in America.

TomT read what I said, stop twisting what I say into conservative talking points.I am not saying I or anyone should think for you or that you or anyone should think for me. I am saying that when the conspiracy theories come with request for donations use your head not someone’s else’s.

You claim that Americans who belong to the NRA are in danger of causing the left to lose respect for the NRA.

Twisting the words again TomT. If you look at what I said it is pretty clear that that I was specifically referring to the NRA leadership.

Tell me j2t2, when did the left ever have respect for the NRA, the 2nd Amendment, or conservatives right to voice their opinions? If we put the NRA in danger of disrespect by the left, then what does liberals like you put in danger by telling us we are stupid and you are intelligent?

I respected the NRA when they were on the right side of the issue at hand. I have read their magazine on and off over the years and thought rather well of them for the most part. As far as the 2nd amendment such arrogance on the part of conservatives to think it is they and only they who respect the Constitution as a whole. Disagreements over interpretation doesn’t mean a lack of respect.

And pray tell who has said you cannot voice your opinion? It is usually conservative “facts” that cause the problem Tom T. As they say, your not entitled to your own set of facts.


TomT who called you stupid? Who said I was intelligent? Don’t let your anger and hatred towards us that are to the left of you get the best of you. One would think that when I say “When groups such as the NRA get so extreme it loses the respect of many of us that have some critical thinking skills” I excluded all conservatives not just those extremist spouting wild conspiracy theories based upon some groups assumptions? SO sorry to upset your “poor conservative me getting abused by those liberals” talking points.
Now just consider the NRA may be just trying to pander for money as they spread this fear based conspiracy theory based upon nothing factual and decide if that is the type of organization you want to belong to.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 28, 2012 4:28 PM
Comment #347441

TomT-
The trouble is, your people praise the soldiers, and deny the need to do better by them in the same breath, because you’re covering the Republican Politician’s asses and hiding rhetorically behind the soldiers in order to stifle dissent.

It’s not doubletalk. It’s concern that our soldiers are at the mercy of bad policies, written by politicians and supported by pundits who often did their best to avoid actual combat when the opportunity presented itself.

I joined up with this site when I started out in part because I saw signs and heard reports of the beginnings of the insurgency, and I wanted my leaders in Washington to get right to stomping those insurgents flat. Instead, your politicans and pundits provided political cover for perseverating on the same failed policy, while things degenerated further.

If a leader’s policy is good and it works, I can lay aside my partisan misgivings much easier. If Bush had succeeded in getting the situation under control, I’d be grudgingly praising the guy. But what he did instead was put his foot through the hornets nest in Fallujah, and then left that swarming hornet’s nest around to put their stings into our soldiers. By the time he actually got around to doing something, which is Late 2004, things had been raging out of control for months.

You tell me. Should I give the benefit of the doubt to those who disregarded our warnings, and got us into just the kind of trouble we thought they would?

Quit the jingoism, the use of the soldiers as human shields for the policies. Have your party take responsibility for its failures, and start learning from them, rather than pretending they never occurred.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2012 8:32 PM
Comment #347442

J2t2, I have no idea why you provide a leftist blog site as evidence opposing critical thinking skills??? You are the one who claimed, “many of us that have critical thinking skills”. Why are you now linking to the GOP in Texas? You are elitist and arrogant and your comments show it.

Re/gun ownership; why do you even attempt to argue this point:

“I consider it to be arrogant and elitist to believe only conservative NRA members own are gun owners.”

First let me say, not all Democrats are liberals. I understand Democrats own guns. I was a blue collar union worker and knew many Democrats who owned guns and hunted; but what I did say was that “gun ownership by liberals in miniscule”. Liberals would not admit to owning guns if they had the chance. Liberals have done all they can to destroy 2nd Amendment rights, gun shows, and CCW laws. Liberals make up only 20% of America.

“TomT read what I said, stop twisting what I say into conservative talking points.I am not saying I or anyone should think for you or that you or anyone should think for me.”

You are a liberal just as Stephen Daugherty is a liberal, and liberals are elitist and arrogant; they believe they know what is best for everyone else. You can deny this if you want, but I have read enough from you and SD to know you are filled with the pride of intelligence.

