Gabrielle Giffords, Sandy Hook, Colorado theater shootings, etc. etc. etc. Whenever there is a crime(s) involving gun violence, the Obama administration is always ready to exploit it. There is one exception to this rule - Fast and Furious.
Now we learn there is yet another victim. A Mexican police chief was shot and killed by a weapon that was sold in the U.S. and made its way across our southern border. Obama's lackeys in the media should be all over this one, right?
A high-powered rifle lost in the ATF’s Fast and Furious controversy was used to kill a Mexican police chief in the state of Jalisco earlier this year, according to internal Department of Justice records, suggesting that weapons from the failed gun-tracking operation have now made it into the hands of violent drug cartels deep inside Mexico.
Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga, the police chief in the city of Hostotipaquillo, was shot to death Jan. 29 when gunmen intercepted his patrol car and opened fire. Also killed was one of his bodyguards. His wife and a second bodyguard were wounded.
Local authorities said eight suspects in their 20s and 30s were arrested after police seized them nearby with a cache of weapons — rifles, grenades, handguns, helmets, bulletproof vests, uniforms and special communications equipment. The area is a hot zone for rival drug gangs, with members of three cartels fighting over turf in the region.
A semi-automatic WASR rifle, the firearm that killed the chief, was traced back to the Lone Wolf Trading Company, a gun store in Glendale, Ariz. The notation on the Department of Justice trace records said the WASR was used in a “HOMICIDE – WILLFUL – KILL –PUB OFF –GUN” –ATF code for “Homicide, Willful Killing of a Public Official, Gun.”
In the case of Sandy Hook, a weapon purchased legally was stolen by the lone shooter, who then murdered twenty-six people (twenty children). Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) wasted no time in calling on Obama to exploit the tragedy, doing so on the very same day.
Mexican police chief, Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga was murdered more than five months ago. Yet, Nadler is silent.
Even if one gives Nadler a pass on ignoring the shooting death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 and the hundreds of innocent Mexicans who were murdered by guns from Operation Fast and Furious, why is he so silent on the shooting death of Astorga? After all, the weapon used to kill a Mexican police chief was purchased in an U.S. gun store, right? It was very likely sold to a 'straw purchaser' who then 'walked' that gun into Mexico and handed it to drug cartels.
Rep. Nadler, if you want to exploit gun crimes, it would seem this is your opportunity.
Oh, wait.
The Obama administration can't exploit Fast and Furious because it's responsible for implementing it. Had it not been caught, Nadler would be at the front of the line, calling for tighter gun restrictions.
In the wake of the IRS scandal, the AP Reporter scandal, and the James Rosen scandal, we now have a new one, involving CBS Reporter Sharyl Attkisson, who was practically the only mainstream media reporter to doggedly pursue the gun-walking operation known as Fast and Furious. In addition to CBS confirming that Attkisson's computers have been breached, she says that it started during the time she was investigating Fast and Furious.
Here is an excerpt from an exchange with Bill O'Reilly:
O’REILLY: Which was what? What big stories were you working on?
ATTKISSON:
Well, at the time I was doing Fast and Furious of course, some green
energy debacle sort of stimulus spending stories, and then later on the
Benghazi story.
Here is the exchange between O'Reilly and Attkisson, via NewsBusters:
In June of last year, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in both criminal and civil contempt of Congress for not turning over documents related to Operation Fast and Furious demanded by a Congressional subpoena. As the contempt votes were taking place, President Barack Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent them from being turned over.
In that case, the Obama administration thumbed its nose at the notion of honoring a subpoena.
Even after being held in contempt, the arrogance of Holder was on full display during a statement he made to the press:
If it comes to light that the Obama administration had anything to do with the breach of Attkisson's computer, we can logically conclude that it was done so without a warrant or subpoena.
Conversely, Barack Obama himself asserted Executive Privilege to prevent Eric Holder from having to honor one. As for suspicions that Obama and Company were involved in breaching Attkisson's computers, they certainly would have had a motive. Otherwise, why go to such great lengths to ignore a Congressional subpoena?
There's a fine line between ignoring a subpoena and ignoring the need for one. That line is made even finer when subpoenas and the absence of subpoenas both appear to involve Fast and Furious.
* Why do conservative politicians partner with registered socialists?
* Upcoming Benghazi hearings (Hillary's spokesman implicated in coverup?)
* Why is there not more contrasting of Fast and Furious with Sandy Hook at NRA Convention?
* Update on Saudi prisoner in Colorado (renewed interest)?
On the same day that the 2013 NRA Convention began in Houston, TX Barack Obama was in Mexico telling an audience that "most of the guns used to commit violent crimes here in Mexico, come from the United States." What he didn't tell that audience was that his administration is responsible for Operation Fast and Furious, a program in which the ATF told reluctant gun store owners to sell high-powered guns to bad guys who would then 'walk' those guns to drug cartels in Mexico.
Yet, Republicans and gun rights activists have avoided bludgeoning those in the administration and on the Democratic side of the aisle by contrasting the exploitation of Sandy Hook with the failed attempt to exploit the consequences of Fast and Furious by pointing to its consequences. Those consequences have been - and continue to be - hundreds of murdered people. The Obama administration wanted to used those consequences to push gun control but couldn't because of whistleblowers in general, and one in particular - ATF Agent John Dodson.
Dodson came forward when one of the guns found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry on December 14, 2010 was a gun from Operation Fast and Furious. In 2012, Attorney General Eric Holder was found in contempt of Congress and Obama asserted Executive Privilege to prevent documents from coming forward that would reveal the truth about the operation.
Despite all of this, Obama presented every speaker at the NRA Convention with a golden opportunity to draw this contrast. To this point, no one has highlighted this contrast.
Said Obama on Friday, May 3rd, the first day of the NRA Convention:
"I will continue to do everything in my power to pass common sense reforms that keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people that can save lives here in Mexico and back home in the United States... So we'll keep increasing the pressure on gun traffickers who bring illegal guns into Mexico. We'll keep putting these criminals where they belong - behind bars."
This is gall-dacity.
Despite this low-hanging fruit, even Ted Cruz and Sarah Palin have avoided contrasting Obama's exploitation of Sandy Hook with his failure to do so in Fast and Furious... because he got caught.
