ATF Death Watch 33: C-SPAN’s Smoking Gun.

[HTML1]

Here we are thinking that there’s got to be a Watergate moment – the 18½ minutes of tape, Deep Throat, the Plumbers – to connect the final dot between the ATF’s Gunwalker scandal and Obama. Nope. Turns out, we just had to go back and watch some C-SPAN reruns, and there it was, straight from the Assistant US Attorney’s mouth. Obama Ordered ATF’s Gunwalker. Wow. I mean, so we’re clear, the U.S. AG’s office was bragging about Gunwalker as a part of Obama’s “get tough on the border” policy. Or to put it in terms that a Democrat can understand, “he was for it, before he was against it.” Um-hmmm. And he approved it before he tried to distance himself from it.

What was once a lone voice crying in the wilderness, is beginning to snowball into a groundswell Greek chorus of voices calling for putting down the ATF like the rabid dog that it is. And nailing it’s master (that would be Obama) for letting the dog run wild.

I realize nobody watches C-SPAN, but don’t you think it’s gonna be a little hard for the AG’s office to ‘splain this one away?

While we’re at it, we may have cleared up the mystery of what those two agents were doing in-country when they were ambushed by the cartel thugs. Listen carefully, and you’ll see Obama stepped up the presence of American law enforcement inside Mexico.

Anybody else wondering how this is different from Kennedy ordering “advisors” into North Vietnam and claiming we weren’t doing anything suspicious? Or for that matter, how this policy bears a resemblance to the Un-war we seem to now be fighting in Libya?

I’m almost hoping ObamaCare actually works, as I’m gonna need some medical attention for all the whiplash I’m getting from the “Fast and Furious” lies coming out of the administration.

Fortunately, it’s gonna be pretty difficult for Obama, Holder & Co. to deny they knew anything about this, with an assistant AG spilling the beans. On C-SPAN no less.

I can almost smell the scandalous odors of gunpowder and desperation from here.

avatar

About Brad Kozak

Brad Kozak is an iconoclastic, curmudgeonly graphic designer/marketer/writer/musician/advertiser/conservative creative guy. In 2007, he completed a gradual transition from a conservative semi-pacifist to a proactive, armed citizen, willing to exercise his Second Amendment rights to protect his family and property. His idea of “gun control” is hitting where he aims.

31 Responses to ATF Death Watch 33: C-SPAN’s Smoking Gun.

  1. avatarRalph Rotten says:

    could be the beginning of the end for our teflon prez

    • avatarkarlb says:

      A real teflon president could do something crazy like sell Hawk and TOW missiles to Iran and use the proceeds to fund Nicaraguan rebels.

      • avatarMark says:

        I know, Obama has a lot to live up to! Healthcare yesterday, undeclared foreign wars today, the man seriously needs to pick a party and stick with it.

    • avatarDon Dineen says:

      Does any of it matter? We have been fighting gun control and government abuse since day one. G.H.W. Bush stopped Chinese guns and ammo, without a piece of legislation. The infamous GCA ’68 is what is being used to stop the import of “non-sporting guns”. With a stroke of a pen the AS-12 and Striker shotguns were made into “destructive devices” like grenades and rockets. Rubber baton and wooden baton loads for 37mm gas guns are now destructive devices as well. A flying sponge is equal to a greneade.
      We couldn’t stop or reverse gun control schemes under “conservatives” we will lose to the uber-left Obama and his allies in the republican party. He doesn’t need the other socialists to get his plans through, he has the RINO-party.

  2. avatarGabba says:

    wow, from the headline i thought you really had something. you make it sound like you had tape of obama being briefed in detail of a plan to let a thousand guns walk and he okayed it. but that is not what you have. i know you think it is, but it really isn’t. the only people this convinces is people who already think he is the mastermind of fast and furious.

    • avatarBLAMMO says:

      When an assistant AG is talking, from the White House press room in March of 2009, about an ATF gun tracing operation on the US-Mexico border, what to you think he’s talking about?

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Looking at it from a different perspective, let’s say I was head of a company and some of my employees took a program within their department into illegal activities without my knowledge. Upon learning of the scandal, my immediate reaction would be to launch an investigation and at the first sign of illegal activity, fire the employees, hold a presser to distance myself from their activities, and assist in their prosecution. I’d then bring in someone from the outside to clean up any chance of a “culture of corruption” within the department.

      That’s what I’d do if I were innocent.

      If I’m guilty, I’d ignore the problem first, hoping it would blow over, then stonewall everybody. When that didn’t work, I’d try to throw the manager (and just the manager) under the bus, and have my underlings attempt to rewrite history and “prove” that I knew nothing of the operation.

