For WW: The Difference Between Wide Receiver & Fast And Furious

The Difference Between Wide Receiver & Fast And Furious
posted on June 22, 2012 by Tim Brown

While the White House, Eric Holder, and the liberal talking heads continue blaming Bush for the Obama administrations fumbles in the Fast and Furious gun walking operation gone bad, they cannot see the distinct difference between operation Wide Receiver and operation Fast and Furious. The differences are fairly profound and distinct.

The main differences are these: Wide Receiver involved Phoenix-based ATF agents, working with Mexican law enforcement in an attempt to build a case against violent Mexican drug smugglers. Fast and Furious on the other hand was an effort to make a case against American gun dealers and the Second Amendment of the United States. Both were orchestrated by their respective administrations with completely different goals. One was to go after criminals and the other was to go after the Constitution and law abiding citizens.

Operation Wide Receiver began in 2005 and it involved 400 guns. Every weapon had RFID trackers installed on them and they were continually tracked. The Phoenix ATF and the DOJ were the ones actively involved in the operation, tracking the guns to see which cartels they would end up at for the purposed of informing the Mexican government as to where they were.

Unlike the Obama administration, the Bush administration notified the Mexican government when the weapons crossed their border. We know that at least 1,440 arrests were made a part of Wide Receiver.

Once the smugglers found out they were being tracked, they located the RFID trackers and ripped them out. The program was immediately shut down as a result in October 2007.

More Education HERE: http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/06/the-difference-between-wide-receiver-fast-and-furious/

WW, scream all you want, the two operations were different in everyway imaginable. Sorry, but there is NO BUSH DID IT THIS TIME.

140 Comments

  1. ““First of all, Canada is not on austerity.”
    I didn’t say it was Wagonwheel, I merely stated that our economy would look more like Canada’s than the UK’s under the Ryan Plan.”

    Please, Hoagie, the Ryan Plan is austerity. Have you looked at it?

    ““Sixly, the uncertainty is also due to global trends and events not at all under control of any American President, Democratic or Republican.”
    Some of the uncertainty is caused by global trends and much is outside the control of our President. However, seting a good economic example is well within his domain and is doable if he were an actual capitalist.”

    President Obama is basically a capitalist, but is labeled a “Socialist” because social issues, like health care for American citizens, are a priority for him, and rightly so. But consider this statement on the PPACA (ObamaCare) made by a real American Socialist named Brian Moore of FL:

    “The health care reform bill alone now provides 37 million new members to the insurance companies, the hospitals, the HMOs and the pharmaceutical corporations. This broken system has never had it so good. They will wallow in the new trillion dollars that will come their way in the next ten years.”

    Oddly enough, you would never here this view expressed by a Republican, unless we can find one somewhere who would try to make an honest statement.

    The problem is that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that they are unable to detect a capitalist in their midst. Instead, all they care about now is power, nothing else.

    It is pretty hard to debate you, Hoagie, when we cannot even agree on the facts, which is true on the macroscopic scale with Republican Party policy, which clings to the Ryan Plan when its near equivalent in the UK is failing so far. This is not sensible positioning!

  2. Fast-n-Furious was only one of Obama’s ongoing attempts to subvert the US Constitution, and like his other attempts it’s based on a baldfaced lie. In this case the lie that 90% of the guns recovered at Mexican crimes come from the US.

    Keep that lie firmly in mind, it explains several of the apparently inexplicable elements we find throughout this deadly scandal.

    The lie entered the national political arena in March 2009 when anti-gun Democrat leaders in the Senate, Dianne Feinstein and Dick Durbin, announced:

    According to ATF [the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives], more than 90 percent of the guns seized after raids or shootings in Mexico have been traced right here to the United States of America. Feinstein added: It is unacceptable to have 90 percent of the guns that are picked up in Mexico used to shoot judges, police officers, mayors, kidnap innocent people and do terrible things come from the United States, and I think we must put a stop to that.

    Secretary of State Hillary Clinton repeated the same lie on her visit to Mexico and only a month later Barack Obama visited with Mexican President Calderon, where he stated once again:

    This war is being waged with guns purchased not here, but in the United States. More than 90 percent of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States, many from gun shops that line our shared border.