It's hard to explain why conservatives are avoiding the one argument that will deliver the most severe blow. They don't even use it when they're being taunted by Obama.
Makes. No. Sense.
Here is Cruz. Good speech but he also avoided Fast and Furious vs. Sandy Hook:
Regular visitors to this blog know that I've been calling for gun rights advocates to go on a counter-offensive with the gun grabbers, instead of playing defense all the time. The best way to do that is to contrast the exploitation of Sandy Hook by the Obama administration with how it handled Operation Fast and Furious.
Practically every point, argument, and position taken by Obama's media ventriloquist dummies can be responded to with a Fast and Furious reference.
Selling guns to bad guys: You want to talk selling guns to bad guys? In Fast and Furious, Obama's ATF didn't allow gun store owners to sell to bad guys; they ORDERED them to.
Background checks: You want to talk background checks? How about the gun store owners who didn't want to sell to straw purchasers they knew were going to walk guns into Mexico? It was Obama's ATF that insisted those gun store owners make the sales despite background checks that told them not to.
Murder: You want to talk about guns being used to murder people? How about the straw purchasers mentioned above, giving those guns to Mexican drug cartels who have used those guns to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American border patrol agent? All with the approval and mandate of the ATF.
Banning assault weapons: You want to talk about banning assault weapons? Why did the ATF allow thousands of assault weapons (AK-47s and .50 Cal.) to be placed into the hands of the most violent cartels on earth?
Shutting down gun stores: You want to talk about shutting down operations? How about leaving the responsible gun store owners, who didn't want to sell weapons to bad guys, alone and shutting down the ATF, which mandated those gun store owners sell those weapons to bad guys?
Gun Trafficking: You want to talk about gun trafficking? How about the ATF - after mandating that gun store owners sell to bad guys - looking the other way as those bad guys not only trafficked weapons out of the country but gave them to hardened criminals whom they knew would murder innocent people with them.
In this clip below (fast forward to the 6:18 mark), Nugent hits Burnett with a question about stopping gun traffickers. Burnett, predictably agrees right before Nugent asks her if she thinks Attorney General Eric Holder should be arrested for... gun trafficking.
Burnett's reaction tells the whole story. She was rendered speechless.
If the gun rights crowd wants to win this debate, it must make these arguments. Hopefully, this is the first instance of many.
The Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) was found to be responsible for telling gun store owners in Arizona to sell high capacity, semi-automatic weapons (AK-47's and .50 Cal) to straw purchasers, whom they knew would 'walk' those guns into Mexico. Those thousands of guns were placed into the hands of drug cartels who proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexicans and at least one Border Patrol agent (Brian Terry).
Now, that same ATF is has shut down a gun store that sold weapons to the mother of Newtown shooter Adam Lanza.
The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms said on Friday it had revoked the federal license of a Connecticut gun retailer that sold a weapon to the mother of Adam Lanza, who killed 26 people at an elementary school in December.
The agency on December 20 revoked the license of Riverview Gun Sales in East Windsor, Connecticut, ATF spokeswoman Debora Seifert said. The revocation was reported in The Journal News, of Westchester County, New York, on Friday.
"We did revoke their federal firearms license," she said. The agency did not publicly disclose a reason for the closure.
A woman who answered the telephone at Riverview on Friday, and did not give her name, confirmed the store had sold a weapon to Lanza's mother, Nancy, and that its license had been revoked. She declined further comment.
This may just be one of the most boldly audacious and outrageous moves by the Feds in some time. In operation Fast and Furious, the ATF has the blood of hundreds of Mexicans on its hands for telling gun store owners to sell weapons to buyers it knew would give them to drug cartels. Yet, no one at ATF has paid any real price. Now, the same ATF is shutting down a gun store that did nothing illegal?!?!
I sent the following email to Rep. Darrell Issa's press secretary, Becca Watkins:
Becca, where are you guys on this????
Without explanation, the ATF shuts down gun shop that sold guns to Adam Lanza's mother. Yet, the ATF FREAKIN' TOLD GUN STORES to sell to straw purchasers who put thousands of guns into the hands of cartels, who then proceeded to murder hundreds of Mexcians!!!
Where is Chairman Issa??????
Is he still there????
Issa is head of the House Oversight Committee and knows as much as anyone about what went on in Fast and Furious.
On March 21st, two days after Tom Clements - the Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Corrections - was murdered at his home in Monument, Colorado, a high speed car chase in Decatur, TX ended with the death of Evan Ebel, a parolee whom many view as the prime suspect in Clements' murder. Decatur is almost 700 miles from Monument.
Before Ebel's run-in with Texas law enforcement, the description of a car that sat outside Clements' home was relayed by at least one witness (possibly two), to authorities.
Colorado authorities are looking for a dark-colored ‘boxy,’ dark-colored, two-door 1990s-model car with green dashboard light seen idling for 15 minutes near Clements' house around the time of the shooting. The vehicle's engine was running and a witness reported seeing one person driving away in the car.
Here is Lt. Jeff Kramer on or about March 19th, giving a description of the vehicle of interest. Take note of how matter-of-factly Kramer states that the vehicle is a "two-door" vehicle.
Fast forward to March 21st, the day that Ebel met his end in Decatur, TX. The car he was driving can be described as "dark-colored" and "boxy" but it was definitely not a "two-door" vehicle. It was absolutely a four-door vehicle (see photo).
On a March 20th news report from NBC News 9 in Denver, the description again, is a two-door vehicle, witnessed by a female speed-walker (take note at the 2:30 mark):
**UPDATE** The description of the car being a two-door vehicle was made prior to this speed-walker being identified (as the NBC 9 report indicates). There are also no news stories I can find that identify the "speed-walker" as having been contacted prior to Ebel's death. In fact, in this March 21st report posted after Ebel's death, the "speed-walker" doesn't appear to have been identified at all. The question becomes: How many witnesses had identified the vehicle outside Clements' home as being "two-door"?
Clements' murder (and Ebel's death) took place after the murder of Kaufman County Assistant District Attorney Mark Hasse and before the murder of Kaufman County D.A. Mike McLelland, who - like Clements - was murdered in his own home, along with his wife Cynthia. Hasse was gunned down on Kaufman County courthouse steps in broad daylight on January 31st. Though Clements and the McLellands were murdered in similar fashion, Ebel met his end nine days before the McLellands were murdered, despite being roughly 100 miles away in Decatur, TX.
