Fast and furious: where’s the outrage?

The Constitution, which sets forth the principle of rule of law, defines what is unconstitutional, and guarantees freedom of speech and other liberties of a Constitutional republic, and also describes the impeachment power. (How many know of the Jewish roots of this document?) Hypocrisy threatens Constitutional government. Could Israel use a constitution like this? More to the point: would a Convention of States save it, or destroy it? (Example: civil asset forfeiture violates the Constitution.) Quick fixes like Regulation Freedom Amendments weaken it. Furthermore: the Constitution provides for removing, and punishing, a judge who commits treason in his rulings. Furthermore, opponents who engage in lawfare against an elected President risk breaking the Constitution.
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Congress plans to call Attorney General Eric Holder to testify regarding his involvement in the Fast and Furious debacle this February. February marks the anniversary of his first appearance to testify before Congress on this very matter. Frankly, I don’t know who is worse: Congress, Holder, or the American people? Holder for obvious reasons? Congress for letting this matter go on and not resolving it? Or the American people for not expressing their outrage?

Fast and Furious revisited

In an article that I posted in Conservative News and Views titled “Should Attorney General Eric Holder be disbarred?” I made the following statement that is more interesting today than it was when I wrote it:

In a well-documented interview conducted on March 27, 2009, Holder stated that the government should re-institute the ban on assault weapons. This statement was made regarding his belief that doing so would have a positive influence on Mexico.

Let’s put this in the context of what we now know as the Fast and Furious scheme that supplied assault weapons to drug lords in Mexico. Just who did Holder think would benefit from the ban, and who in Mexico would get a positive influence? The drug lords? It certainly would not be those innocent civilians bearing arms to defend themselves against these vicious criminals. Nor would it be our own border agents who died in the line of duty as a result of the Fast and Furious program.

This bears repeating. Holder fought to ban assault weapons for citizens at the same time he conspired to supply these weapons to criminals.

Eric Holder, man in the crosshairs on Operation Fast and Furious

Eric Holder, Attorney General. Photo: US Department of Justice

In the article I cited above, you can read how Holder also has tried to change the meaning of the Second Amendment – which of course is part of a Constitution that he swore to uphold and protect.

As we draw closer to the November elections, we still find Holder occupying the seat of Attorney General. Why? Partly because we have a Congress that has let him stay on. And partly because we shake our heads and then go on with our own lives. Put this all together and you have the erosion of our liberty. Our Founders knew that our liberty would need every generation’s diligence and passion to secure.

This Administration could not get away with their blatant power grabs and destructive programs if the American people rose up against them. They get away with it because we let them get away with it. That’s the simple but unpleasant truth.

If you want the House to impeach Holder, and the Senate to remove him, you can’t rely on our do-nothing Congress. You will have to show up at the steps of Congress in February in great droves demanding that they bring articles of impeachment against this man at the very least – and against a few of his notable cronies.

Get off your sofas!

Again I ask, where’s the outrage? I shudder to think it’s sitting on sofas all across America, drowned out by the click of remotes and the screeching brakes of Mom’s taxis. As we run to and fro and then numb our brains with mindless entertainment, Rome is burning right under our noses. But we barely notice as we go on with our personal lives. The real shame is that generations to come won’t have the luxury of these mindless endeavors. They will have to pay the burdensome price for our apathy.

It seems I have a hard time ending any post without saying, may God have mercy on this United States.

Related Fast and Furious articles:

ARVE Error: need id and provider

ARVE Error: need id and provider

[subscribe2]

src=”https://www.youtube.com/v/wwQX8JUTh3M?version=3&hl=en_US” type=”application/x-shockwave-flash” width=”560″ height=”315″ allowscriptaccess=”always” allowfullscreen=”true”>

Website | + posts

RoseAnn Salanitri is a published author and Acquisition Editor for the New Jersey Family Policy Council. She is a community activist who has founded the Sussex County Tea Party in her home state and launched a recall movement against Senator Robert Menendez. RoseAnn is also the founder of Veritas Christian Academy, as well as co-founder of Creation Science Alive, and a national creation science speaker.