    This was a blatant lie. Both NPR and Fox News put that 90% figure to a fact-check. The actual number was closer to 17% at the most, according to Fox. And after a contentious interview with Obama Administration representatives, NPR acknowledged they could not confirm the 90% claim, nor could they determine the correct percentage. Pajamas media later discovered, the correct figure was only about 8%.

    So, in order to manufacture evidence for a blatant lie designed to undermine the 2nd Amendment Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, concocted a long-range plan involving Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi, to deliver guns from US retailers into the hands of Mexican criminals who were instructed to leave the expensive weapons at the scene of their crimes to be found and tracked back to US gun shops.

    Murderers have no reason to throw-down their weapons and leave them behind to be traced time after time. But Obama and his co-conspirators need identifiable US guns recovered at Mexican crimes to be traced back to US gun shops so they can stomp on the 2nd Amendment and undermine the Constitutional Rights of Americans.

    Hillary had her Waco, Obama and Holder have their Fast-n-Furious, and all three of them plus Durbin and Pelosi have the blood of Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata on their hands. And, that’s what they’re all trying to hide from.

  3. The problem is that the Republican Party has moved so far to the right, that they are unable to detect a capitalist in their midst. Instead, all they care about now is power, nothing else.

    *Yawn* As opposed to PAP’s Democrat Party, which believes that voter ID is “voter suppression,” believes the 2000 and 2004 elections were “stolen,” believes healthcare is a “civil right,” believes just about every criticism of the president is due to “racism,” and over half believe George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.

  4. “Hillary had her Waco, Obama and Holder have their Fast-n-Furious, and all three of them plus Durbin and Pelosi have the blood of Brian Terry and Jamie Zapata on their hands. And, that’s what they’re all trying to hide from.”

    Ropelight, this is simply an outrageous conclusion, ropelight. It is like blaming the gun-dealer for a murder when all he has done was sell a gun legally.

    Moreover, you have provided no credible cites for the information you reported. Thus, I question your credibility, again. Who knows what rag may have published serious information, as has become commonplace in these post-truth days.

    Additionally, you make absolutely no mention of the forerunners of this AFT initiative which dates back to Bush 2006 and 2007, in which case Issa’s investigation should include these people.

    Other than Terry and Zapata, how many other innocent people have been killed by this ill-conceived program? Why are you not concerned about this.

    Concerning the 90% figure, is it possible that the people using that number had been told that it was correct? Of course it is possible, but you do not allow for that possibility.

    “So, in order to manufacture evidence for a blatant lie designed to undermine the 2nd Amendment Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Eric Holder, concocted a long-range plan involving Dick Durbin and Nancy Pelosi, to deliver guns from US retailers into the hands of Mexican criminals who were instructed to leave the expensive weapons at the scene of their crimes to be found and tracked back to US gun shops.”

    Ah, now you reveal your real agenda here, ropelight. My guess is that all of your narrative here comes from the NRA, hardly a credible source for anything, and most likely the driving force behind the Issa unprecedented threats to AG Holder and our President.

    If you expect to be taken seriously, which is normally a stretch for me over time, you need to at least provide the source(s) of your information, to back up your very serious, perhaps even libelous charges. Otherwise, I will chalk it off to your usual partisan propaganda and hatred.

  5. “*Yawn* As opposed to PAP’s Democrat Party, which believes that voter ID is “voter suppression,” believes the 2000 and 2004 elections were “stolen,” believes healthcare is a “civil right,” believes just about every criticism of the president is due to “racism,” and over half believe George W. Bush knew in advance of the 9/11 attacks.”

    It’s the Democratic Party, koolo!

    Yes, I pretty much believe your entire list, based on credible evidence I have seen. I appreciate your attention.

    On racism, I definitely think that is an element in some opposition to President Obama, but most of it is probably based on ideological grounds.

    On Bush’s 9/11 foreknowledge allegation, well here you just opened a can of worms. I would not be the least bit surprised that it is true, because the attack of Iraq seemed to me to follow a continuum which started in the first months of his taking office, all preplanned.

