Posted on 12/21/2011 12:13:53 AM PST by neverdem
What Obama administration officials, including the president, knew or didn't know about the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives' 2009 Operation Fast and Furious has little to do with what they should have known.
Attorney General Holder, Secretary Clinton, President Obama, and Secretary Napolitano each declared that he or she did not know about Fast and Furious until 2011. But what should they have known about a federal program that eventually led to mass murder?
In a 1999 web article on leadership, writer and attorney Jonathan Wallace examined the question of when to hold those in power accountable. He begins with a two-part question: "did he know or should he have known?"
The first approach holds a leader responsible for giving the order, or being aware of an intended action and failing to stop it. The second blames him for failing to ask the right questions or to set the right standards for the organization. Lawyers call the first failing "intent" and the second "negligence".There is a third legal theory which is relevant: that of "absolute liability." Under certain circumstances, the law calls a party to account for a bad outcome regardless of intention or negligence.
The sense that one has responsibility -- without the ability to make things come out right is pervasive in society today[.] ... the panacea promised to people with a strong sense of victimhood is all too often the opposite evil: authority without responsibility.
Later in his essay, Wallace could have been describing the major players in Operation Fast and Furious when he asserts that "authority without responsibility creates monsters."
And if Wallace's analysis applies, demanding the "I won" administration to tell us "who gave the order" is futile and will lead only to boxes of purged e-mails. Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA)...
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The dems had talked gun control and had gotten the AWB signed into law.
In the meantime, two of the reasons the rats lost the Congress in 1994 according to Clinton were the so called "assault weapons ban" and the Brady bill for backround checks that morphed into the current NICS system.
--snip--
While the Chinese were bringing in the SKS’s they were also smuggling in full auto weapons for the gangs in LA. The same people that gave us the LA race riots of 1992 all because of those evil republicans and their racism and police misconduct.
In December of 1995, Brian Ross had started dragging out the R King case again.
The Clinton's were also stirring the racial pot at the time with the phony stories of Black Churches being burned with visions of hooded riders through the night. Those evil repubs were such racist, Blacks were going to loose their right to vote and it was going back to Jim Crow.
Let's go to 1998-1999, during B Clinton's impeachment. Hillary had a plan she called “The Scorched Earth Policy” as a way of staying in the WH.
There is a little book out there from the Weather Underground, it's called PRAIRIE FIRE, it gives instructions on how to orchestrate a race riot.
Find an incident, a spark to ignite the flame, ratchet it up to a raging inferno.
The Clinton Justice Dept. was stirring the racial pot with Reno's report on ‘Racial profiling”. The bow-tie freak, Quanell X out of Houston, was running all over the country stirring the racial pot, proclaiming every incident was going to be “the spark to ignite the flame”.
Are you starting to get the picture.
So, where have there been any race riots since 1992? The rats aren't that stupid. Riots and turmoil gave them Nixon in 1968.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009I linked the letter. F&F was a scheme to gin up the statistics so the ATF could get reports of the sales of multiple long guns within five business days. It's just a power mad bureaucracy going off the deep end so Obama could show progress to the gun grabbers and keep the donations coming. The only race riots since 1992 have been in jails and prisons usually between blacks and latinos.Today in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, 65 Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Congressman Mike Ross (D-AR), expressed their opposition to the reinstatement of the failed 1994 ban on semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines. These congressmen cited numerous studies that proved the 1994 ban was ineffective, and they strongly urged Attorney General Holder to stop his effort and instead focus on the enforcement of existing gun laws...
Here's just a few.
2000- Bush stole the election by voter disenfranchisement. He stole Blacks votes.
2002- Charles Baron at the rally for reparation's for slavery-If we don't get reparation's for slavery there will be scorched earth, meaning race riots.
2004- tried to gin up civil unrest again by comparing Abu Grahab (SP?) prison with the plight of the black man in American prisons
Look at 2006, there was millions of illegals marching in the streets. One little incident could have set it off. It just didn't happen.
2007 Al Sharpton tried to gin up racial protest with the Jenna 6 and the BS “noose” campaign that Blacks were being threatened with lynching.