“Twisting the words again TomT. If you look at what I said it is pretty clear that that I was specifically referring to the NRA leadership.”

Now you are twisting words; you said exactly what you meant to say. I have already said the NRA is made up of dues paying members. You are confusing the NRA with Union leadership. Unions are made up of dues paying members who have no choice but to belong to the unions and pay their dues; on the other hand, the NRA is made up of members who have a choice to pay dues and belong, or quit. The membership of the NRA is in COMPLETE agreement with the leadership and fully support the House’s investigation of Holder. Get over it and stop trying to change the wording of your comments.

“I respected the NRA when they were on the right side of the issue at hand. I have read their magazine on and off over the years and thought rather well of them for the most part. As far as the 2nd amendment such arrogance on the part of conservatives to think it is they and only they who respect the Constitution as a whole. Disagreements over interpretation doesn’t mean a lack of respect.
And pray tell who has said you cannot voice your opinion? It is usually conservative “facts” that cause the problem Tom T. As they say, your not entitled to your own set of facts.”

The NRA has never changes their position on anything; for well over a hundred years they have fought for the same rights. Therefore you lie when you say you used to respect the NRA. I don’t care how many magazines you have read, IMO you have always considered the NRA as the enemy.

But it is a moot point; the House has found Holder in Criminal and Civil Contempt of Congress. Obama and Holder will stall on releasing documents as long as they can, but eventually they will have to hand everything over and we will see their involvement.

Posted by: TomT at June 28, 2012 8:35 PM
Comment #347466

Many individuals desire to sign up for the style marketplace and possess an institution of the own. But the majority of those individuals fail to recognize just how straightforward it is for them to attain this desire of theirs. Entering the style marketplace is not as difficult since it the instant utilized to be. Using the advent of internet, equally wholesalers and stores are already brought closer jointly making it an awesome offer handier to make a make an effort to do business. When entering the style industry, the safest method to acquire started out is by method of buying fashion handbagand purses.




Related Articles Revealed! How I Achieved a 70 Pound Advantageous Weight Accident from Weight Loss Supplements in 4 Months and Accept Kept it Off for 15 Years! 6 Fat Burning Foods That Accelerate Advantageous Weight Loss! Discover the 6 Benefits Bananas Provide to Help You Achieve Advantageous Weight Loss! Weight Accident Myth Revealed: Bistro Fat Won’t Accomplish You Fat! Since there are too abounding choices out there to analyze apropos advantageous weight accident supplements, it all comes down to two questions: Are Weight-loss supplements safe? And Do they work? The acknowledgment is in the capacity and the testimonials of bodies who accept taken them

Posted by: lost weight at June 29, 2012 9:52 AM
Comment #347471

General Stephen Daugherty

It is great to have you on board as a top ranked and knowledeable general who has great wisdom in knowing how to conduct foreign policy and the conduct of war.

Plainly it is bullshit.

If you are so up on the conduct of war and foreign policy you should enter the military and see how far you can go.

I can garantee you that PFC would be difficult to attain. My son who entered the army as a PFC could out do you.

The above of which you wrote contains nothing and absolutely nothing but rheorical manure.

You offer nothing to solving Iraq’s problem.

Let me offer you some information.

Iraq will grow into one of the great commerce centers of the world. She will be a military might in the middle east. And that will be very shortly and in your life time.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 29, 2012 11:02 AM
Comment #347472

“Iraq will grow into one of the great commerce centers of the world. She will be a military might in the middle east. And that will be very shortly and in your life time.”

The fact that “she” might not be allied with America is inconsequential, right Tom?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 29, 2012 11:13 AM
Comment #347478

TomT. if you really have no idea as to why I linked to the Austin Chronicle then perhaps it is you who is the arrogant elitist.