    [From the Comments & Conduct Policy: Further, certain topics, while of some interest, are simply dead-enders, things on which no amount of argument will ever persuade the other side: I do not care if you believe that the World Trade Center was brought down by controlled demolitions and was done so with the knowledge of Dick Cheney, or whether Al Gore really won the 2000 election, or whether George Bush knew there were no banned weapons in Iraq, those are simply not going to be topics on this site unless one of the site writers or I raise such topics.. -- Editor]

    I mean acts like rejecting the Geneva Convention and rejection of the International Court. Moreover, the neocons under Cheney were in charge, so a successful attack on Iraq would produce a new strategic geographical position for the US in the Middle East, in Iraq, in order to further defend Israel and get control of a supply of oil. It did not take long after the successful initial attack for us to build that $60 million headquarters, the largest in the world, and open up something like 15 military bases all over Iraq. 9/11, and the fabricated WMD mythology, provided the neocons for their justification and excuse to attack a sovereign nation.

    Everything I’ve said here is historical fact, koolo, so don’t bother rejecting it.

    And in my mind, this event marked the turning point of the Republican Party, moving to the far right, a militaristic and extremist ideology, with which we deal heatedly to this day. This was a turning point also away from democracy to plutocracy, which continues to this day, which I adamantly oppose with all I have in me, because I think you people are destroying my country and my fellow Americans!

  6. * It was used again in 2009, named Fast and Furious;

    * Chairman ISSA has gone fishing into only the 2009 part.

    Because it is Fast and Furious, an Obama program, that resulted in the death of a US agent. All your efforts to shift the blame to Bush are just your usual obfuscations. And of course this whole issue could be resolved if Holder and now Obama would quit stonewalling the investigation.

  7. Everything I’ve said here is historical fact, koolo, so don’t bother rejecting it.

    Everything you’ve just said is tinfoil hat material. Why don’t you and Blu have a seanse together?

  8. rejection of the International Court.

    Give me ONE reason the United States should accept a legal authority higher than our own constitution.

  9. Moreover, you have provided no credible cites for the information you reported

    He cited FOX News and NPR. Even if you refuse, doe to your extremist ideology, to believe the one, I’m sure you accept the other.

  10. WW:
    On Bush’s 9/11 foreknowledge allegation, well here you just opened a can of worms. I would not be the least bit surprised that it is true, because the attack of Iraq seemed to me to follow a continuum which started in the first months of his taking office, all preplanned.

    Are you chasing this old debunked story again? The information basically said Bin Laden might try something. You make it sound like Bush knew day, date, time, which airlines, what buildings, what airports, and the exact time. If you have, show it, if not, it’s a moot point.

  11. Wagonwheel says:
    June 25, 2012 at 08:34

    “I believe it’s more of a do nothing Senate. You have been reading too many DNC talking points. The REPUBLICAN HOUSE passed a budget and sent it to the Senate where IT DIED. So, who is more DO-NOTHING?”

    And that is a good thing, Yorkshire. Now is not yet the time for severe austerity combined with tax cuts, especially dumping on the middle like yourself, and on the poor.

    Good, you finally admit it’s Hairy Reed and his do-nothing Senate which has NOT produced a budget for about three years now. The Senate is held by the Dems as is BO, there’s your DO-NOTHING.

  12. Barack Obama, Eric Holder, and Hillary Clinton, et al, conspired to subvert the 2nd Amendment Constitutional Rights of Americans by putting AK-47 assault style weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartel murderers. As a direct result, hundreds of Mexican citizens and at least two US law enforcement agents that we know of have been murdered with the guns Obama and his co-conspirators provided.

    Now, Obama and his co-conspirators have compounded their crimes by concealing the evidence of their criminal conspiracy behind bogus claims of executive privilege. Obama has no privilege to conceal the crimes of his Administration, and the overt act of concealing incriminating evidence can never be the basis for a claim that no evidence of wrongdoing exists.

    Such are the twisted excuses employed by guilty politicians who demonstrate by their illegal actions they exempt themselves from the letter and the spirit of the laws they swore to uphold and which they expect others to obey.

