Archive

Obama's "Fast and Furious"

  • tk421
    So, how come there isn't a thread about the gun running program that the Obama administration has been using? The liberal media has swept this under the rug, the Obama administration allowing guns to be sold to Mexican drug cartels and at the same time trying to call for increased gun control on law abiding Americans. It's outstanding that the left is willing to turn a blind eye to this crap. If this were a Republican administration, you know damn well the calls for impeachment would be loud and numerous.

    Thankfully some members of Congress are starting to probe into this disgusting program, although I doubt Obama will get touched by this hopefully some high up heads in his administration roll for this crap.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-06/possible-u-s-payments-to-gun-smugglers-probed-by-congress.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/10/earlyshow/main20070475.shtml
    Officials at the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) encouraged gun shops to sell thousands of assault rifles and other weapons destined for Mexican drug cartels.

    Last June, about nine months into the ATF operation known as "Fast and Furious," suspects had "purchased 1,608 firearms for over $1 million in cash transactions at various Phoenix-area gun shops," according to internal documents obtained by CBS News. The documents indicate ATF already knew that 179 of those very weapons had turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, and 130 in the U.S.

    Yet, ATF allowed some of the same suspects -- accused of being middlemen for Mexican drug cartels -- to continue to buy and transfer assault weapons. Sometimes, agents say, they videotaped the buys, but didn't interdict the guns.
    I don't care what the intentions were, that they let known criminals buy weapons in the U.S. and take them across the border is despicable. The same administration who would like nothing more than to restrict the 2nd Amendment for everyone in this country.
  • coyotes22
    There you go,,,,, You right wing nut job, you keep clinging to your guns and religion!!!
  • coyotes22
    ccrunner609;827041 wrote:guns and religion are all we are going to have.......

    Yea, but, its going to be Muslim Police that Obama appoints, carrying AK47's
  • derek bomar
    speaking of guns...can we cut the fucking military budget? Jesus.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58661.html
  • Con_Alma
    derek bomar;827046 wrote:speaking of guns...can we cut the ****ing military budget? Jesus.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/58661.html


    We certainly need to consider it but the military is one of the few things I actually want from the federal government.
  • I Wear Pants
    Not that fucking huge though.

    We don't need to consider it, it needs to be drastically reduced and now.
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;827069 wrote:Not that ****ing huge though.

    We don't need to consider it, it needs to be drastically reduced and now.

    I agree that the defense budget needs reduced, but the problem with most of the "liberals" is that they don't understand that the defense is one of the only "huge" ticket items in our overall budget that the Constitution actually allows for.

    The US Constitution does not call for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare, etc. The US Constitution does call for the defense of the nation however.

    Something to think about anyway.
  • BoatShoes
    jmog;827272 wrote:I agree that the defense budget needs reduced, but the problem with most of the "liberals" is that they don't understand that the defense is one of the only "huge" ticket items in our overall budget that the Constitution actually allows for.

    The US Constitution does not call for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare, etc. The US Constitution does call for the defense of the nation however.

    Something to think about anyway.

    The Constitution only gives Congress the power to raise an Army and a Navy in plain language..."Common Defense" is only found in the Taxing and Spending Clause and such justifications for our large defense budget are susceptible to the same types of slippery slope arguments that Conservatives use against broad interpretations of "General Welfare" in the same clause. Based on grammatical rules and commonly applied canons of construction you can't easily claim that Congress has the duty to provide for the common defense (whatever that is) and not the general welfare (whatever that is). Does "defense" mean Nuclear Weapons, spy operations, arming foreign militias, creating clone armies of Storm Troopers? It very well could. But if that's true, "General Welfare" could surely mean very modest social insurance programs for people who are unable to work because they are old or disabled, etc. applying similar interpretations of words in the same clause.