As far as the rest of your belief that gun ownership amongst among liberals is miniscule, your entitled to your opinion but it doesn’t make it factual. Your hatred and anger towards liberals has caused you to have many misconceptions but once again that doesn’t make them factual, just misconceptions.

http://www.liberalswithguns.com/

As far as the word twisting look back and read my comments on this thread and see how many times I mentioned NRA leadership and separated them from the dues paying members and you will see your wrong.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 29, 2012 1:29 PM
Comment #347481

j2t2, is this the best you can do; to accuse me of “hatred and anger toward liberals”.

Why don’t you find me a link showing how liberals fought for gun rights, or fought for the right to hunt and shoot on State and Federal lands (as the NRA has done), or liberals who support the 2nd Amendment as written, without exceptions. Or perhaps you can show me conseratives who have fought for gun control; or perhaps show me anyone other than a liberal who supported gun control.

You keep linking to these liberal blog sites and you expect me to believe their BS as being fact.

You are trying to convince the wrong person that liberals are anything but advocates for gun control.

Regarding your BS about the NRA leadership; one more time, if your not too ignorant to comprehend; an attack on the leadwership of the NRA is an atack on the rank and file. The rank and file support and ENCOURAGE the Congress to go after Holder. Your support of NRA members is just like the liberals who support the police and the military. They sa it with their mouth, yet their actions are anti-military and anti-police. Next you will be telling us you are not really a liberal; that you are just a Democrat.

Posted by: TomT at June 29, 2012 3:18 PM
Comment #347483

Stephen Daugherty and other liberals on WB have consistantly quoted the talking points of the left and have maintained the Oversight Committee investigation into Holder’s and Obama’s role in Fast and Furious was nothing more than a witch hunt. Well yesterday, I watched the comments by Issa on the floor of the House when debating to hold Holder in contempt. I watched Issa show a stack of classified emails and letters and he accused the Democrats of knowing exactly what was in the documents when he said this:

“The wiretap affidavit details that agents were well aware that large sums of money were being used to purchase a large number of firearms, many of which were flowing across the border,” the letter says…

Although ATF was aware of these facts, no one was arrested, and ATF failed to even approach the straw purchasers. Upon learning these details through its review of this wiretap affidavit, senior Justice Department officials had a duty to stop this operation. Further, failure to do so was a violation of Justice Department policy,” the letter says.


In a move of brilliance and a move to show the lies of the left, “Darrell Issa Puts Details of Secret Wiretap Applications in Congressional Record”

http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell_issa_puts_details_of_secret_wiretap_applications_in_congressional-215828-1.html

Wait till the courts start ordering the release of the rest of the documents.

Once again, the left defends Obama.

Posted by: Bllinflorida at June 29, 2012 3:37 PM
Comment #347485

There many diet pills in slimming capsule market. If you are planning on shopping for slimming diet pills, it may take you some time to choose one brand or kind from all those diet pills. But if you want to which one is theBest Diet Pills for yourself, you may need to consult your doctor.

Only being on a diet which is not healthy can cause damage to your healthy body. So making a healthy plan and combining being on a diet and doing exercise appropriately is very important. The real challenge is to lose weight fast and safe so you can be assured of being healthy and keeping those pounds off for weeks, months, and years after starting your very own weight loss regimen.

 

 

Many people do their business as selling Gucci handbag since Gucci handbag is loved by most people and it is selling well these days. These who do the business as retailer of Gucci handbag need to find the wholesale Gucci handbag. Finding a wholesaler of Gucci handbag is not easy, but if you try your best to find the wholesaler of Gucci handbag, you can also find the wholesaler of Gucci handbag that most suitable for you.

Posted by: fashion handbags at June 29, 2012 4:01 PM
Comment #347491

Rocky

The US will have nothing to do with its climb to power and wealth.

Maranatha

Posted by: tom humes at June 29, 2012 4:56 PM
Comment #347496

tom,

“The US will have nothing to do with its climb to power and wealth.”

However, we have taken away their scourge, and they are allowed their own self determination.

Will we want to step in again if they align themselves with those in the region against “our” interests?

I don’t wish Iraq ill, but America seems all for democratically elected governments, unless, of course, we don’t like those who are elected…

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at June 29, 2012 5:32 PM
Comment #347497

billinflorida,
There is literally zero- zero- chance that a court will order the executive branch to release classified documents to the legislative branch. That’s not going to happen. The judicial branch will not interfere in squabble between the other two branches. No chance.