  13. First of all, ropelight, it is my understanding that President Obama and AG Holder did not at first know about this AFT program. When AG Holder found out, he stopped it!

    Moreover, you have failed to cite the source for your information.

    And you continue to go to the roots of this AFT operation into the Bush Administration.

    Therefore, your partisan motivation is tantamount to being uninterested in going to the root, and the result is your entire rant cannot be taken seriously. Nor can Chairman Issa’s!

  14. “Good, you finally admit it’s Hairy Reed and his do-nothing Senate which has NOT produced a budget for about three years now. The Senate is held by the Dems as is BO, there’s your DO-NOTHING.”

    Yeah, one time the Dems do what the Repubs have been doing since day one of the Obama first term, and you said nothing, Yorkshire, absolutely nothing! What does that make you?

    How does it feel when your side is the victim of do-nothing.

    Regarding the budget, the President produced one on time every year. You know that don’t you Yorkshire.

    But how can Congress produce one when the Dems in Congress don’t have a partner to work one out in the House, and a party of filibusterers in the Senate. So this failure is on your party, Yorkshire! But to hear you post-truth folks talk, you would never know it!

  15. Wagonwheel says:
    June 25, 2012 at 13:35

    “Good, you finally admit it’s Hairy Reed and his do-nothing Senate which has NOT produced a budget for about three years now. The Senate is held by the Dems as is BO, there’s your DO-NOTHING.”

    Yeah, one time the Dems do what the Repubs have been doing since day one of the Obama first term, and you said nothing, Yorkshire, absolutely nothing! What does that make you?

    What does that make you? HAPPY! All Congress needs to do is do a budget and fund the Military PROPERLY, and enforce laws. After that, everything they do is if it isn’t broke, fix it.

    And if you want Congress to be Bi-Partisan, how about the Dims crossing the aisle and asking the Reps what can the Dems do to move this forward. It’s always the Repubs need to cave. Those days are over. The Dems are the Do-Nothings now.

  16. Perry: rejection of the International Court.

    Me: Give me ONE reason the United States should accept a legal authority higher than our own constitution.

  17. Yeah, one time the Dems do what the Repubs have been doing since day one of the Obama first term, and you said nothing, Yorkshire, absolutely nothing!

    Nice math there, PAP. The Democrat controlled Senate hasn’t passed a budget in over three years and you say this is “one time” the Senate has done nothing.

    LMAO!!

  18. WW wrote:

    “With this comment, WW has permanently invalidated his chronic combitching about a “do nothing Congress.” Doing nothing “is a good thing” in his opinion if inaction is what he wants; doing nothing is only a bad thing if it’s not what President Obama wants.”

    Your comment here is just so much of your BS, Mr Editor. You are trying to conflate one incident with numerous identical incidents by your party which have been occurring since day one of the Obama Presidency? That will never fly with folks who seek to uncover the truth, of which you are obviously here not one of them!

    [laughter] And just when did the Senate last pass a budget? They didn’t do that much for FY2010, when the Democrats controlled both Houses of Congress, or for FY2011, just before the 2010 elections, when the Democrats still controlled both Houses of Congress.

    Now, the Senate Democrats could have passed a budget resolution of their own, and then sent it to the required House/Senate conference if it differed from the House version. In conference, they could have pointed out all of the oh-so-terrible things they thought would happen under the House version, but they didn’t do that, either, didn’t even try. You keep telling us that the Republicans must compromise, must stop being so absolutist, for the good of the country, yet there is apparently no one with whom they could compromise, unless by compromise you really mean roll over and play dead.

    The Republicans did manage to force Senate votes on several different budget resolutions, including the President’s proposed budget; the Senate rejected it unanimously! The Democrats in the Senate didn’t support any of the budget resolutions at all, and, being the majority party, that meant that all of them failed.

  19. WW wrote:

    But how can Congress produce one when the Dems in Congress don’t have a partner to work one out in the House, and a party of filibusterers in the Senate. So this failure is on your party, Yorkshire! But to hear you post-truth folks talk, you would never know it!

