HDR 176: Not So Fast – We Are Furious!

ALOHA, ALL!!  So will Operation Fast and Furious (aka Project Gunrunner) bring down Holder and possibly 0bama?  One thing’s for sure…this story and growing scandal is NOT going away.  You know the investigation is getting too close for comfort because now 0bama and his minions are attacking Darrell Issa for the way he sold used cars.  In fact, interesting how Issa’s Wikipedia profile tends to spend a lot of time talking about some of his past indiscretions.  But the horse is out of the barn with Project Gunrunner.  As I reported last week, there were $10 million in 0bama’s stimulus to fund it!  Here’s more:

Additional links for this ongoing story:

Beltway gunrunners: Misleading data target U.S. gun owners – Common American Journal  “In February 2008, William Hoover, assistant director for field operations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, testified before Congress that over 90 percent of the firearms that have been recovered in or intercepted in transport to Mexico originated from various sources within the U.S….The ATF admitted its statistics were based on the guns it traced, all of which originated in the U.S., thus skewing the data.”

NRA Will Sue Obama Administration Over New Gun-Control Measure | CNSnews.com  “On Monday, the Justice Department said it would require firearms dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas to report multiple sales of certain semi-automatic rifles to the same person within a five-day period. The goal is to stop the illegal flow of weapons to Mexican drug cartels, said Deputy Attorney General James Cole.”

Who Are You Working For, Mr. Holder? | UNCOVERAGE.net  “Holder is partner in a law firm, Covington & Burling, which has been representing 18 detainees at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba. Many of the clients are Yemeni nationals, countrymen of the very terrorists who just planned the Christmas day bombing attack on a U.S. plane.”

Maybe he needs to eat more peas.  WOLF: ‘No drama’ Obama losing his cool – Washington Times  “Something unexpected happened along the president’s breezy cruise to re-election. “No drama” Obama is suddenly looking about as calm as Jerry Lewis in a French film, about as brave as Ted Kennedy after an evening drive through Chappaquiddick.”  Check out the author of this article:  Dr. Milton R. Wolf is a board-certified diagnostic radiologist and cousin of President Obama. He blogs daily at MiltonWolf.com.  And while we’re discussing 0bama’s family ties….

THE HORROR!  You mean Barry lied about his sainted mother?    Turns Out Obama‘s Story About His Mother’s Healthcare Struggle Is Inaccurate | Breaking news and opinion on The Blaze  “A new book by New York Times reporter Janny Scott sheds new light on the life of Barack Obama’s mother, Ann Dunham, including her final years. Scott found while assembling information for “A Singular Woman: The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mother,” that Dunham in fact did have health coverage for her ovarian cancer, based off Dunham’s own past correspondence. ”

What is Mitch McConnell doing?????  Fury on the right as McConnell outlines new plan for Obama to raise debt ceiling | The Ticket – Yahoo! News  “Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell outlined a complex and procedure-heavy proposal Tuesday (details here) to give President Obama the ability to raise the debt ceiling in increments without Republican support.”  I just saw Newt Gingrich on Hannity’s show.  He recommends that the House should pass a month-by-month budget and send it to 0bama to sign – each and every month – until 0bama is out of office.  I like this idea.  I HATE McConnell’s idea!!  Here’s what Gingrich said:  Gingrich Urges Republicans to Call Obama’s Bluff on Social Security Scare | CNSnews.com

BREAKING:  Balanced budget amendment headed to House floor next Wednesday – Common American Journal  “A balanced budget amendment will be considered on the House floor next Wednesday, The Daily Caller has learned from a senior GOP source on Capitol Hill.”

Final Thought:  “Men must be ready, they must pride themselves and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.” –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, 1776



Tags: , , ,

About giliar

An American patriot who has gone rogue - I will remember in November!

14 responses to “HDR 176: Not So Fast – We Are Furious!”

  1. giliar says :

    Ah, but Lee…you seem to think the two choices are necessarily exclusive. I don’t. I think our national sovereignty and American culture are linked to our economic stability and prowess. We can’t have the former without the latter. It may have been possible 50 years ago, but not now with countries like China and Russia emerging as strong economic powers. In reality, you think the Tea Party folks are only fighting for their PERSONAL economic well being. That’s about as far from the truth as you can get We’re fighting for the economic well being of our country and future generations of Americans, and ultimately to preserve our American culture.

  2. giliar says :

    Again, you talk about “materialistic concerns”as being purely selfish. Those “materialistic concerns” have to do with the survival of the nation. If our economy collapses because it’s overwhelmed (ala Cloward & Piven) then nothing else matters because there will be no United States of America.

    Another point: 0bama didn’t have a record in 2008 – he does now. His “Hopey/Changey Rope-a-Dope” won’t work this time.

  3. giliar says :

    Lee…you’re confusing the Tea Party movement with other (important) concerns. Tea Party is about fiscal responsibility. Period. That doesn’t mean that Tea Party folks aren’t concerned about other issues.