25 Responses to Fast and furious: where’s the outrage?

  1. Ian Lister says:

    One question: why aren’t you kicking up a storm over Operation Wide Receiver, which was overseen by the last Bush administration and led to the same results? Here’s a good AP report: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jI6cIRNMIvaaYURspHydiW1JDzjQ?docId=306fecdffb544d7d930e11a549851a63 – or see CNN (http://edition.cnn.com/2012/01/05/justice/justice-atf/index.html), NPR (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/01/05/144761413/documents-suggest-bush-administration-used-fast-and-furious-tactics).

    • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

      Because Operation Wide Receiver at least kept track of every one of the guns involved. The objective was clear: to finger specific lawbreakers in Mexico, with the complete cooperation of Mexican authorities.

      Fast and Furious made no effort at such tracking. Hence it was nothing more than a throw-down campaign. If you read the first article in my Fast and Furious series, you will see my definition of the term throw-down weapon and why I have always believed that the objective of F&F was to skew the statistics on “illicit weapons that cross the border.”

      I assume, by the way, from your e-mail address, that you do not approve of anyone save a specialized (specialised?) paramilitary LEO carrying a firearm of any sort.

      • Ian Lister says:

        The point is that Wide Receiver lost track of guns too: you’re making a big deal of an operation started by a Democrat and ignoring one started by a Republican.

        And yes, gun ownership is an archaic right. You cannot possibly deny that the murder rate is vastly higher in countries where gun ownership is a right than in those where it isn’t. In 2010, the USA’s murder rate was SIX TIMES greater than Japan’s, which has strong anti-gun laws.

        FACT: the more guns, the more crime. Deny this and lose all credibility.

        • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

          I can, and do, deny your assertion about murder rates. You probably are citing numerators and ignoring denominators.

          Here in the States, the police aren’t everywhere. Our laws still recognize self-defense. We also recognize that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the “reset button” on government. That might be a foreign concept to you British. But I remind you that my ancestors fought and died against your ancestors to defend that right, among other rights. I warn you: you do not want to get into a slanging match with this Yank over the essential difference between a Yank and a Brit. You just do. Not. Want. To. Do. That.

          And I don’t know where your sources got their information, but they are incorrect.

          • Ian Lister says:

            You’re wrong of course, but you never seem to let pesky facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.

            Stephen Fry once suggested that the essential difference between Brits and Yanks is that, upon being confused by something, a Brit would say “I don’t understand this – what’s wrong with me?” while a Yank would say “I don’t understand this – what’s wrong with him?” You’re the living embodiment of this difference.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            The essential difference between our peoples is that we guard our rights, while you surrendered yours to Henry VII and definitely to Henry VIII and never really got them back. Not all of them, anyway, not even with the accession of William and Mary. With the result that we had to fight for ours against George III.

            You force me now to repeat the following barrister-like words from Delegate Thomas Jefferson, then of the Second Continental Congress:

            We have [not] been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

            And you, sir, display the same lack of understanding that the most prominent within the British population displayed during the American War for Independence.

            And as for Mr. Fry—well, you cannot expect an American to understand the mind-set of one who does not recognize the concept of natural and inalienable rights.

          • Bill Miller says:

            Oh, come on Terry – today we have a shared tongue and more-or-less a shared culture with the Brits (what with mass media and all), just like we do with the Canadians. There really are few differences and we could all stand to learn a little something from each other. The Brits are one of our closest allies – Margaret Thatcher!!

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            The key difference is that here in America we guard our rights, while the British meekly surrender theirs.

          • Ian Lister says:

            Interesting that you use a quote from Jefferson, whom right wingers generally despise for spelling out that there’s a “wall of separation between church and state”.

            My own knowledge of American history is clearly superior to your knowledge of British history. Henry VII basically conquered the country – his claim of descent was utterly ridiculous – so saying that we gave up rights to him is like saying we gave up the right to have a Saxon king after Hastings. This also enabled his son to rule as an autocrat. You certainly seem to be at odds with your good friend Andrew Schlafly on this one – his praise and admiration of feudalism is well known. The political system in Britain is almost unrecognisable from the last Henry’s time in any case, so I really don’t know why you bring him up.