    [more laughter] It’s kind of humorous to blame “a party of filibusterers in the Senate” when the Democrats don’t bring anything to the floor for the Republicans to filibuster.

    The House, of course, produced a budget, as they said they would, when the republicans took over. You might not like that budget, but they did their job and came up with one. There’s no negotiating, because the democrats have produced nothing as an alternative.

    Remember, the House rejected the President’s proposed FY2013 budget unanimously, meaning that all of the House Democrats voted against it.

  20. yet there is apparently no one with whom they could compromise, unless by compromise you really mean roll over and play dead.

    That’s exactly what Perry means. It’s time to accept the fact that he is a hard core partisan left wing extremist who hates Republicans and everything we do and wants us all to drop dead so that he and his left wing Democrats like Obama can have unlimited power to enforce their big government programs on the entire country.

    In short, Perry is a left wing nut!

  21. Some commenters are worth a response are some are just Blogpimps, wouldbe digital Jerry Sanduskys out to do to you what Jerry did to little boys.

  22. Here’s an excerpt from Gary Fleming’s article today at Breitbart. (emphasis added)

    FRAUDLENT & FOOLISH: ATF AGENT ON THE RUN FROM US GOVERNMENT, NOT CARTELS

    …I have spoken to many of the agents and other insiders directly related to the F&F investigation, including one of the agents overseeing the OP. Every ATF agent I have spoke to has told me virtually the same thing–that to allow those “guns to walk” went against everything they had ever been trained or taught to do. And, in fact, they were not made aware that these guns were going to be allowed to walk until the last moment. The operation was deliberately designed and executed as to not allow anyone, including the agent in charge, to know the end game.

    Several ATF agents have since left the agency. Some were quickly transferred and promoted to Washington and other parts of the country—even Mexico. The point is, if the agents on the ground were allowed to talk, which two have so far, it would lead to the steps of the Attorney General Holder’s office and, as it turns out, the White House, as evidenced by the President claiming Executive Privilege over the matter.

    I have a source that works for the Juarez cartel and its subsidiaries–Barrio Azteca gang, La Linea, etc. At the that time, he was in charge of weapons procurement, and more recently he worked with ATF agents on the F&F operation as an ATF informant. He carries dual citizenship and spends a great deal of time in El Paso, but he will not anymore.

    When I met with him to talk about the F&F Op, he told me that he would not be crossing over back into the U.S. When we did finally meet outside of Juarez, he explained to me that his involvement with the F&F Op had put his life and the lives of family in danger. Oddly enough, it wasn’t the cartel he’s afraid of. He’s more afraid of what the U.S. government will do to him because of the information he has. Nearly one half of the weapons that were allowed to walk came thru the El Paso corridor, and he was instrumental in that process. But now he’s on the run from the same people that paid him to do what he did.

    It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out where all of this is going. The Constitution of the Unites States is slowly but surely eroding at the hands of the very people that swore to protect and defend it. I can only hope that enough of us will stand up in November and take the power away from those that are abusing it to enact their own agendas.

  23. WW wrote:

    I mean acts like rejecting the Geneva Convention and rejection of the International Court.

    The United States has not rejected the Geneva Conventions As for President Bush’s rejection of the silly notion that the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice should have jurisdiction over the United States and American sovereignty, I absolutely agree with such: no international body, organization, tribunal or court has or should ever have jurisdiction which trumps American sovereignty.

  24. Editor says:
    June 25, 2012 at 20:38

    WW wrote:
    I mean acts like rejecting the Geneva Convention and rejection of the International Court.

    The United States has not rejected the Geneva Conventions As for President Bush’s rejection of the silly notion that the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice should have jurisdiction over the United States and American sovereignty, I absolutely agree with such: no international body, organization, tribunal or court has or should ever have jurisdiction which trumps American sovereignty.

    There are a few hot steaming, stinking piles of extra strength Bovine Feces hanging around from the UN that Hillarity and BO want to subjugate American Soviergnity to the UN and sticking, steaming piles of heavy duty Bovine Excrement people like Hugeo Chavez and every third world tin horn leaders.