Conversely, this distance from where Clements was shot and Decatur, TX is nearly 800 miles.
As for Ebel's "dark-colored", "boxy" four-door vehicle, is it possible that he switched cars and that the two-door car was ditched? Based on his actions prior to meeting his own demise - coupled with what he didn't ditch, the answer to that question is: not likely.
Consider the evidence allegedly found in Ebel's vehicle. On Sunday, March 17th, two days prior to Clements' murder, a Domino's Pizza delivery man named Nathan Leon was murdered near Denver. Based on what was found in Ebel's trunk, evidence implicated him in Leon's murder as well.
...Bradford (Texas Ranger) wrote that the Cadillac also contained evidence that could be linked to the Denver police investigation of the Sunday slaying of Nathan Leon, a Denver Domino’s Pizza delivery man.
In the Cadillac’s open trunk,investigators saw an insulated Domino’s Pizza carrier and a Domino’s shirt or jacket, the affidavit said.
Think about this for a minute. If Ebel murdered Leon two days prior to murdering the top guy for Colorado's Department of Corrections at his home, why would Ebel leave evidence of the first murder in the car he was driving when he murdered Clements? We are talking about an experienced criminal here. It doesn't make sense.
That wasn't the only evidence found in the vehicle that seemed to implicate Ebel.
The El Paso County sheriff's office said that "unique and often microscopic markings" found on shell casings in Texas and Colorado leads investigators to conclude that the gun Evan Ebel used to shoot at authorities in Texas was the same gun used to kill Tom Clements at his home on Tuesday.
It had been known that the casings found at both scenes were of the same caliber and brand but Monday's announcement was the first time Colorado investigators made a direct link between Ebel and Clements' death.
It would seem we're dealing with an incredibly stupid criminal here. Think about this possible chain of events:
On Sunday, March 17th, Ebel murders a pizza delivery guy and puts the delivery box carrier and a shirt belonging to that guy, in his trunk.
Two days later, on March 19th, with murder evidence still in his trunk, Ebel drives to the home of Tom Clements and murders him, while keeping the murder weapon.
Two days after that, on March 21st, Ebel is in a high speed chase with police in Decatur, during which he shoots at them with the same gun he used to murder Clements, while also having evidence in his trunk that implicates him in the murder of a pizza delivery guy four days earlier.
This is the behavior of a murderer who had no interest in covering his tracks.
Let's take a look at some of the circumstances that allowed Ebel to be in a position to commit these murders in the first place.
Ebel was released from prison four years too early, on January 28th (incidentally, three days prior to Hasse's murder in Kaufman, TX) as a result of a clerical error.
On March 14th, three days before the murder of Leon, Ebel removed his ankle bracelet. Despite his being on "intensive supervised parole", authorities didn't take much interest in Ebel until the day of Clements' murder. In fact, a warrant wasn't issued for Ebel's arrest until the day after Clements was murdered.
Again, Ebel had to have known he was living on borrowed time when he allegedly murdered both Leon and Clements. Why would he seemingly want to implicate himself in those murders? It's as if he wanted to be caught and charged for committing them.
Who does that?
Ok, let's consider a narrative that would be incredibly beneficial to the Obama administration vs. one that would not. It's no secret that this administration has been waging class and race warfare ever since 2009; it thrives on such things. Identifying these murders as the actions of a white supremacist group like the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas would certainly be more preferable than pushing the notion that the killings were the work of say, Mexican drug cartels.
With so much evidence implicating Ebel, such a narrative is easier to push, is it not? While he's still the "alleged" murderer of Clements and Leon, the evidence that does exist appears to be so overwhelming that it's not far from being as obvious that Nidal Malik Hasan is the Fort Hood shooter.
The Obama administration would absolutely not want a narrative to take hold or evidence to come forth that Mexican drug cartels are behind these murders, primarily for two reasons:
The Immigration debate / border security - In 2011, DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano insisted that the border with Mexico is "safer than it's ever been" while the Democratic Party and the administration she works for has stonewalled every attempt to enhance border security. If it turns out that Mexican drug cartels are murdering U.S. prosecutors, Obama, et. al. might finally have a lot of 'splaining to do.
Operation Fast and Furious - This operation was specifically designed to place high powered weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels. Two of those weapons were found at the murder scene of Border Agent Brian Terry in 2010 in Peck Canyon, AZ. Hundreds of Mexicans have been murdered at the hands of those weapons as well. It'd be bad enough for the administration if Americans learned of cartel savagery firsthand; the former could start connecting real dots relative to what the ATF did when it gave these weapons to cartels. It'd be far more disastrous for Obama if any of the weapons used in the murder of Americans on American soil turn out to be Fast and Furious guns.
Brandon Darby over at Breitbart has a very interesting find relative to the Aryan Brotherhood and its willingness to work with the Mexican cartels. In his piece, Darby quotes from declassified FBI documents, which indicate that the AB is more interested in drug trafficking than it is in race and that it seems to act in concert with cartels:
The purpose of the AB is now power and is not a racial organization as it has been deemed in the past. The AB’s continue to be aligned with members of the Mexican Mafia (EME)and certain motorcycle type inmates.
Let's revisit a bit of news that was making the rounds after Clements was murdered and before Ebel's death. It had been reported that one week prior to Clements was killed, he vetoed a request from a Saudi prisoner convicted in 2006 for the enslavement and repeated sexual assault of an Indonesian woman. Homaidan Al-Turki's request was that he finish serving his sentence in Saudi Arabia. In layman's terms, he wanted to be released.
In a letter to Al-Turki dated March 11th, three days before Ebel ditched his ankle bracelet, Clements informed the Saudi prisoner that his request for release to Saudi Arabia had been denied.
Ebel becoming the most obvious suspect in the murder of Clements did two things. One, it prevented speculation about a major international showdown / scandal between the U.S and Saudi Arabia. Authorities began "de-prioritizing" an Al-Turki connection when the evidence against Ebel became so strong. Two, it enabled a narrative to take hold that a white supremacist group was likely behind the murder of a high-ranking Colorado prison official.