Posted by: phx8 at June 29, 2012 5:48 PM
Comment #347500

In the civil courts they will PHX8, Just to find what they don’t want congress or the people to know. They will order the papers to be turned over to the court for examination.

Posted by: KAP at June 29, 2012 5:58 PM
Comment #347503

phx8, dream on big boy. The truth will prevail:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/after-holder-contempt-vote-republicans-eye-civil-court-case-to-extract-furious/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/28/us-usa-congress-holder-idUSBRE85R06C20120628

Why do you think they voted to Holder in contempt twice? Crimial ( predicted would never happen because Obama shut it down), and Civil (of which Obama and Holder have no control). If the civil court says Obama did not have the right to invoke EP, Holder could then be arrested or impeached.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 29, 2012 6:05 PM
Comment #347511

Issa has recently said that he has no evidence or even strong suspicions that Holder or Obama had anything to do with “Fast and Furious.” So, what is this all about? Investigation of the ATF? Investigation of the local Attorney General’s office for failure to initiate prosecutions advocated by the ATF? The legal limitations for prosecution of suspected gunrunners?

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2012 7:34 PM
Comment #347516

Good point Rich, but tell me, Obama and Holder both said they had nothing to do with Fast and Furious. So why don’t Holder hand over the documents, and why did Obama implicate himself by declaring EP? But, let me post this again for you. Maybe you’ll look at it this time:

http://www.rollcall.com/news/darrell_issa_puts_details_of_secret_wiretap_applications_in_congressional-215828-1.html

Kinda blows holes in Holder’s statement.

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 29, 2012 8:11 PM
Comment #347523

Billinflorida,

I am not quite sure what the issue is. Issa says that Holder and Obama had nothing to do with the operation. Perhaps, Issa is contending that although Holder didn’t plan or authorize the operation, other senior DOJ officials should have known about it and put a stop to it. Is that his contention?

This evening, the agent in charge of “Fast and Furious” stated that the problem was with the local US District Attorney’s office that refused to initiate prosecutions. They claimed that they couldn’t proceed under the law.

Posted by: Rich at June 29, 2012 10:02 PM
Comment #347536

In order to meet women’s large demand of fashion handbags, the designer of handbags are do their best to design different styles, colors and sizes to meet the different demand. So you can see, there are thousands of fashions handbags rush into the market, and you may dizzy about these fashion handbags so as you don’t know what kinds of fashion handbags you want to choose. But it is also easy for you to choose the fashion handbags. Choosing the fashion handbags that not only fashion and elegant but also practical, so you can take the fashion handbags not only as the accessories but also as the functional handbags you can use to carry your daily needs.

Posted by: fashion handbag at June 29, 2012 11:34 PM
Comment #347537

Today, one of my fat friends asks me “how can you lose weight”? Before I am a little fat, and most of my friends ask me to lose weight, and I also feel not so comfortable, so I take measures to lose weight. Before I take the measure, I find the reasons why I become fat. I found that I eat too much and less exercise.

Posted by: fast lost weight at June 29, 2012 11:36 PM
Comment #347551

“Billinflorida,

I am not quite sure what the issue is. Issa says that Holder and Obama had nothing to do with the operation. Perhaps, Issa is contending that although Holder didn’t plan or authorize the operation, other senior DOJ officials should have known about it and put a stop to it. Is that his contention?”

Then why not release the documents?

“This evening, the agent in charge of “Fast and Furious” stated that the problem was with the local US District Attorney’s office that refused to initiate prosecutions. They claimed that they couldn’t proceed under the law.”

So was this “agent” under oath when he said this? Or was this just another report by a liberl media outlet???

Posted by: Billinflorida at June 30, 2012 10:09 AM
Comment #347554

Professional or working ladies who need to pick superior styles and considerable glance can choose sober fashion handbag like leather-based one. And if steering out for just about any formal meeting, then you definitely can hold a standard leather-based handbag that fits your personality. You can choose many colours obtainable all through the market.