  25. “The United States has not rejected the Geneva Conventions As for President Bush’s rejection of the silly notion that the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice should have jurisdiction over the United States and American sovereignty, I absolutely agree with such: no international body, organization, tribunal or court has or should ever have jurisdiction which trumps American sovereignty.”

    Oh please, Mr Editor, we (the POTUS) certainly did violate the Geneva Convention, according to David Petraeus, whom I think obiously has at least a little more knowledge of this subject than you do.

    And on the International Court, your position against it is no surprise, because of your “America: Right or Wrong” attitude, which is a recipe for a similar kind of behavior which we have seen in the internally corrupt Roman Catholic Church, an institution which feels they only have to answer to the Pope, ignoring the authority of domestic civil and criminal courts whenever it suits their purposes. Isn’t allegiance to the Pope an example of an international body which trumps the sovereignty of the United States? How about allegiance to a person’s perception of a God?

    Your arguments here do not pass muster, Mr Editor, because claims of sovereignty are sometimes not the last word, a concept quite difficult for a black and white absolutist without nuance at times, like yourself, to understand!

  26. The bottom line is this, here on the economy, but applicable to many issues which confront us, relating to the purposeful dysfunction of our government by the Republican Party of today:

    “For the economy to grow robustly for a number of years, Washington needs to move simultaneously and boldly on a number of different policy fronts. Otherwise, actions taken in any one area would be quickly undermined by lack of progress elsewhere. Success here speaks to much more than whether it is Obama or Romney who wins the November presidential elections. It also relates to whether our political system as a whole can regain over time the ability to agree on a common economic vision, and to pursue it with the proper sense of shared responsibility, adequate seriousness and focused implementation. Anything short of this would entail something that America is yet to experience in its proud history: the highly unsettling prospect that our our children’s generation may end up worse off than ours. We should certainly not go there.”

    This post-truth behavior of the Republican Party works against this profound statement, and simulataneously toward the ultimate disappearance of what once was a great country.

    President Bush used six executive privilige actions. Do these not count, whereas President Obama’s one triggers a contempt of Congress action against his AG? A little trust goes a long way.

  27. Wagonwheel quoted:

    It also relates to whether our political system as a whole can regain over time the ability to agree on a common economic vision, and to pursue it with the proper sense of shared responsibility, adequate seriousness and focused implementation.

    Tweedledee and Tweedledum, or, to be more historically accurate, Democrats and Democrats Lite.

    The fact is that Republicans and Democrats agree on the same economic goal, growth and lowered debt, but they are diametrically opposed in their ideas concerning how to achieve that. As for “shared responsibility,” we clearly define that differently. Conservatives define that as everybody sharing in the responsibility, while liberals define that as the most productive people bearing an ever larger share of the burden, and decreasing the responsibilities of the slothful.

  28. WW wrote:

    President Bush used six executive privilige actions. Do these not count, whereas President Obama’s one triggers a contempt of Congress action against his AG? A little trust goes a long way.

    Well, a little trust sure went a long way in helping Jerry Sandusky!

    The fact is that the Republicans do not, and should not, trust President Obama. If President Obama told me that 2 + 2 = 4, I’d check his math, and once I confirmed that he was telling the truth on that one, start searching for where he was trying to deceive us by telling the truth on one point, because it would clearly be a feint.

    Had President Obama and Attorney General Holder really been on the up-and-up on this, they would have said so, immediately, presenting all of the evidence that this was nothing but a cockamamie operation for which President Bush should be blamed, and see, they cleaned it up. They didn’t do that, and that makes me wonder why, because if they had been the good guys, they surely wouldn’t try to hide and divert and obscure.

    It’s pretty simple: when the truth is on your side, you use it. President Obama and his minions do not use the truth, and the only reason that makes any sense is that the truth isn’t in their favor.

  29. WW wrote:

    “The United States has not rejected the Geneva Conventions As for President Bush’s rejection of the silly notion that the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice should have jurisdiction over the United States and American sovereignty, I absolutely agree with such: no international body, organization, tribunal or court has or should ever have jurisdiction which trumps American sovereignty.”

    Oh please, Mr Editor, we (the POTUS) certainly did violate the Geneva Convention, according to David Petraeus, whom I think obiously has at least a little more knowledge of this subject than you do.

    Check your reading glasses: I said that the United States didn’t reject the Geneva Conventions; you are focusing on what might or might not be a violation of some of its provisions.

    In a way, we did violate the Geneva Conventions: enemy fighters who do not wear recognizable uniforms or display visible tokens of rank are to be treated as spies, and summarily executed . . . and we did not do that. How many Americans would not have been killed if we had summarily executed all of the al Qaeda prisoners we captured and then released?

    And on the International Court, your position against it is no surprise, because of your “America: Right or Wrong” attitude, which is a recipe for a similar kind of behavior which we have seen in the internally corrupt Roman Catholic Church, an institution which feels they only have to answer to the Pope, ignoring the authority of domestic civil and criminal courts whenever it suits their purposes. Isn’t allegiance to the Pope an example of an international body which trumps the sovereignty of the United States? How about allegiance to a person’s perception of a God?

    The Church is a voluntary organization; you are perfectly free to not be a member, to not obey the Church laws, and to not believe in Church doctrines. You may hold whatever allegiance to your perception of God that you choose.

    However, you are absolutely right: I would never consent to any international organization having any sovereign authority over the United States. We are a free and independent democratic representative republic; we should never be subject to the rules of people who are not our elected representatives.

  30. Here’s an excerpt from Darrell Issa’s letter to Obama on Executive Privilege. Issa insists Obama reveal what he knew and when he knew it, and the answer to that question could lead directly to a court fight and the appointment of a special prosecutor. The President and his Attorney General are obstructing justice, stonewalling Congress, and hiding behind obviously bogus claimes of privilege. And, everyone knows it.

    Either you or your most senior advisers were involved in managing Operation Fast & Furious and the fallout from it…or, you are asserting a Presidential power that you know to be unjustified solely for the purpose of further obstructing a congressional investigation…

  31. Your arguments here do not pass muster, Mr Editor, because claims of sovereignty are sometimes not the last word, a concept quite difficult for a black and white absolutist without nuance at times, like yourself, to understand!

    You have still yet to explain why our country should have to answer to any authority higher than the US Constitution.

  32. Your arguments here do not pass muster, Mr Editor, because claims of sovereignty are sometimes not the last word, a concept quite difficult for a black and white absolutist without nuance at times, like yourself, to understand!

    You’re an absolutist yourself, Perry. You absolutely hate Republicans and absolutely blame them for everything and you absolutely believe wild eyed conspiracy theories about the 2000 and 2004 elections.

  33. “For the economy to grow robustly for a number of years, Washington needs to move simultaneously and boldly on a number of different policy fronts. Otherwise, actions taken in any one area would be quickly undermined by lack of progress elsewhere. Success here speaks to much more than whether it is Obama or Romney who wins the November presidential elections. It also relates to whether our political system as a whole can regain over time the ability to agree on a common economic vision, and to pursue it with the proper sense of shared responsibility, adequate seriousness and focused implementation. Anything short of this would entail something that America is yet to experience in its proud history: the highly unsettling prospect that our our children’s generation may end up worse off than ours. We should certainly not go there.”

    Perry, if you’re going to quote some guy, it’s just plain good manners to list the author and his publication. Both of which you failed to do.

  34. “In a way, we did violate the Geneva Conventions: enemy fighters who do not wear recognizable uniforms or display visible tokens of rank are to be treated as spies, and summarily executed . . . and we did not do that. How many Americans would not have been killed if we had summarily executed all of the al Qaeda prisoners we captured and then released?”

    If we had not attacked a sovereign nation which was not a threat to us, these events would be nullified, or at least have been lessened. You conveniently overlook that, Mr Editor. Moreover, The Bush Administration rejected the Geneva Convention on torture; that is an undeniable fact!

    “The Church is a voluntary organization; you are perfectly free to not be a member, to not obey the Church laws, and to not believe in Church doctrines. You may hold whatever allegiance to your perception of God that you choose.”