    Therefore if you're going to say that the founders would have intended for our current DoD appropriations based upon that language it's difficult to suggest that our welfare state might not also be justified effectively making the taxing and spending clause along with the N&P clause a grant of a general police power like the States have (which Congress "doesn't have" but much of our government is difficult to justify; FBI, CIA, etc. unless there is one because it's difficult to see how much of our government could coexist with say Justice Thomas' view of the Constitution).
  • Belly35
    This type of operation is not one that mid manager would make . This goes up the chair of command ... This is a Tim Geithner and link to Obama policy ( impeachable action)
  • Con_Alma
    BoatShoes;827507 wrote:The Constitution only gives Congress the power to raise an Army and a Navy in plain language..."Common Defense" is only found in the Taxing and Spending Clause and such justifications for our large defense budget are susceptible to the same types of slippery slope arguments that Conservatives use against broad interpretations of "General Welfare" in the same clause. Based on grammatical rules and commonly applied canons of construction you can't easily claim that Congress has the duty to provide for the common defense (whatever that is) and not the general welfare (whatever that is). Does "defense" mean Nuclear Weapons, spy operations, arming foreign militias, creating clone armies of Storm Troopers? It very well could. But if that's true, "General Welfare" could surely mean very modest social insurance programs for people who are unable to work because they are old or disabled, etc. applying similar interpretations of words in the same clause.

    Therefore if you're going to say that the founders would have intended for our current DoD appropriations based upon that language it's difficult to suggest that our welfare state might not also be justified effectively making the taxing and spending clause along with the N&P clause a grant of a general police power like the States have (which Congress "doesn't have" but much of our government is difficult to justify; FBI, CIA, etc. unless there is one because it's difficult to see how much of our government could coexist with say Justice Thomas' view of the Constitution).
    I'm in. Cut the defense as equivalently as the "common welfare" expenditures are reduced in order to balance the budget. Sign me up.

    If any politician wanted to play poker by stating that liberal interpretations were being made regarding defense expenditures I'd be happy to lay down my arms and say I'll cut the same percentage from defending the nation as is cut for social programs.
  • cruiser_96
    Con_Alma;827517 wrote:I'm in. Cut the defense as equivalently as the "common welfare" expenditures are reduced in order to balance the budget. Sign me up.

    If any politician wanted to play poker by stating that liberal interpretations were being made regarding defense expenditures I'd be happy to lay down my arms and say I'll cut the same percentage from defending the nation as is cut for social programs.

    Man crush! L-O-V-E it, Con_Alma. Period!!!
  • Little Danny
    I saw the title of the thread and thought it was about Michelle's nickname for Little BHO.
  • majorspark
    BoatShoes;827507 wrote:The Constitution only gives Congress the power to raise an Army and a Navy in plain language...
    The constitution also defines differences governing the allocation of federal funds between these two branches. Under which would the Air Force fall? By default it has been as the Navy. The reason the appropriations of funds is limited to two yrs is the founders feared the power of the army to oppress the people. Though the navy has power to do so its power is limited to the water and lands in proximity to it. Air power is not limited by geography. Although it does have its limitations.

    Allocation of federal funds for air power by default is governed as the navy. Right or wrong I dunno. I ask you this what state would not have granted the feds the power to maintain an Air Force via an amendment? Easy pass. My only beef is through the amendment process the allocation of funds would have constitutionally been defined. Would the Air Force be limited to the two year limit or as the Navy?
    BoatShoes;827507 wrote:"Common Defense" is only found in the Taxing and Spending Clause and such justifications for our large defense budget are susceptible to the same types of slippery slope arguments that Conservatives use against broad interpretations of "General Welfare" in the same clause. Based on grammatical rules and commonly applied canons of construction you can't easily claim that Congress has the duty to provide for the common defense (whatever that is) and not the general welfare (whatever that is). Does "defense" mean Nuclear Weapons, spy operations, arming foreign militias, creating clone armies of Storm Troopers? It very well could. But if that's true, "General Welfare" could surely mean very modest social insurance programs for people who are unable to work because they are old or disabled, etc. applying similar interpretations of words in the same clause.
    You are correct that "common defense" and "general welfare" are found in the clause granting the federal congress the power of taxation and the spending of those funds. They are not separate powers. They are qualifying terms meant to show the limits of the federal congress's power to tax and spend. Its the introductory clause laying out the powers of congress.

    The power to tax and spend is listed first because it is the power that provides the means to implement the rest that follow. Simply all enumerated powers have to be used in a manner that provide for the common defense and general welfare of all under the union. Congress can't use its power to benefit one state over another, one group over another, itself over the states, or to use its revenue generating powers in an unequal manner within the union to strong arm its will. Whether they relate to matters of defense or domestic use of tax dollars.
    BoatShoes;827507 wrote:Therefore if you're going to say that the founders would have intended for our current DoD appropriations based upon that language it's difficult to suggest that our welfare state might not also be justified effectively making the taxing and spending clause along with the N&P clause a grant of a general police power like the States have (which Congress "doesn't have" but much of our government is difficult to justify; FBI, CIA, etc. unless there is one because it's difficult to see how much of our government could coexist with say Justice Thomas' view of the Constitution).