Extrapolating Ebel's alleged actions as a member of the Aryan Brotherhood to the murders in Kaufman, TX of District Attorneys (the McLellans were murdered after Ebel's death) helps to further the narrative that a racist group was behind all of the murders.
Certainly, we can all agree that if given the option of a Saudi hit man, Mexican drug cartels, or a white supremacist movement being implicated in the murders of state officials in Texas and Colorado, the Obama administration would certainly prefer the third option.
Go figure. That's the one being pushed by the mainstreamObama media.
After Jared Loughner shot Gabrielle Giffords along with several others in a Tucson parking lot, there was grave concern among ATF agents that a Fast and Furious gun may have been used. It wasn't but now that we're seeing the shooting deaths elected officials (a prison chief in Colorado and two prosecutors in Texas), there is certainly no doubt that similar fears are rearing their heads about weapons from that ATF operation being involved.
An ABC News report on the murders is below. Though Fast and Furious is not mentioned, drug trafficking is. While there is a narrative setting in that the Aryan Brotherhood of Texas (ABT) is suspected of being involved, Mexican drug cartels are certainly a possibility as well. We also know that hundreds - if not thousands - of Fast and Furious weapons have still not been recovered.
Another red flag for those suspicious of getting the truth about what is happening is that the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is being viewed as a source of expertise - in both the news report below and other places. This group is extremely far left and has an agenda that does not usually involve getting to the truth.
It would appear that Speaker John Boehner is feeling some heat directly from a Republican Senator in Lindsey Graham (R-SC) over getting to the bottom of the Benghazi attacks. During this interview, which took place last night, Graham said he would be meeting with House leaders "tomorrow" which is today. Can't wait to hear how that went.
Take note at the 3:00 mark. Shortly thereafter, Graham says:
"To my House colleagues, please, for God's sake step up your game when it comes to Benghazi."
I'd like to make a suggestion to Senator Graham. Pick of the phone and call Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee. I'm guessing Issa is sure to give you an earful about how Boehner did more harm than good when it came to helping with the Fast and Furious investigation.
Mark Kelly, the husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), has made quite a name for himself as an anti-gun advocate. Since his wife was shot in the head by Jared Loughner on January 8, 2011 Kelly has lent his face and voice to the anti-second amendment crowd. He has aptly served the Obama gun-control agenda in the wake of the Sandy Hook shootings.
Several weeks ago, Kelly testified before Congress and seemed to single out semi-automatic rifles for ridicule for what they do to innocent human beings:
That doesn't seem to square with what Kelly did in following weeks, on March 5th; he purchased an AR-15. Thanks to a timeline, Breitbart's reporting seemed to indicate that once Kelly learned that his purchase of a semi-automatic rifle, along with high capacity magazines, began making the rounds, the husband of the former congresswoman changed his tune and posted the following on facebook:
I just had a background check a few days ago when I went to my local gun store to buy a .45. As I was leaving, I noticed a used AR-15. Bought that too. Even to buy an assault weapon, the background check only takes a matter of minutes. I don't have possession of it yet but I'll be turning it over to the Tucson PD when I do.
Now, let's get on over to the issue of straw purchasing, which was a major component in Fast and Furious. Straw purchasing occurs when the person who buys the gun intends to give or sell said gun to a third party.
While the idea that Gabrielle Giffords' husband buying an AR-15 may represent irony and hypocrisy in spades, the straw purchasing charge may be a bit of a leap. Yes, Kelly signed a form that said he was purchasing the gun for himself and then later posted that he was going to turn it over to someone else but that "someone else" was the Tucson Police.
Far be it from me to speculate but here's my best guess at what went down.
Mark Kelly is taking the anti-gun positions not because he necessarily believes them but because he's become a political pawn and the pressure is overwhelming. On March 5th, he went to the store to purchase an AR-15 with the intent of arming himself. Once he realized that he'd been busted in a moment of palpable hypocrisy, he attempted to cover his tracks by justifying his purchase.
Sorry, Mark.
You've been busted and should start having as much courage on this as you did when you were launched into space.
Astronauts are not supposed to be cowards, political or otherwise.
At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, 'wacko bird' Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) literally attempted to make the argument that because high-capacity magazines are legal, so too is it "legal to hunt humans" because there are federal regulations that prohibit hunting ducks with 'more than three rounds'. This woman should seriously be institutionalized.
Once again, we have a gaping hole when it comes to the failure to introduce Operation Fast and Furious into the debate (shame on Republicans). If Feinstein's claim is that the sheer existence of high capacity magazines means it's legal to 'hunt humans', what does it mean that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) intentionally placed AK-47's and .50 Caliber rifles into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who 'hunt' and continue to 'hunt' humans with them.
For Feinstein's argument to make even a modicum of sense, she would have to apply it to the ATF and call for it to be disbanded because in reality, she's right and yet again, the Democrats communicate the truth best via projection.
When it came to the ATF, it WAS legal for them to 'hunt humans' by proxy (through the cartels). Evidence the fact that no one has paid any real consequence.
Anyway, here is Feinstein projecting the truth about the ATF onto the American people.
All I can say is that if Feinstein lives in a world where it's 'legal to hunt humans', that world may just be the Planet of the Apes and in this metaphor, the corrupt, wicked Feds represent the apes:
Added irony is that the character who fought the apes was the future head of the NRA:
Caveat necessary. The video below does not consist of House Speaker John Boehner saying that Obama's balls are made out of marshmellows. However, it does include a man named John Mauldin who claims to have been present when Boehner said it and it's not at all likely that someone like Mauldin would falsely attribute those words to Boehner.
So, for the sake of argument, let's assume Boehner actually said it. According to Mauldin, the House Speaker made the charge during the debt ceiling debate, which took place in the summer of 2011. In a word, the charge meant that Obama lacked 'audacity', which is defined as:
boldness or daring, especially with confident or arrogant disregard for personal safety, conventional thought, or other restrictions.
Yep, that pretty much describes Obama. It's also the opposite of Boehner's assessment.
If we include the debt ceiling debate and every battle Boehner has been involved in with Obama since then, how many has Boehner actually won?
Uh, can't think of any.
When it comes to the most powerful Republican in elected office (Boehner) and the most powerful Democrat in elected office (Obama), there have been two kinds of battles.
Battles fought
Battles not fought
As for the battles fought...