      Which one sounds like Obama?

      Remember Harry Truman? “The buck stops here.” played a prominent role in his management style. “Pass the buck” is more Obama’s speed. Ultimately, the Chief Executive is directly accountable and responsible for the actions of his staff. Period.

      • avatarBarbarossa says:

        “Pass the Buck” Barry. I like that.

      • avatarGabba says:

        or in other words: you’ll take what you can get (and run with it).

      • avatarGabba says:

        and i don’t remember harry truman. i hadn’t been born when he was in office. do you remember truman’s presidency? what was it like? was cspan on back then?

        • avatarBrad Kozak says:

          Apparently, you don’t remember where the SHIFT key is either. Heh.

          I was born in 1957, so I’m speaking from a “remember him from history class” perspective (although I do remember his death/funeral in 1972). And just to keep you from sounding like you’re channeling Joe Biden, C-SPAN went on the air in 1979 (I looked it up) so they missed even “Give ‘em Hell” Harry’s funeral.

          I make no secret of my dislike of Progressivism and Obama’s policies. Just to be clear, I maintain the Office of the Presidency deserves our respect, no matter who sits in the Oval Office. But I do believe what’s sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander. If we’re going to hold Republican Presidents to an ethical standard, we should do the same for Democrats.

  3. avatarWes says:

    Right now it’s not about Obama anyway. It’s about Eric Holder “not recalling” hearing about Gunrunner before recently. …despite this guy saying it in the video. …despite it being funded, by name, in the stimulus bill.

  4. avatarAleph says:

    Uh, wait. Project _Gunrunner_ is not Operation Fast and Furious [_Gunwalker_]. _Gunrunner_, a legitimate interdiction operation, precedes the Obama anointment. The BATFE operation, Fast and Furious, or “Gunwalker,” is the Obama administration’s illegitimate, criminal brainchild.

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Not sure there’s a distinction any more. I think it’s probably akin to an octopus, with various and sundry tentacles that are all part of the same organism.

  5. avatarChase says:

    I just saw something crazy in the Project Gunrunner wiki page…

    They gave US gun owners names and addresses to other countries. Now the question is, was this a illegal list of also non-NFA, but also why are they giving away names of gun owners to other countries?

    Then again the government hasn’t listened to that ban anyways… We got stuck with the machine gun ban with no partial victory, just total defeat.

  6. avatarMark says:

    I heard ‘Gun runner’. Aren’t we looking for ‘Gun walker’?

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      The term “Gunrunner” was first used as a sarcastic take on “Gunwalker.” They’ve since been used interchangeably in the media, who doesn’t know better – nor seemingly wants to.

      • avatarNicholas Dixon says:

        Other way around!

        I don’t know if F&F was a “subprogram” of Gunrunner, but its ALL Gunwalker if they’re letting them walk.

  7. avatarKerry says:

    To be “….wondering how this is different” is to equate drug running with ideology running. Two very different things. A book, Triumph Forsaken; The Vietnam War, 1954-1965, Mark Moyar, (Cambridge University Press, 2006)

  8. avatarDaniel Zimmerman says:

    War? What war? That’s a kinetic military action to you, bub. Just so we’re clear.

  9. avatarRedfish says:

    “Nailing its master…..for letting the dog run wild”. Get real. The ATF has been doing stupid crap like this for years. I still remember watching the Branch Davidian compound burn on tv when I was in high school (and yeah, they were nuts, but none of it should have happened). The problem is that high ranking federal government officials never have to answer for their actions. Not really. Send Melson to prison. Fine the agency for wrongful death and make sure it comes out of their operating budget. Do that and I bet you could put a 4 year old in charge of the ATF and they wouldn’t make such horrible mistakes.

  10. avatarRalph says:

    I nominate Magoo for ATF director. He’d clean up this mess in a heartbeat.

    • You betcha! He would use his weaponized voice to force the bad guys to stop in their tracks.

      “Make it totally clear with your voice, actions, and body language that you want no conversation or contact and that you are not a suitable victim.”

  11. avatarFederale says:

    There is no such thing as an Assistant U.S. District Attorney. It is an Assistant United States Attorney. District Attorney refers to the prosecuting agency of a local government office not the United States Attorney’s Office.

  12. avatarBrad Kozak says:

    My mistake. I stand corrected.

  13. avatarTomFox says:

    One of the great appeals of this site is that the postings and opinions are usually thoughtful, pragmatic, devoid of excessive partisanship, and paranoid conspiracy theorizing in a way which is sadly absent from most of the vocal firearms enthusiast community. Unfortunately, Kozak consistently fails in this regard to the point of stultification. The dude in the video clearly states project gunrunner, which is a legitimate interdiction program started in 2005. Can a reasonable person really think that a President who was dealing with a massive recession, stimulus battle, health care reform battle, auto crisis, housing crisis, financial crisis, 2 wars, prosecuting the war on terror, etc etc really think that such a President would invest any more than the absolute minimum of his time and attention to a useless agency like the ATF? Anything beyond having a staffer inform Obama of a a bullet point he read in a one page policy memo stating a plan to “partner with firearms dealers to allow limited number of straw purchases in order to track smuggled weapons destination” or somesuch stretches credulity.

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Hi, Tom. While I regret I/we can’t please all the people all the time, if you truly believe that there’s no substantive connection between Obama and the ATF’s shenanigans, then you’ve not been paying attention – not just to what I’ve written, but to RF and the other writers here who have been busy exposing the ATF and the administration’s connections to same.

      My father was from Chicago, and taught me a lot about how they play the political game in the Windy City. Knowing that Obama is a child of that system, I find it difficult to believe Obama had no prior knowledge of Fast n’ Furious for three reasons: 1. His organization and management style would dictate that he’s apprised of anything this big; 2. his ideological agenda is the driving force behind this project, i.e.: he’s using the ATF to further a “gun-control” plan, and 3. If they chose to spotlight this in a presser from the Justice Dept., you can be damn sure Obama was briefed, as he’d need to know what was going on so he could deal with questions from the press corps at his next press conference.

      If you choose to believe otherwise, that’s certainly your prerogative. But let’s do get real: an assistant U.S. Attorney General is not some “staffer” – he’s a direct report to the AG, who is, in turn, a direct report to Obama.

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      By the way, in case the other members of the TTAG Armed Intelligentsia missed this, TomFox’s nom de web is an statement, in and of itself. According to Wikipedia:

      Thomas “Tom” William Fox (1951–2006) was an American Quaker peace activist, affiliated with Christian Peacemaker Teams (CPT) in Iraq. He was kidnapped on November 26, 2005 in Baghdad along with three other CPT activists, leading to the 2005-2006 Christian Peacemaker hostage crisis. His body was found on March 9, 2006.

      Not sure if this handle is a tribute to a well-intentioned man who died making a stand for what he believed, or an ironic statement by a Tr0ll who’s goal is to inflame our readers by flaming our writers, and generally Napalming the site with his comments. Only time will tell. But if he has any respect at all for the memory of the real Mr. Fox, he might want to note that Fox believed in walking the walk, and not attempting to incite and inflame those with whom he disagreed. Avoiding personal attacks and sticking to the issues will win a lot more friends and influence far more people on TTAG, than going after someone personally.

  14. avatarTomFox says:

    I actually had no idea about the real Tom Fox. It was the first thing to pop into my head and sounded good enough to me. Sorry for calling you out personally. It was late, and I was coming of a writing bender. I was certainly not napalming the site. I was complementing the site.

    However, you must acknowledge that what the official said was that the President approved the expansion of funds to a long standing firearms interdiction program. To claim that this provides any evidence that the President intentionally encouraged straw purchases for Mexican Cartels in order to weaken American gun owners’ rights is absurd. How are 2,500 guns (700 seized) over ~2 years going to have any significant statistical effect when 83,000 guns were seized in Mexico in 2010 alone? They aren’t. Had “Fast and Furious” even been conceived of at the time of this statement? Would the President really care to or have time to be apprised of individual ATF operations after allocating funds to Project Gunrunner? This is only conceivable if his intent was to attack gun rights in this country, which requires a higher standard of evidence than suggesting it is Chicago political strategy.

    The President is way too smart to think that attacking gun rights is in any way politically feasible, and all of his actions as President have shown that Obama has no interest in attacking Second Amendment rights. There was only one asinine statement by Holder regarding the reinstatement of the AWB was made and was refuted by Gibbs less than two weeks later by saying “I was asked specifically about assault weapons. I think the president would -the president believes there are other strategies we can take to enforce the laws that are already on our books.” Obama simply has way more important things to do than mess with our guns and risk the withering political opposition that would face all Democrats in the event of new gun control laws. Though Cheney said he thinks banning “assault clips” might be a good idea, did you hear anybody within the administration suggest that?