    Justice Thomas as myself does not believe that all of the departments of the federal government you mention and many more should not exist. I would have to address each ones merit on an individual basis. But clearly many departments of the federal government should have passed through the amendment process. Most of them would easily have passed.

    The states would have been more than happy to hand over many of these powers. And their scope would be constitutionally defined. Some would have been rejected. No doubt about that. That is the fear of the feds. The limitation of federal power. Unfortunately for the feds it is the theme of the constitution. A little fact they would like to be kept under the rug. The constitution is a living and breathing document but only through the amendment process.
  • majorspark
    Take a closer look at the necessary and proper clause. It is not wholly a separate power. Its the conclusion of the enumerated powers of congress.

    To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

    It only applies specifically to the enumerated powers of congress listed above in article I section 8. And any other power vested in the Constitution. Such as laws need for the maintenance of the judiciary and the executive.
  • BGFalcons82
    Eventually, the Progressives will have changed the word, "promote" the general welfare, to "provide" in their Living Constitution and all will be lollipops and candy canes in Amerika.

    But enough about that. The thread is about the Obama Administration selling arms to Mexican drug cartels ostensibly to track them, pounce on the perpetrators (maybe drone attacks?), bring them to justice and voila...there will be peace in the valley. Umm...one small tidbit that these folks getting on-the-job-training forgot to do: track the farking weapons! Hell, they put GPS devices on cars without the car-owner's knowledge, why can't they put these devices inside the weapons? How stupid are they...sell weapons to known guerillas/drug lords/animals, then watch where they go and see whom they kill with the weapons. This is acceptable behavior?

    Oliver North and Ronald Reagan were crucified for selling arms for hostages. This bunch sells arms for...ummm...uhhh...well....sheesh....ahem....what did they sell them for? What did we gain? Oh yeah...death for innocent people and Americans. Where is the outrage from the Left? Where are the hit-pieces from the Liberal Media? Where are the Senate Hearings? Where is the picture of Eric Holder on the covers of major magazines with pictures of dead Americans in the background? Oh...I forgot. We have a messiah in the White House and his bunch can do nothing wrong. Ever. Somehow, Bush has to be to blame here...
  • jmog
    BoatShoes;827507 wrote:The Constitution only gives Congress the power to raise an Army and a Navy in plain language..."Common Defense" is only found in the Taxing and Spending Clause and such justifications for our large defense budget are susceptible to the same types of slippery slope arguments that Conservatives use against broad interpretations of "General Welfare" in the same clause. Based on grammatical rules and commonly applied canons of construction you can't easily claim that Congress has the duty to provide for the common defense (whatever that is) and not the general welfare (whatever that is). Does "defense" mean Nuclear Weapons, spy operations, arming foreign militias, creating clone armies of Storm Troopers? It very well could. But if that's true, "General Welfare" could surely mean very modest social insurance programs for people who are unable to work because they are old or disabled, etc. applying similar interpretations of words in the same clause.

    Therefore if you're going to say that the founders would have intended for our current DoD appropriations based upon that language it's difficult to suggest that our welfare state might not also be justified effectively making the taxing and spending clause along with the N&P clause a grant of a general police power like the States have (which Congress "doesn't have" but much of our government is difficult to justify; FBI, CIA, etc. unless there is one because it's difficult to see how much of our government could coexist with say Justice Thomas' view of the Constitution).

    1. I believe the defense budget needs cut too.
    2. You conveniently forgot the action verbs before those phrases provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. It does NOT say provide for the general welfare. That is a huge difference.
  • Writerbuckeye
    BGFalcons82;827775 wrote:Eventually, the Progressives will have changed the word, "promote" the general welfare, to "provide" in their Living Constitution and all will be lollipops and candy canes in Amerika.

    But enough about that. The thread is about the Obama Administration selling arms to Mexican drug cartels ostensibly to track them, pounce on the perpetrators (maybe drone attacks?), bring them to justice and voila...there will be peace in the valley. Umm...one small tidbit that these folks getting on-the-job-training forgot to do: track the farking weapons! Hell, they put GPS devices on cars without the car-owner's knowledge, why can't they put these devices inside the weapons? How stupid are they...sell weapons to known guerillas/drug lords/animals, then watch where they go and see whom they kill with the weapons. This is acceptable behavior?