            It’s true that we don’t have a written constitution, but what you evidently don’t know is that it’s the Liberals in this country who want one.

            I think you need to do more research on this one.

          • Terry A. Hurlbut says:

            Nevertheless, I stand on my assessment of the British as being far less willing to defend their rights under natural law than are we Americans.

          • Ian Lister says:

            A statement without proof is worth nothing.

        • DarylG says:

          Dear sir
          You could not be more mistaken. I live in a state {Wyoming} where if you can legaly own a firearm you can carry that firearm openly or concealled with or without a permit. We enjoy one of the countries lowest violent crime rates. FBI stats also state the same where lawful gun owership is higher crime rates are lower.
          Our forefathers guarantied our right to firearm ownership in part because of the actions of the Brittish government that led to the Revolutionary war I might add private ownership of firearms played a vital part in our victory then as well as the war of 1812. What people in other countries think of our freedoms and values means nothing whatsoever.
          Fast and Furious is about abuse of power a comeplete dissregard for US and international law to support an agenda that violates our Constitution and Bill of Rights. The actions by this administration are a slap in the face for every law abiding citizen of the United States and Mexico.

          • Noras Tea Party says:

            Wyoming is SO COOL.. Which is why I have land there (Kemmerer) Where are you DarylG.. We’re out there every year.

        • DarylG says:

          How can you rationally compare a small country like Japan to the United States? The dirrerence in population and square miles make that comparison comical at best.
          The united States is far more than some island like Japan or Great Britian and it is impossible to police this entire country.
          I find it courious that when firearm ownership was “allowed” in Great Britin the police did not carry weapons now that the subjects there are no longer trusted with firearm ownership I see pictures of law enforcement now carrying weapons?
          You were saying something about “credibility”.

    • DarylG says:

      Operation Wide Reciever was done with the cooperation of the Mexican government and the information collected was given to them and they did make needed arrests. The firearms involved were actually tracked.
      When the firearms crossed the border we lost jurisdiction but the Mexican authorities did make the needed arrests.
      Operation Fast and Furious never took anything but an agenda into consideration.

  2. DarylG says:

    Fast and Furious was nothing more than a calcutated effort to discredit lawfull gun dealers and owners and the coverup has given that statement all the credibility it needs. Anybody involved with law enforcement on any level should not only be removed from service but charged for the crimes commited against not only the American people but also the Mexican people.
    It is a very sad statement when our elected officials and the people below them have so little regard for the laws they are sworn to uphold especially when that abuse is directed torwards honest citizens.
    If an everyday citizen had done the same thing they would have been incarcerated by now! How have we become so weak that we the public have not forced our elected officials in congress to do the same to the people involved.
    God help us.

  3. America is sadly reaping what it has sown. It, along with its useless politically correct leaders have allowed an unconstitutional non natural born citizen to be our illegitimate [bastard] president. Not only has this been allowed to occur, but weak kneed individuals refuse to stand up to this White House occupier. What has happened since, under Barack Hussein Obama’s bogus “presidential” administration is a matter of pathetic recorded history.

    • DarylG says:

      Sir
      You could not be more correct. The left has been brainwashing the American public for decades and this is where that has brought us.
      One small spec of a silver linning is coming out of this cloud of deceit is many people who have been sitting on the fence for years are making their voice heard. Many people who have been walking around with blinders have removed them and are starting to reconise the deceit for what it is.
      We can only hope and pray enough people do that in time.

  4. […] Read more by RoseAnn Salanitri at conservativenewsandviews.com […]

  5. […] also this series of articles about Operation Fast and […]

  6. […] broke his oath then, and he breaks it now with his “throw-down” campaign to supply weapons to Mexican drug gangs and then blame the flow of weapons on American gun dealers […]

  7. […] Why did they file them? To garner votes for Barack Obama. Krauthammer also cites something else: Operation Fast and Furious, in which a man died on account of shenanigans that began in the Phoenix office of the Bureau of […]

  8. […] Where’s the outrage? […]

  9. […] Where’s the outrage? […]

  10. […] Where’s the outrage? […]

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.