    • Lee says :

      You’re making my point. The social conservatives in the movement–people who a decade ago would have openly and loudly labeled Tammy Bruce, “an abomination and stench in da nostrils uh da Lo-ward” and would have rather seen the country die than vote pro-choice–were in 2010 (to use Dick Morris’ terms) “happily rubbing shoulders with gay libertarians.” A decade ago, they would have had to justify supporting a candidate on the basis of that candidate’s specific stand(s)–“I VOTE PRO-LIFE!” Voting right was more important than shaping public policy. But when money became the issue, suddenly these people develop the approach more like what yours truly had been promoting for that same decade–namely, seeing political and voting practices as a tactical matter more than a moral matter in and of itself. Suddenly, “pleezin’ da Lo-ward” didn’t mean selecting candidates on principle, regardless of the consequences, but rather doing what forwards their agenda.

      While I completely agree with the change of approach, but I am disappointed that it would come out of materialism rather than devotion to a higher cause. If these people had said, “Hey, maybe ‘lesser of two evils’ has a point! Maybe supporting ‘the best VIABLE candidate’ will advance our cause more than voting for some perfect candidate who couldn’t win a solo race for dog catcher in a cat colony,” then I would be encouraged by the change. But I’m not convinced it was anything other than materialistic concerns that changed their minds. Do you believe that if the economy was better, these same Christians now praising my favorite openly-lesbian pro-choicer wouldn’t be slamming her type and demanding people like Sarah Palin throw her under a very straight-driving bus? Would those conservative/Rightwingers who self-defeatingly refused to vote for the McCain-Palin ticket because McCain wasn’t “conservative/pro-life/pro-gun/whatever ENOUGH” still have backburnered their specific causes to avoid, in Bruce’s analysis, allowing the Left to use those issues to divide the opposition? Somehow I doubt the only other reason for mass opposition to Obama–he’s a Marxist, Black nationalist, America-hating, White-hating Muslim–would be enough. It wasn’t in 2008.

      So you are right. It was ALL about money. 2010 was a victory built on materialism, using a voter coalition that likely won’t survive an economic recovery on either party’s watch. But hey, I’ll take it!

  4. Lee says :


    “[I]t is all about the money!”? So having a Marxist, Black nationalist, America-hating, White-hating Muslim of questionable eligibility in the White House means nothing? Are you saying then that, indeed, the whole “birther” and kindred efforts are motivated by concerns over constitutional integrity and national heritage, but rather economic (materialistic) factors? Well, perhaps then, at least for Christians, James 4 indeed holds the ultimate explanation for birther failures, particularly verses 2b-3:

    “You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”

    No matter how valid the issues raised about the eligibility of the current pResident, if those pushing the matters–by and large Christians–are simply motivated by pocketbook and portfolios, it’s no wonder none of the efforts succeeded–“When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”

    While not a Christian, and in complete opposition to the self-defeating purist attitude of some social-conservative voters, I gotta ask: WWJD? While I believe the Tea Party members did the right thing in their activism last year, it did not result from an epiphany of political reality, but rather sheer desperation over their finances–“that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.”

    The truth is that the social conservatives in the Tea Party movement sold their souls for the pocketbooks. Whereas ten years ago they were saying they’d never vote for a pro-choicer no matter what, in 2008 they were welcoming openly-lesbian pro-choicer Tammy Bruce. In an early cut of the movie, “The Undefeated,” Bruce says that the Tea Party succeeded because it set aside “social issues,” i.e., abortion and homosexuality. The final cut version which premiered today omits that line, and wisely so, since it would make those “good Christian folk” realize what they did. (I wonder how many of them know Bruce’s positions on sex and life–Huh huh. I said, “positions on sex.” Huh huh.) I just hope they stay ignorant of it and maintain it through the 2012 election.

    In “The Undefeated,” Tammy Bruce asserts that the other (“social”–based on the edited section) issues don’t matter if people are poor. In other words, whether unborn children are murdered or not doesn’t matter if that pro-life activist doesn’t have plenty of mammon. Whether or not a public morality is maintained doesn’t matter if the Christian bookstore owner doesn’t make a profit. And thus I have to wonder: Would these conservatives be willing to capitulate to a Leftist world government or a Muslim caliphate if it meant some maintenance of their portfolios for their generation? If they are willing to sell out the lives of unborn children, then why not the mere financial future of their own? If they are willing to essentially cave on the very nature of marriage, then why not on the nature of patriotism and nationalism? As stated, Palin included “national security” (and hence, sovereignty) as one of the three Tea Party legs, as opposed to one of the materialistic legs noted by others. As an outsider looking in, I have to wonder if she’s the only Tea Partier who does.