    Oliver North and Ronald Reagan were crucified for selling arms for hostages. This bunch sells arms for...ummm...uhhh...well....sheesh....ahem....what did they sell them for? What did we gain? Oh yeah...death for innocent people and Americans. Where is the outrage from the Left? Where are the hit-pieces from the Liberal Media? Where are the Senate Hearings? Where is the picture of Eric Holder on the covers of major magazines with pictures of dead Americans in the background? Oh...I forgot. We have a messiah in the White House and his bunch can do nothing wrong. Ever. Somehow, Bush has to be to blame here...

    If the Bush administration had tried this bullshit, they would have been impeached.
  • BGFalcons82
    American victim of "Fast and Furious" - http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/07/11/family-murdered-patrol-agent-seek-justice/?icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk2%7C77301

    So far, other than Derek's deflection off the topic, there hasn't been any defense of this superlative operation by the normal and customary Obama backers. What say ye?
  • jhay78
    BoatShoes;827507 wrote:The Constitution only gives Congress the power to raise an Army and a Navy in plain language..."Common Defense" is only found in the Taxing and Spending Clause and such justifications for our large defense budget are susceptible to the same types of slippery slope arguments that Conservatives use against broad interpretations of "General Welfare" in the same clause. Based on grammatical rules and commonly applied canons of construction you can't easily claim that Congress has the duty to provide for the common defense (whatever that is) and not the general welfare (whatever that is). Does "defense" mean Nuclear Weapons, spy operations, arming foreign militias, creating clone armies of Storm Troopers? It very well could. But if that's true, "General Welfare" could surely mean very modest social insurance programs for people who are unable to work because they are old or disabled, etc. applying similar interpretations of words in the same clause.

    Therefore if you're going to say that the founders would have intended for our current DoD appropriations based upon that language it's difficult to suggest that our welfare state might not also be justified effectively making the taxing and spending clause along with the N&P clause a grant of a general police power like the States have (which Congress "doesn't have" but much of our government is difficult to justify; FBI, CIA, etc. unless there is one because it's difficult to see how much of our government could coexist with say Justice Thomas' view of the Constitution).
    jmog;827802 wrote:1. I believe the defense budget needs cut too.
    2. You conveniently forgot the action verbs before those phrases provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare. It does NOT say provide for the general welfare. That is a huge difference.

    1. I agree with you on that.
    2. Based on grammatical rules and commonly applied canons of construction, you're exactly right. "Promote" does not = "Provide".
  • I Wear Pants
    jmog;827272 wrote:I agree that the defense budget needs reduced, but the problem with most of the "liberals" is that they don't understand that the defense is one of the only "huge" ticket items in our overall budget that the Constitution actually allows for.

    The US Constitution does not call for Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Unemployment/Welfare, etc. The US Constitution does call for the defense of the nation however.

    Something to think about anyway.
    Yes, we need a military.

    No, we don't need to spend anywhere close to what we spend on it.
  • believer
    BGFalcons82;827775 wrote:Oliver North and Ronald Reagan were crucified for selling arms for hostages. This bunch sells arms for...ummm...uhhh...well....sheesh....ahem....what did they sell them for? What did we gain? Oh yeah...death for innocent people and Americans. Where is the outrage from the Left? Where are the hit-pieces from the Liberal Media? Where are the Senate Hearings? Where is the picture of Eric Holder on the covers of major magazines with pictures of dead Americans in the background? Oh...I forgot. We have a messiah in the White House and his bunch can do nothing wrong. Ever. Somehow, Bush has to be to blame here...
    The Bammer Administration and his K-Y butt buddies in the media are no doubt "strategerizing" how how to pin this on Bush. ;)
  • coyotes22
  • jmog
    I Wear Pants;827963 wrote:Yes, we need a military.

    No, we don't need to spend anywhere close to what we spend on it.

    I agree with that, for every amount (on a percentage basis) we cut on medicare/medicaid/SS, make the same cuts on defense.
  • Ty Webb
    Where anywhere did it say they sold these to Mexican Drug Cartels........you can't just make things up
  • BGFalcons82
    Ty Webb;828423 wrote:Where anywhere did it say they sold these to Mexican Drug Cartels........you can't just make things up

    Whom did the sell them to? The mom n pop grocery store owners in Juarez? Maybe they sold them to grannies in nursing homes? Come on, Ty....just once come out against SOMETHING Obama does.