    The trouble here is, you did not respond to my point about the Roman Catholic Church (of America), ignoring the authority of domestic civil and criminal courts whenever it suits their purposes, whereas Papal authority supersedes that of the state. This is about the authority of the Pope, Mr Editor.

    “However, you are absolutely right: I would never consent to any international organization having any sovereign authority over the United States. We are a free and independent democratic representative republic; we should never be subject to the rules of people who are not our elected representatives.”

    Thus, I guess you objected to the Nuremberg trials, true? Or maybe you objected to the trial of Slobodan Milošević, or Ratko Mladić, or Charles Taylor. How about George W Bush, should he have been put on trial? How do you otherwise suggest we deal with these warhawks?

    I suspect that you also strongly object to the United Nations. Such is a given for right wing extremists!

    My view is that the United States is exceptional, and it is not exceptional at the same time. However, under current Republican ideology and actions, it is becoming less exceptional in many ways, or more exceptional in undesirable ways, in my opinion. The most significant example is the redistribution of wealth due to tax laws favoring the wealthy and corporate greed. The Republican War on Women is a recent example. The preemptive Iraq War is another. Add to that the decreasing quality of our health care, and the reduction in our quality of education of our youth. And let us not forget our too rapidly increasing national debt.

    American exceptionalism is a diminishing asset, sadly! And the prospects will grow much worse should the extremist Republican Party regain power, in my view.

    But our Editor, and other Righties on here, seem insensitive to the causes of the degradation of American exceptialism, since they seem to want more of the same. I don’t understand what has happened to your people.

  35. “You have still yet to explain why our country should have to answer to any authority higher than the US Constitution.”

    The American Right Wing is now using the Constitution as a weapon against the American people, considering the polarized, partisan, right wing makeup of the current majority.

    The Citizens’ United ruling is the hallmark of this shift right, because in their zest for an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment, they have chosen to ignore the ramifications of their decision. By that I mean that this decision ignores the corruption of anonymous money.

    Reread that emboldened statement, because the ramifications of this ruling could very well doom this country, doom American exceptionalism, for generations. Let stand, I am convinced it will.

    Our political system is now awash in unaccountable money.

    This ruling will forever be the legacy of the Roberts Court, and it is really, really ugly wrt our country’s future!

    Whatever tomorrows decision on the PPACA is, it will be dwarfed by Citizens’ United ruling.

    It is just amazing how wonderful this country was when I was at my prime age, loving every bit of it, contrasted to how far down we have come in about three decades time. We simply have lost our capability as a people to keep the good life going for most Americans, no matter how hard they work. The rewards have diminished and the trials and tribulations have increased, except for the 1%, in my opinion.

  36. The Citizens’ United ruling is the hallmark of this shift right, because in their zest for an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment, they have chosen to ignore the ramifications of their decision. By that I mean that this decision ignores the corruption of anonymous money.

    You don’t even know what the Citizens United case was about. You’re just squawking because your masters have told you it’s “Unfair”.

  37. “You have still yet to explain why our country should have to answer to any authority higher than the US Constitution.”

    The American Right Wing is now using the Constitution as a weapon against the American people, considering the polarized, partisan, right wing makeup of the current majority.

    You COMPLETELY ducked my question. Try again.

  38. WW:
    The Citizens’ United ruling is the hallmark of this shift right, because in their zest for an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment, they have chosen to ignore the ramifications of their decision. By that I mean that this decision ignores the corruption of anonymous money.

    You mean like the money BO raised in 2008? Remember at first, BO promised to use Fed Money as well as McCain did. Then BO got amnesia on that promise and way outraised McCain who stuck by his promise. That alone gave a great indication of BO’s character.

  39. How about George W Bush, should he have been put on trial? How do you otherwise suggest we deal with these warhawks?

    First off, why should he be put on trial for liberating a country from an evil dictator? Second, if you don’t approve of his actions, there are a number of political and legal remedies right in this country. We don’t need or want outsiders putting our leaders on trial in violation of the US Constitution. Finally, do you want Obama put on trial for such “War crimes” as his drone strikes and his role in overthrowing Khadaffi? Or do you, in typical partisan fashion, only want it used against Republicans?

Comments are closed.