How can you lose weight? It is asked by most people, but few of people will ask how can’t I lose weight? Today I will say something about how you can’t lose weight, insufficient exercise and poor eating habits that are the reason why you can’t lose weight.


When herbal Weight Loss Tea bounce to mind, abnormally those from China and Japan, a lot of humans automatically anticipate that there is alone one affectionate of tea. There are assorted altered types of tea that can advice you to lose weight, although it is awful recommended to do some analysis to ascertain what blazon of tea would clothing you best, try a few, see what the altered ones aftertaste like, you will be abiding to acquisition one A top superior weight accident tea should alpha alive from day one

Posted by: fashion handbags at June 30, 2012 3:05 PM
Comment #347575
j2t2, is this the best you can do; to accuse me of “hatred and anger toward liberals”.

It;s not what I can do TomT it is what you are doing that is the issue. Look at your nonsensical rant here. “You keep linking to these liberal blog sites and you expect me to believe their BS as being fact.” While at the same time trying to convince me the discredited conservative representative Issa’s witchhunt is legitimate.

Why don’t you find me a link showing how liberals fought for gun rights, or fought for the right to hunt and shoot on State and Federal lands (as the NRA has done), or liberals who support the 2nd Amendment as written, without exceptions. Or perhaps you can show me conseratives who have fought for gun control; or perhaps show me anyone other than a liberal who supported gun control.

Why don’t you stick to the topic at hand,TomT. No one ever said “more liberals own guns” or whatever you have conjured up to

How elitist and arrogant TomT. Yet wasn’t it CBS, the bastion of liberal MSM according to conservatives, that broke the story on F&F you swallows the cool aid without blinking an eye. What kind of hypocrisy is that?

You are trying to convince the wrong person that liberals are anything but advocates for gun control.

There you go again TomT twisting my words. What I said was many liberals are gun owners, not dems, liberals. That is simply the facts. I don’t deny that many liberals are also gun control advocates, but that is not the point. You say miniscule I say many but who knows. The point is why would anyone not an extremist conservative want to join the NRA when they get involved in political issues based upon conspiracy theories they conjure up without proof.

Regarding your BS about the NRA leadership; one more time, if your not too ignorant to comprehend; an attack on the leadwership of the NRA is an atack on the rank and file…..

BS Tom T. They are manufacturing a conspiracy theory , forcing their elected reps to participate in the witch hunt out of fear, and it is BS on my part? It seems to me that anytime the rank and file march in lockstep without any proof of said conspiracy that they are ignorant. But then it is also why moderates and liberals look at the NRA as an extremist organization.

The “attack” you have conjured up was more a figment of your imagination than an attack. re-read what was said not what was imagined.

Your support of NRA members is just like the liberals who support the police and the military. They sa it with their mouth, yet their actions are anti-military and anti-police. Next you will be telling us you are not really a liberal; that you are just a Democrat.

TomT Once again rantings of a extremist. You miss the point entirely as you blather conservative talking points. But that aside I will tell you that I have never registered as either a repub or a dem, never . You can call me liberal or whatever it really doesn’t matter as long as you don’t insult me by calling me conservative.

Posted by: j2t2 at June 30, 2012 11:29 PM
Comment #347613

Fashion handbags are now a common style accessory as most girls adore to hold bags of matching coloring and design and design with their dress. There are numerous sorts of style handbags using the industry that may complement your clothing perfectly. Now you can locate new broad range of style handbags that could possibly be customized by making utilization of personal logos. These bags could possibly be employed as bridal shock when you can place a bride’s preliminary or wedding celebration day inside the monogram.





Overweight is a capital affair a part of abounding individuals in today’s world. Almost two-thirds of US citizenry is overweight.Weight Loss Supplementsis acquired mainly due to ailing activity appearance like smoking, drinking, befitting backward hours, and bistro junk, ailing food. It is important to abate weight as balance physique weight leads to affection disease, diabetes, uterine fibroids, and cancers of the colon, kidney, prostrate, changeable infertility and gallstones.

Posted by: Beautiful Fashion Handbags at July 1, 2012 6:59 PM
Post a comment