The debt ceiling
The 2012 elections
Fiscal cliff
Tax cuts
Spending cuts
Sequestration
Continuing Resolution
Healthcare Debate
Deficit / Debt Reduction
In all of the battles fought, it's hard to find one instance in which Obama has lost since the 2010 elections, which were actually won by the same Tea Party Boehner doesn't seem to have much regard for.
The debt continues to grow, despite the fact that the House is responsible for the purse strings; the 2012 elections were a major embarrassment for the Republican Party in general, to include Boehner as the House's gavel-holder. His lack of fight after the 2010 elections contributed to the base staying home in 2012. Boehner bemoaned making mistakes in the fiscal cliff talks by saying he shouldn't have negotiated with Obama and that he was 'full of regret' over how he handled it. Spending cuts? What spending cuts? Sequestration? Well, despite it being Obama's idea, Boehner is proving woefully inadequate when it comes to making the president own it.The continuing resolution debate will heat up in March. If the government is not allowed to shut down, Boehner will lose another round to Obama. Healthcare debate? Obama definitely didn't lack fortitude / audacity there.
As for debt / deficit reduction... Obama loves runaway debt and deficits. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Boehner wants to stem / reverse the tide. After the Republicans were swept into office in great numbers in the 2010 elections, Boehner had momentum (and the gavel). When it comes to the national debt / annual deficits, nothing has changed.
Advantage: 'Marshmellow' balls.
As for the battles not fought, two come to mind:
Fast and Furious
Benghazi Investigation
How about the battles not fought? Boehner REFUSED to make an issue of Fast and Furious; the Obama administration was wobbly in the knees for several months. Oversight Committee chairman Darrell Issa was essentially on his own. It was obvious Boehner wanted to avoid getting to the bottom of a scandal that demanded justice.
Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?
How about the investigation into Benghazi? Boehner has been all but silent. Rep. Frank Wolf has twice formally asked the Speaker to form a House Select Committee to help get to the bottom of that scandal, which involves dead Americans and likely criminal activity on the part of the Obama administration.
Marshmellows, Mr. Speaker?
Really?! I believe Barack Obama is the worst president this country has ever had but to accuse him of having 'balls' of 'marshmellows' is rather audacious in light of your track record when it comes to fighting him.
Boehner's behavior smacks of projection. His entire record over the last two years reveals a man who is afraid to fight and is getting beaten like a drum. Yet, the guy who beats him is the coward? Mr. Boehner, with all due respect, the accusation you allegedly made about Obama 18 months ago appears to be an accusation you should be levying at yourself. Instead, you appear to be employing a psychological defense mechanism that is preventing you from making that admission.
Projection is the misattribution of a person’s undesired thoughts, feelings or impulses onto another person who does not have those thoughts, feelings or impulses. Projection is used especially when the thoughts are considered unacceptable for the person to express, or they feel completely ill at ease with having them. For example, a spouse may be angry at their significant other for not listening, when in fact it is the angry spouse who does not listen. Projection is often the result of a lack of insight and acknowledgement of one’s own motivations and feelings.
If Boehner is uncomfortable accepting the reality that it is he who lacks courage, he very well could be projecting that lack of courage onto Obama. The question that needs to be asked of Boehner is a simple one:
If Obama has 'balls made out of marshmellows' Mr. Speaker, how come he keeps beating you?
There's really no reason to doubt the authenticity of what Mauldin attributed to Boehner as having said but it is truly unbelievable that Boehner - of all people - would be the one to say it:
Stonewall: to block, stall, or resist intentionally
In the game of cricket, the term stonewall means to:
play a defensive game, as by persistently blocking the ball instead of batting it for distance and runs.
When it comes to getting the truth about the 9/11 attacks in Benghazi that left four Americans dead, the Obama administration has lied - for two weeks, the administration blamed the attacks on a video - and it has stonewalled in the face of countless unanswered questions. In fact, when it became apparent that there were so many breakdowns on so many levels, Republicans from both Houses of Congress requested that select committees be formed.
In the Senate, Republicans are in the minority and Harry Reid has predictably stonewalled these requests because select committees that are formed to investigate scandals that could reach the president's office are much more effective than existent committees. Select committees would be made up of A-listers from various committees that would leverage their own individual areas of expertise. Reid is not going to put that kind of heat on a Democratic president.
Neither is Boehner; the Speaker of the House - a Republican - is stonewalling as well.
Check out what Boehner said last November, via Kerry Picket at Breitbart:
Both Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), along with other Democrats, rebuffed the idea of a joint select committee to investigate the Benghazi attack.
“At this point, I think that the standing committees of the House, whether they be the (State Department) oversight committee or the intelligence committee, are working diligently on these issues,” Boehner said shortly after his Senate colleagues floated the idea in November.
Some may see a bicameral committee (one that consists of both Representatives and Senators) as the best option, the absence of Senators does not preclude a select House committee from being formed. In fact, Rep. Frank Wolf wrote to Boehner in November and asked for that very thing. Boehner stonewalled the request then and is doing so now.
Writes Picket:
Speaker Boehner did not heed Wolf’s call for a select committee in the last Congress. In late January, Wolf refiled the resolution to establish a House Select Committee to investigate the Benghazi attack. Boehner has yet to comment or act upon the resolution.
Breitbart News sent an inquiry to Speaker Boehner's office on Thursday afternoon that has gone unanswered.
When it comes to the details about what happened or didn't happen in Benghazi, the administration is preventing the truth from coming out. That is stonewalling. In Boehner's case, he is preventing the assembly of the best team possible to help reveal the truth. That too is stonewalling.
Are these two forms of stonewalling apples and oranges or are they distinctions without differences?
The answer is the latter. As the Speaker of the House - regardless of Party affiliation - Boehner should be spearheading any attempt to get to the truth about what happened on 9/11/12 in Benghazi. He is doing the opposite; he is doing what Harry Reid is doing.
John Boehner is stonewalling an investigation into Benghazi and when it comes to Boehner, this type of behavior is very predictable; he did the best he could to minimize the impact of the Fast and Furious investigation as well. That it went as far as it did is a testament to the likes of House Oversight Committee chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. They pushed in spite of Boehner, not with his assistance. That was very clear.
In fact, Boehner scheduled the House vote on whether to find Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for not relinquishing documents subpoenaed by the Oversight Committee, on the same day that the Supreme Court rendered its Obamacare decision. As if that wasn't bad enough, on the day of the contempt vote, Obama did what Nixon did in Watergate; he asserted Executive Privilege to prevent the release of those documents.
Boehner protected the President. Period.
Some have suggested that the reason for doing so had to do with not wanting to harm Romney's chances in the 2012 election. Yeah? How'd that work out? The answer should be obvious. Romney lost the election and Republicans, in general, had their clocks cleaned because they chose not to fight. Fast and Furious is the quintessential example of something that warranted a high profile fight, if for no other reason than justice for the victims and their families, regardless of the election. Nonetheless, Boehner chose not to fight and his party lost big.
Benghazi is not all that dissimilar from Fast and Furious. Both involve guns (it's looking increasingly like Benghazi even involved gun running); both involved dead Americans; both involve an administration that is stonewalling the truth; and both apparently involve a House Speaker that prefers to sweep the carnage under the rug.
Imagine a House Select Committee that included members from the following Committees:
Appropriations
Armed Services
Budget
Foreign Affairs
Homeland Security
Judiciary
Oversight
Intelligence
Such a Committee would be formed to investigate the truth about Benghazi from every angle. It would include members who've demonstrated incredible political courage in the Fast and Furious investigation, chaired by the man who was at the tip of that spear:
Chairman: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) Members:
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA)
Rep. Dennis Ross (R-FL)
Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID)
Rep. Steve King (R-IA)
Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI)
Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI)
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN)
Rep. Peter King (R-NY)
Rep. Pat Meehan (R-PA)
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC)
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX)
Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX)
Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA)
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
There may be other Republicans worthy of consideration but the aforementioned list consists of those who have proven their mettle. As for Democrats, who cares? They'll be Obama's pawns. They can have whomever they like.
The Benghazi attack / coverup along with Fast and Furious are the Obama administration's two biggest scandals. Both involve dead Americans; one also involves hundreds of dead Mexicans. House Speaker John Boehner fought House Republicans at every turn when they wanted to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious. It was obvious to even the casual observer that Boehner wanted that story to go away.
The main objective of the Democratic Party is to win back the House in 2014. Benghazi is playing out in this election cycle in much the same way that Fast and Furious did in the last one. It could be argued that Republicans lost in 2012 - in large part - because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth in the gun-walking scandal. If the Democrats win the House in 2014, it could very well be because Boehner and other Republican leaders chose not to fight for the truth about Benghazi.
The maddening double standard relative to the Obama administration's push for control, coupled with its silence when it comes to the off-the-chart recklessness of its own ATF just continues unabated, in large part because no one of real consequence is calling them on it. If you remember the story about the ATF's keystone cops exercise in Milwaukee a few months ago, one of the several deadly circus acts involved a machine gun being stolen from an ATF vehicle.
Various congressmen - including Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) - has been attempting to get answers. Unlike the administration's non-stop verbal exploitation of Sandy Hook, answers about the ATF operation in Milwaukee (Fast and Furious too, for that matter) are nowhere to be found.
Several members of Congress, from both parties, have demanded answers from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives regarding a series of foul-ups in an undercover ATF sting in Milwaukee, exposed in a Journal Sentinel investigation.
So far they have not heard much. In a letter, the congressional members set a deadline for response for Thursday, Feb. 14. A check with several of the congressional offices indicated no response was provided, other than for the agency to acknowledge the letter was received and they are working on it.
The ATF is conducting a "top to bottom" review of the operation, an agency spokesman said last week. ATF did not respond to a call for comment Thursday.
Here is a link to that letter, which required a response by February 14th.
One day before that deadline, Sensenbrenner published an op-ed that said, in part (commentary on what I have bolded and underlined to follow):
Beyond "Fast and Furious" and the recent Milwaukee sting, ATF has had a rocky history. In 2006, ATF Director Carl Truscott resigned due to lavish spending, ethical violations, and questionable treatment of employees. The ATF needs an accountable, Senate-confirmed head just like the other law enforcement agencies under the Department of Justice.
The Obama Administration wants to pass new gun laws and give new responsibilities to the ATF, but the agency has been inept at enforcing the laws that we already have. The agency should have rigorous oversight of their operations, but the recent reports indicate the opposite is true. I look forward to hearing back from the ATF. We need to get answers on the botched Milwaukee operation with the goal of preventing other debacles in the future.
Identifying Fast and Furious as being part of a 'rocky history' is quite pathetic. Fast and Furious was a murderous operation intended to create the climate for gun control in the same way that Sandy Hook has been exploited by the administration.
The second part there is particularly weak on Sensenbrenner's part. Instead of talking about ATF's ineptitude with respect to enforcing existing gun laws, the congressman should be pointing out the blood on its hands as a result of Fast and Furious while contrasting the administration's gun control push based on the actions of a lone gunman in Connecticut.
No wonder the ATF doesn't feel like it has to answer Sensenbrenner. He doesn't seem too interested in going to the mat with them.
The Mexican government is now officially in on it, folks. Yes, suspicions were raised over that government's relative silence about Operation Fast and Furious as the scandal unfolded for nearly two years but now that Mexican politicians are lobbying the U.S. Senate to create a gun registry in states that border Mexico, it's confirmed.
In this local news report from a CBS affiliate in Arizona, citizens who were interviewed about this attempt by Mexican lawmakers to create a gun registry in the U.S. brought up Fast and Furious when asked for their take.
The mask is off Mexico's leaders, whether we're talking about those who didn't stand up when Fast and Furious was exposed or those who are now getting behind Obama's gun control / registration / confiscation push.
In Fast and Furious, the ATF instructed gun store owners in 'border states' - despite the objections of those gun store owners - to sell high powered rifles (AK-47's and .50 Cal.) to straw purchasers who they knew would walk those thousands of weapons to Mexican drug cartels. Those guns were used - and continue to be used - in the commission of countless murders. The Mexican government was all but silent as a dastardly plan by high ranking members of the Obama administration was implemented in an attempt to create the climate for gun control.
It didn't work and Sandy Hook is Plan B but it's not just the Obama administration who is implementing it. The Mexican government is playing along.