    I understand that many firearms enthusiasts are fundamentally opposed to the President and a range of his policies, but if you persist in making gun advocacy something for the right-wing to use as a partisan weapon, you risk the long-term safety of our rights. We should be framing our arguments in a way that appeals to those on the left not alienates them. The only way to keep our rights safe for the long-term is through expansion not insularity. If we could marginalize gun control sentiments within the Democratic party, we can assure that the Second Amendment will remain strong forever. To do that, you have to ditch this culture war partisan attitude and understand and persuade the other side.You have to acknowledge that those who are concerned with addressing gun crime among low-income minority communities are going to view the situation entirely differently from you. Guns cause massive devastation both to life and the psycho-social environment within these communities. Maybe we should push for the legalization and regulation of drugs in order to eliminate a primary economic incentive of violent crime. Maybe we should advocate for extreme penalties for the use of a firearm in a violent crime. Why should anybody who uses a firearm in a premeditated act not be charged with a crime similar to attempted murder and subject to an additional 20-30 years in prison? Maybe this would dissuade criminals from picking up a gun instead of a knife, and if they chose to use a gun anyways, they won’t be getting out of prison till they are too old to be a threat to anybody else. Why not try to address the underlying social and economic structural causes that drive gun violence and lead to efforts at gun control? Do you want to be a true gun advocate or do you just want to boost the Republican party? They are not the same thing, and by unnecessarily making enemies, which folks like Wayne LaPierre do, you put our rights at risk. If you make guns about the culture war, eventually, we are going to lose.

    • avatarBrad Kozak says:

      Tom – apology/clarification accepted. You bring up some interesting (and may I add, well-reasoned) points. However, while I agree that defining the battle to preserve our 2nd Amendment rights should not be defined as a Conservative/Pro versus Liberal/Against issue, I have to take issue with your conjectures about Obama and his motives. Now I will grant you that he should be far too busy with the economy, three wars (or two, if you count as he does), and the implementation of socialized medicine (sorry, “ObamaCare”) to worry with gun policies. However, if you’ve read the news today, here he is issuing an executive order to do just that, including ordering the ATF to implement a gun registry, which is patently illegal under Federal law. (Not that violating the law seemed to have slowed him down in other matters. Still.)

      Add to that Obama’s track record on gun control and his voting record, and I think you’d have to agree it paints a picture of someone who is clearly anti-gun, and has no enthusiasm for the 2nd Amendment, especially as interpreted by the Roberts Court.

      I have a number of friends in my non-online life who are card-carrying liberal Democrats. They are also gun owners who believe in the sanctity of the 2nd Amendment. We politely agree to disagree on matters political, but we stand as one with our belief in our God-given right to self-defense. Interestingly, this has the effect on both sides admitting that neither has all the answers, and an admission that “our guys” do dumb-ass things every bit as much as “their guys” do.

      That notwithstanding, you bring up some interesting points about changing laws in other areas (drugs, penalties, etc.) that would/could/might have an effect on guns used in crimes. I suspect, though, that where the rubber meets the road will be how prisons work – are they warehouses for criminals, or can they function in a way to rehabilitate wrongdoers into productive citizens.

      As you might expect, I’m more of a “punish them” than “rehabilitate them” kind of guy. I believe redemption must come from within, than enforced from without. But I don’t pretend to have all the answers.

      Getting back to the Obama/ATF issue, I believe that he’s far more involved than you seem to. Time will tell which one of us is right. I was going into my senior year in high school, the year Nixon resigned. I was pretty plugged-in to politics back then, and I remember my overwhelming feeling was that he’d betrayed the country. I wanted him gone – and that was speaking as a conservative. I felt as if Ford screwed up too, not by pardoning Nixon, but by not taking one for the team, and refusing to run again. I wonder how things might have been different, had Ford not let his personal ambition cloud his judgement.

      Having lived through that era, I see history repeating itself. Frankly, if I were to play armchair detective on this one, I suspect that Obama surrounded himself with like-minded operatives, who believe as he does, that the ends justify the means, and the rules are meant for other people – not him. I think they mounted a program with his blessings, and he (either implicitly or explicitly) authorized them to make it so, “by any means necessary.” They took him at his word and broke the law. Again, since he’s the head honcho, the buck is supposed to stop with him. If he was truly innocent, an innocent man would call for an investigation, cooperate fully, and let the chips fall where they may. A guilty man circles the wagons, stonewalls, and implements a cover-up. I see a lot of Nixon in Obama, and not the good parts.

      Anyway, I encourage you to continue to share your thoughts on this. There are at least two sides to this, and the greater goal (preserving our second amendment rights) should never take a back seat to partisan politics. On that, we can agree.

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.