2009-tried to gin up civil unrest again with the Gates dust up and police misconduct and racial profiling.
Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean they haven't tried.
Are you one of these kooks that believes they're not in the process of trying to gin up civil unrest?
rember the ford pinto executives?
they did a cold calculation of deaths vs correction and concluded the deaths were less expensive than corrections.
If holder were in private sector life, even obama, under current law they would AT LEASE be up for negligent manslaughter.
I guess so. Maybe they learned that burning their own cities down doesn't turn out too well.
People in record numbers, millions of people that never thought they needed a gun before, are now becoming first time gun owners because they see the left is orchestrating civil unrest and they will need a gun for personal protection. Yet you don't see it.
So exactly why do you believe people that never thought they needed a gun before are now in the camp of those that believe they need to own a gun?
With illegal, it's not their city. With the welfare bums, they burn it down and they get something new.
So exactly why do you believe people that never thought they needed a gun before are now in the camp of those that believe they need to own a gun?
It's hard economic times. Many expected crime to go up. Many finally realized the adminstration was hard left. The hard left likes gun control. They won't advocate riots or civil war, IMHO. It's politically stupid.
Such tangled logic defies correction. As "facts" it cites non-riots that one thinks could have been riots and other far flung believes in what one believes others intended - going back to the Clinton years.
And while none of those so called "facts" directly relate to guns, gun policies, the politicians involved in FnF nor the time period of or leading up to FnF, in a closed/disorganized/confused/dishonest mind, they outweigh actual facts relating directly to guns, gun policies and the gun specific statements & actions of the politicians who orchestrated FnF. No point in repeating those actual facts. They can be found in the neverdem & drpix posts to IMR 4350, on this thread.
So once again, "this is going nowhere." "Fast and Furious was about Gun Control. Case closed!"
PS: Thanks for your post on Lieberman Calls for Senate Probe on FnF. Especially on point is the timing of the March 2009 DOJ announcement of new and more aggressive efforts with Gunrunner {FnF} - following only by days their receipt of a letter from 65 Congress Democrats opposing stiffer gun control regulations/laws.
What kind fantasy world do you live in? Back away from the bong. Put down the crack pipe.
Ever heard of the Weather Underground?
There plan was to orchestrate a race war as a path to absolute power. Even going so far as to discuss the extermination on 25 million Americans that couldn't be RE-EDUCATED.
How about La Raza?
There plan IS to start a race war and take back the southwestern part of the US for Mexico or to start a new country.
Black Panthers? Kill whitey and the Jews.
The left has been advocating the violent overthrow of the govt. for over 50 years.
They talk to hear themselves talk. It's a distinct minority on the fringe of the left without any advantage or assets over the majority. What are they going to do? Take over cities that they already control politically? They are outnumbered, surrounded and outgunned with a deficit of infantry training and plenty of white devils behind their lines. If they tried anything, they would have enormous losses. A race war would be a complete disaster for the left.
They have gone too far left already. Why do you think they had such awful electoral results in November 2010? Sixty percent of whites voted for the GOP for the first time. Don't trust me. Here's the 2010 exit poll results. Even though they can't say so outright, they've basically given up on the working class whites, especially Jacksonian Democrats with their energy and environmental policies.
They are trying to build an unstable, upper and lower class coalition among educated elites, single women, homosexuals and black and brown minorities. Asians are already hiding their racial origin on applications because they know they are being discriminated against due to affirmative action quotas for blacks and latinos.
You have now painted yourself into a corner.
There is only one of two possibilities.
1. You’re completely uninformed as to what the left has been up to for over 50 years.
or
2. You’re simply lying.
Regardless of which is true, you’re opinion is now worthless.
There is only one of two possibilities.
1. You’re completely uninformed as to what the left has been up to for over 50 years.
or
2. You’re simply lying.
Regardless of which is true, you’re opinion is now worthless.
Not any of the above. LOL! You must be reading too much democrat underground and believe the fantasies of the Weather Underground are in any way practical. Why do you think the left chose to take over education, entertainment and the media?
If what you believe is true, then we should see something happen when Obama is rejected decisively next November.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.