Let's go back to March 24, 2009. A lot happened on that day. First, here is Obama at a news conference telling the press that the situation with regard to guns from the U.S. going to Mexican drug cartels is 'out of control'. What would transpire over the next several months involved an agency under the purview of Obama's Justice Department intentionally making that situation much worse:
Also on March 24, 2009... Deputy Attorney General David Ogden expounds on the same subject and even made reference to 'Project Gunrunner', the larger umbrella term for Fast and Furious:
Oh, and let's not forget DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano on March 24, 2009 talking about the same subject. Notice how she talks about 'prosecuting' gun dealers who sell to bad guys. If Fast and Furious hadn't blown up in the administration's face, would the DOJ have prosecuted gun dealers who objected but who were told by the ATF to sell anyway? Napolitano starts around the 2:00 mark:
Here is Obama in April of 2009, shortly after Fast and Furious was put into motion. Notice the message. Innocent Mexicans were being murdered at the hands of guns purchased in the U.S. and something had to be done. Little did we know that the something involved the ATF accelerating the practice of sending guns to Mexico. Why? Well, to create the climate for gun control that would involve things like gun registries in border states:
Two years later, on March 3, 2011 - during a joint press conference at the White House with Obama and Mexico's president Felipe Calderon - the subject of gun violence in Mexico was discussed. Remember, the Obama administration was on defense at the time because of Fast and Furious so there was no aggressive push for gun control. All the two men could do was nibble around the edges. Here is a quote from Calderon, which takes place around the 32:00 mark:
"...with respect to the actions foreign agents in the Mexican land. The law does not allow agents of the United States or any other country to take part in tasks involving justice enforcement in our territory. As a result, they cannot carry weapons or undertake operational tasks. Their functions in line with our treaties are limited to the exchange of information and technical assistance to support Mexican authorities in these tasks... it's very clear for me as well that we must find a way of enhancing the level of protection of any and all agents who are acting within the framework of the law against crime and of course we are deeply analyzing alternatives for this and in dialogue with the Mexican Congress, who is the party who has the final say on this matter."
One of the things we learned in the wake of Fast and Furious is that the ATF was essentially sending high powered weapons to drug cartels without the Mexican government's knowledge. Yet, the Obama administration seemed to get a pass with the Mexican government while the American people are NOT getting a pass from the Mexican government, relative to something they had nothing to do with - Sandy Hook.
At that same March 3, 2011 press conference - shortly after Calderon's aforementioned statement - a liberal, sycophantic, hispanic reporter stuck his nose firmly in Obama's... never mind and asked him why he didn't have the power to 'veto' the second amendment. Obama then proceeded to lie his face off in light of what we now know happened with Fast and Furious. He then laughably says his administration has 'seen progress' with respect to catching straw purchasers.
As the operation blew up in the face of the administration, Mexican leaders were all but silent and the Obama administration stonewalled. Now that Sandy Hook is replacing Fast and Furious as the trigger for gun control, Mexican officials are teaming up with the Obama administration in an attempt to do what Fast and Furious failed to do.
The first part of this clip has seemingly nothing to do with the headline of the post but stick with it. This ABC News White House ventriloquist dummy Report starts out with another shameless exploitation of a shooting victim. The report plays an ad that features the mother of a young lady who was gunned down. The purpose of the ad is to push for universal background checks. The anchor then kicks it out to Reena Ninan who says that the gun control whackos think that background checks are something they can get through congress. Chuck Schumer calls that the 'sweet spot'.
Where was this push for gun control when Fast and Furious blew up in the administration's face and where are gun rights activists when it comes to pointing this out?
But I digress...
If, as the authors of 'Benghazi: The Definitive Report' allege, that John Brennan led an effort from the White House to ship weapons out of Libya to 'start another conflict' (presumably to arm Muslim Brotherhood / al-Qaeda rebels in Syria), it could mean that the administration is simultaneously attempting to disarm American citizens while arming her enemies (watch the video at the bottom of this post that will demonstrate how registration leads to confiscation).
Now, at about the 1:20 mark of the ventriloquist dummy report, the discussion turns to Hillary's plans to run in 2016. According to a Washington 'insider', it's all but a done deal. If true, what are the plans for Huma Abedin? Will Hillary appoint her to the same position currently held by David Axelrod or Valerie Jarrett?
Based on Abedin's irrefutable familial connections to the Brotherhood, do you think she's on board with a policy that would disarm Americans and arm the Brotherhood?
Yes, that is a somewhat rhetorical question at this point.
One more thing that happens at the end of this report worth mentioning. Ninan makes reference to who could be Hillary's Republican challenger and mentions Chris Christie by name. Every presidential election cycle, the mainstream media pushes a Republican candidate. Invariably, that candidate is someone who either doesn't have a chance against the liberal Democrat of choice or would be the best alternative for the liberal establishment (Romney, McCain, and Dole are prime examples).
Whenever the media pushes for a Republican nominee, rest assured, it's the worst possible Republican nominee. As for Christie specifically, he is rather Muslim Brotherhood-friendly.
Here is why any attempt at universal background checks are all about universal gun registration, which ultimately leads to confiscation because, once again, nameless, unelected bureaucrats will be empowered to decide who gets what and who doesn't.
Twenty-six people - including twenty children - lost their lives at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012. Hundreds of Mexicans (and counting) have lost their lives as the result of Operation Fast and Furious, an operation led by the Obama administration's ATF. Vice President Joe Biden continues to exploit the former for gun control while ignoring the latter, which was exposed more than two years ago and continues to be stonewalled by the administration to this day.
Why? Because Sandy Hook can be exploited to push for gun confiscation while Fast and Furious not only makes the opposite case but it also makes the case for dissolving the ATF, the prosecution of the Attorney General for contempt of Congress, and the possible impeachment of Barack Obama.
Biden's latest faux-display of emotion took place at Leesburg, VA.
Biden invoked the slaughter at Sandy Hook Elementary School, at one point choking up as he told of the 20 children, ages 6 and 7, who perished after being "literally riddled with bullet holes." He argued that the U.S. government has an obligation to the families and victims of the massacre to act.
"I can't imagine how [the parents] deal with it," Biden said. "But I can imagine how we will be judged as individuals, judged as a Congress, judged as a nation, if we do not. ... It's simply unacceptable."
At the heart of Biden's speech was a plea to Democrats who may be weighing political consequences of backing contentious pieces of gun-control legislation, such as bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Biden's message -- delivered with his signature passion, growing louder as he argued for urgency -- was that public opinion had shifted.
"The ability, because of all this happening, to misrepresent our positions no longer exists as it did in 1994," Biden said. "The world has changed. The American public has changed.
Then this from Biden:
"Don't tell me, 'Because we can't solve it all, we can't act at all,'" Biden said.
Yeah, well don't tell me that you don't have ulterior motives, especially in light of your continued silence over Fast and Furious. You support Obama's use of Executive Orders to push gun control and apparently also support his use of Executive Privilege to prevent the truth about Fast and Furious from coming out.
Why. Do. Gun. Rights. Activists. Refuse. To. Go. On. Offense. In. Debates?!
The latest very frustrating example takes place in a debate between Ted Nugent and Piers Morgan.
Take note at the 5:40 mark when Nugent is asked to respond to Barack Obama's gun control argument. Instead of bringing up Fast and Furious - a very deadly gun walking operation, led by the ATF / DOJ - he brought up Benghazi:
"...the Scammer-in-Chief, who claims that just to save one life would be worth this... He had a chance to save four American lives in Benghazi and refused to do so and now he's sending F-16's to Egypt..."
Both valid arguments to be sure but neither drives a stake into the heart of the administration's position on Gun Control. The ATF knowingly placed thousands of assault weapons into the hands of Mexican drug cartels who used those guns to commit hundreds of murders. On top of that, just a little over one month ago, the ATF in Milwaukee allowed a machine gun (automatic) and a 9mm to be stolen from one of its vehicles. Those two weapons are still loose on the streets of Wisconsin.
There were plenty of opportunities for Nugent to hammer on this. He got very close when he made reference to a 'gun free zone' in Mexico that isn't working. It was the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how defenseless Mexican citizens were when the U.S. Government flooded that 'gun free zone' with assault weapons (AK-47's and .50 Calibers) that were used by criminals to kill innocents. Nugent missed a huge opportunity.
Beginning at the 7:10 mark, Morgan actually tees up a Fast and Furious reference that Nugent completely missed. When talking about the increase in gun sales nationally, Morgan said:
"Do you think America is going to be safer because gun stores like this are selling so furiously and so much faster, weapons and ammunition increasing both in America?"
Talk about a slow, high-hanging curveball right in Nugent's wheelhouse! Guess what? He whiffed. Instead of saying something like, "Let me talk to you about Fast and Furious, Piers..." Nugent apparently didn't see the natural connection.
I love Ted Nugent but frankly, it is getting beyond tiresome to see second amendment proponents like him completely blow by the slam-dunk argument in the gun control debate.
A take-away line begins at the 3:30 mark when Nugent says, "Leave us the hell alone!" This perfectly captures the problem with gun rights proponents in these debates. They're never on offense and the best way to do that is to highlight the deadly irresponsible / nefarious operations of Obama's ATF / DOJ.
David Salkin is a landlord with a storefront property in the Riverwest neighborhood in Milwaukee, WI. In 2012, he leased that storefront - unknowingly - to ATF agents who would then use it to buy and sell guns under the name "Fearless Distributing".
At least two guns - including one machine gun - are now on the streets.
As the gun and drug buys continued, the operation went awry. In September, an agent parked his Ford Explorer at the Alterra on N. Humboldt Blvd., about a half mile away, with three ATF guns stored in a metal box in the back.
About 3 p.m. Sept. 13, an Alterra employee spotted three men breaking into the Explorer. They stole three guns: a Smith & Wesson 9mm handgun, a Sig Sauer .40-caliber pistol and an M-4 .223-caliber fully automatic rifle. They also made off with ammunition and an ATF radio, according to a police report. It does not appear from the reports that the agent was at Alterra at the time of the break-in.
A major push began to find the weapons and the men who stole them, police records show. Two men were quickly arrested. An informant told police one of the suspects was showing off the guns and eight magazines of ammunition shortly after the vehicle burglary, according to police records.
One of the suspects hid the machine gun under a bed and took the handguns with him. He was questioned by police and refused to talk. He was released. No one has been charged in the burglary of the ATF guns, according to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Karen Loebel. She declined to say if charges would be coming.
The ATF soon had one of its stolen guns back, however.
The very next day, according to court documents, 19-year-old Marquise Jones contacted agents at Fearless Distributing and sold the Sig Sauer - and another unrelated handgun - back to agents.
The price: $1,400.
But Jones would not be arrested for two months. And when he was, it was not for the theft. His name does not appear on the police reports related to the vehicle break-in. He was charged with having a stolen gun.
Meanwhile, the hunt for the machine gun and the other stolen handgun continues.
Understandably a bit hypersensitive about ATF operations involving guns, two Congressmen and two Senators who are quite familiar with Operation Fast and Furious, have sent a letter to the acting Director of the ATF - B. Todd Jones - demanding answers to not only how the agency allowed guns to walk in Milwaukee but to a string of other bizarre breakdowns.
Attorney General Eric Holder was cc'd on the letter.
Although residents and the landlord from whom ATF rented the storefront property did not know the true nature of the sham company Fearless Distributing, by March 2012 undercover ATF agents at the store were buying and selling guns. Using taxpayer dollars, these ATF agents paid $1250 for a gun that usually sells for $400 to $700. In fact, some suspects bought guns from stores and then re-sold them to undercover ATF agents at Fearless Distributing for a quick profit.
Note the consequence of the ATF operation; criminals enriched themselves at ATF (taxpayer) expense. This is made additionally more relevant when one considers the treatment received by the landlord from the ATF.
In December 2012, the owner of the property where Fearless Distributing was located asked ATF to pay him $15,000 for damage to walls, doors and carpeting, including a month of lost rent and an overuse of utilities during Fearless Distributing's operation. According to the Journal Sentinel, despite the property owner having met with an ATF supervisor about the burglary and the supervisor assuring the landlord that "they would take care of everything," an ATF attorney reportedly used bully tactics, threatening the landlord with harassment of a federal official.
In this one operation, it's quite obvious that criminals benefited from the ATF's "Fearless Distributing" and the law-abiding landlord appears to be holding the short end of the stick.
Perhaps ATF should have called the store "Fearless Re-Distributing".