    There is an answer to financial problems for a country, but our people are too wimpy and civilized to do it. We have the means (both nuclear and conventional), but not the will. That is because those at all inclined to consider it are the ones most self-focused. Perhaps Palin–or whoever replaces the Great Black Hope in 2013–will give this matter some thought.

    • Lee says :

      CORRECTION TO FIRST PARAGRAPH: “[I]t is all about the money!”? So having a Marxist, Black nationalist, America-hating, White-hating Muslim of questionable eligibility in the White House means nothing? Are you saying then that, indeed, the whole “birther” and kindred efforts are NOT motivated by concerns over constitutional integrity and national heritage, but rather economic (materialistic) factors? Well, perhaps then, at least for Christians, James 4 indeed holds the ultimate explanation for birther failures, particularly verses 2b-3:

  5. Lee says :

    But Dr. Milton Wolf is a “typical White person,” from the side of the family that Obama hates, and thus does not count.

    • giliar says :

      True….the side of the family that raised him, sent him to the best private school in Hawaii, and somehow managed to make it possible for him to attend Columbia, Harvard, etc. Meanwhile, his bum of a father gets a best-selling ode written about him.

  6. Lee says :

    Obama threatened old folks’ entitlement, and McConnell panicked and caved. Between old folks’ gullibility and conservatives playing by conventional political rules, nothing less should be expected. This is what happens when we allow “the people” to have so much power in politics. Thank democracy, folks. “Thanks, democracy!”

    A lot of these Tea Party types call for “returning to the original system” of the country. By some estimates, only ONE PERCENT of the population could vote circa 1790, and that was the mostly male, almost-entirely-White higher level of society. Perhaps we should take those Teabrainers up on it before they realize what the h*** they are saying.

    • giliar says :

      Lee….I know you take issue with Tea Party folks in some aspects of their beliefs and behaviors. But keep in mind that the movement is about 3 main things: 1) smaller government, 2) lower taxes and 3) fiscal responsibility. It’s all about the money – OUR money – and what the government does with it. I know some individuals opine about “returning to the original system” and other things. But the Tea Party movement was started because of out-of-control spending, and that’s the true focus.

      • Lee says :

        I was actually championing the idea!! The “This is a republic, not a democracy” strain of thought exists in the Tea Party movement, and it’s a good thing. They ought to stand by it. My point was that they actually promoted a good idea without really understanding it.

        After I returned to the U.S. in March 2009 from my military deployment, some political friends of mine were surprised how easy-going I was about the situation. They thought I’d be livid. I explained that, among other things, I was laughing my head off at how all these Alex P. Keaton types–big and small–were having their precious personal finances hurt by the Birkenstock-wearing people who they made fun of in college–“Oh, political science. What are you ever gonna do with that?” Well, I’ll tell you what they did with it. Those liberals kicked the selfish a$$es of people who thought only of making money and having personal preferences. These conservatives by and large didn’t sacrifice to defeat Obama, but rather tried to buy him off with campaign contributions while allegedly “Obama-proof” their portfolios (how you can “proof” open financial investments against a Marxist who has no problem simply confiscating wealth, I have no idea). They got conservative–i,e., selfish–and got nailed in the process. I still laugh about that!!

        Sarah Palin said the three things were fiscal responsibility, limited government, and NATIONAL SECURITY. It’s a departure from that latter point that created an unholy alliance of unpatriotic liberals and “non-patriotic” conservatives (“a coalition of anti-war Democrats and tea party-backed Republicans”–from article cited in https://humpdayreport.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/breaking-news-house-rebukes-obama-on-libya/ ) which is weakening us in the eyes of our enemies ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/06/27/john-bolton-on-how-obama-s-blunders-in-libya-could-keep-gaddafi-in-power.html ). Your precious Tea Party got started NOT because of government spending, but because of what it was doing to their own personal finances and preferences, and only secondarily a recognition of the danger posed by the least “American” administration imaginable. They need to get their selfish, materialistic minds out of their portfolios and preferences–“It’s all about money”–and into those higher values of country and heritage, even if it means tanking the economy. Their money won’t help them when their country is completely taken away from them.

      • giliar says :

        But Lee….it is all about the money! If we continue to saddle our children and grandchildren with insurmountable debts and deficits, if we continue to let the government grow so that the nanny state encroaches on personal freedoms, if we let them continue to pay for programs like the EPA, the NEA, etc, if we let them take over private industries like they did with GM, if we allow them to skew their priorities in such a way that programs like the stimulus builds sidewalks in affluent communities….I could go on. The point is, you think focusing on the money is selfish, materialistic and only for personal gain. I think (and those Tea Party people I know agree) it’s all about preserving the future of the country, through fiscal accountability. If our country is financially ruined, Reagan’s Shining City on a HIll is gone, and the hope for those who cherish freedom is gone with it. BTW….the Tea Party movement DID start because of government spending. Recall Rick Santelli’s outcry: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9v82_xj7t6k That’s when the Tea Party started.

%d bloggers like this: