Not surprised by this given the Historic low quality of Obama appointee's...



Holder Leading DOJ 'Cover-up' of Fast and Furious Investigation, Cornyn Says
Wednesday, 05 Oct 2011 03:25 PM

By Martin Gould

Attorney General Eric Holder is leading what looks "more and more like a cover-up" of what he knew about a government-sanctioned gunrunning scheme that allowed hundreds of assault weapons to fall into the hands of violent Mexican drug cartels, says one of the key senators involved in the investigation.

Sen. John Cornyn told Fox News Wednesday that Holder is obstructing congressional investigations. “We need to get to the bottom of this and the attorney general is not helping,” Cornyn said.

“He’s obstructing access to the information that he says will exonerate him and his administration and would need to know what happened and we’re going to find out what happened," said the Texas Republican, who is chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Cornyn said Holder so far has given a “half-hearted and weak” explanation of what he knew about Fast and Furious and when he knew it. The attorney general needs to be called back to testify under oath before Congress, he said.

“If there’s nothing wrong here, if he just didn’t know about it, then he should welcome that kind of inquiry to clear up this confusion,” he said.

Instead, Cornyn said, Holder “is just hoping to brush this under the rug and as happens so often in Washington, it’s not the original offense that’s so bad as the cover-up and I’m afraid it’s beginning to look more and more like a cover-up.”

Holder’s credibility as attorney general has begun to look more tenuous in recent days as attacks have grown. In May he told the House Judiciary Committee that he only learned of the scheme “within the last few weeks,” but emails have now turned up showing that he was told as far back as June 2010.

Now he has hit back at the increasing criticism with an attempt to tie the Bush administration to Fast and Furious. He revealed that a similar scheme called Operation Wide Receiver was in operation in 2006.

That move was slammed by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the top Republican House Member investigating the scandal. “This far into the investigation, throwing out the ‘Bush-administration-did-it-too defense’ reeks of desperation,” Issa’s spokeswoman, Becca Watkins, told Newsmax in a statement.

“If true, it would indicate that Obama Justice officials have engaged in an active effort to deceive Congress about gun-walking they knew had taken place but had strenuously denied until only recently.”

Issa, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, has pledged to broaden his investigation into Fast and Furious to include Wide Receiver. He told CNN’s Anderson Cooper that he is not “giving anyone a pass.”

He said he has learned that Wide Receiver involved fewer weapons than Fast and Furious and there was “much more intensive following” to track the weapons.

Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Upper House’s Judiciary Committee, who has been working alongside Issa to get to the bottom of Fast and Furious, said, “Whether it's Operation Fast and Furious, Operation Wide Receiver, or both, it's clear that guns were walked, and people high in the Justice Department knew about it.

“There's no excuse for walking guns, and if there are more operations like this, Congress and the American people need to know," added the Iowa Senator.

Republicans are beginning to smell blood and are increasing pressure on Holder. Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has called on President Barack Obama to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate how much he knew and when he knew it. Sen. John McCain revealed that the entire Arizona delegation to Congress is “leaning toward” a similar move.

House Speaker John Boehner told Newsmax on Tuesday that he was confident Issa and his committee will “get to the bottom of this program that has caused so much chaos.”

Editor's Note: See "Boehner: Congress Will 'Get to Bottom' of Fast and Furious" — Go Here Now

Under Fast and Furious, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) were ordered not to intervene if they suspected guns bought mainly in Arizona would end up crossing the border to be used by drug cartels. The idea was to trace the weapons which, it was hoped, would lead them to the cartel leaders.

But the ATF lost track of most of the weapons within weeks of the program’s start. In January 2010, 40 were discovered in El Paso, Texas, and in December two were used in a shootout in Arizona that resulted in the death of Border Agent Brian Terry. Another U.S. agent, Jaime Zapata, was killed by a Fast and Furious weapon while working in Mexico, and the guns have been linked to dozens of other crimes south of the border.

Cornyn contineds that Fast and Furious guns have been used in 11 crimes in the United States.

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler defended Holder, saying his testimony to both the Senate and House had been “consistent and truthful.”

“He said in both March and May of this year that he became aware of the questionable tactics employed in the Fast and Furious Operation in early 2011 when ATF agents first raised them publicly, and at the time, he asked the Inspector General's Office to investigate the matter,” said Schmaler, who said references to the scheme were buried in a mountain of details.

"The weekly reports provided to the offices of the attorney general and the deputy attorney general are compiled each week from entries submitted by 24 divisions and components with offices around the country,” she said.

“These routine reports provide general overviews and status updates on policy and legislative issues, public events, news clips, ongoing cases and investigations as well as key filings, hearings, and expected rulings.

“As the documents provided to Congress show, not a single one of these reports referenced the controversial tactics that allowed guns to cross the border, and in fact, in one example provided to Congress consisted of a single sentence referencing a Phoenix-based operation. These reports are compiled to provide regular updates to department leadership and can contain references to hundreds of cases, investigations, filings, court opinions and initiatives going on around the country at any given time.

“None of the handful of entries in 2010 regarding the Fast and Furious suggested there was anything amiss with that investigation requiring leadership to take corrective action or commit to memory this particular operation prior to the disturbing claims raised by ATF agents in the early part of 2011.”

Roger Clemens is going to face his 2nd trial for pergury during testimony to Congress over steroids in baseball.

Why shouldn't Holder ?

Lets see if they go after Holder with the same Gusto they used when they tried to hang a Republican over the Valerie Plame witch hunt.

An independent prosecutor would be a good start . We can't expect Holder to appoint one that's trustworthy .

Expecting Holder to do the right thing... is like expecting the fox that's already been raiding the chicken coop to do anything different.

The only thing I would expect Holder to do is to run interference for the White Houses involvement in all of this, and to minimise or let the guilty off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. I'm certain this goes all the way to the top, and was intended to manufacture another "crisis" to use to deny the 2nd amendment rights of the US population that the left has thus far been unable to succeed at.

I think there's some truth to that theory. Evita certainly considered the possibility back in 2009 with her lie about 90% of the guns in Mexico originating from the US.

I think there's some truth to that theory. Evita certainly considered the possibilty back in 2009 with her lie about 90% of the guns in Mexico originating from the US.

Yeah... and most of those were going there with the help, blessings and assistance of the Obama administration.

I find it amazing that the people that blame this on our 2nd amendment rights refuse to see that if they can move drugs in shipment of multiples of tons internationally, that they for some reason would only be capable of getting guns from the USA. And that they could never get them back to them the same way from anywhere in the world. And we all know how freely arms of all types move around in many parts of the world. If the Drug cartels wanted RPG's they have the capacity to get them in large numbers. Even if the Obama administration didn't want to supply them covertly. Hell they bought submarines after all.

Issa fired back at Holder for his latest excuses.

“You Own Fast and Furious (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1474&Itemid=29)”

I'm just curious how long before Obama finally throws him under the bus.

Issa fired back at Holder for his latest excuses.

“You Own Fast and Furious (http://oversight.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1474&Itemid=29)”

I'm just curious how long before Obama finally throws him under the bus.

And if he is a properly brainwashed Democrat... he'll take the money that will have been promised in an offshore account for his silence, and take the fall and do the time and be quiet. But Obama will rush the trial to take place and finish before he gets voted out of office so he can give him a full pardon before he serves any time.

New Update... and if this doesn't prove Obama isn't involved in this up to his big ears... then the earth doesn't orbit the sun. Mr. Transparent has sealed the records on yet another administration blunder.

U.S. Seals Court Records Of Border Patrol?s Murder | Judicial Watch (http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2011/nov/u-s-seals-court-records-border-patrol-s-murder)


U.S. Seals Court Records Of Border Patrol's Murder

View
Discussion

Last Updated: Wed, 11/23/2011 - 3:51pm

The Obama Administration has abruptly sealed court records containing alarming details of how Mexican drug smugglers murdered a U.S. Border patrol agent with a gun connected to a failed federal experiment that allowed firearms to be smuggled into Mexico.

This means information will now be kept from the public as well as the media. Could this be a cover-up on the part of the “most transparent” administration in history? After all, the rifle used to kill the federal agent (Brian Terry) last December in Arizona's Peck Canyon was part of the now infamous Operation Fast and Furious. Conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the disastrous scheme allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico so they could eventually be traced to drug cartels.

Instead, federal law enforcement officers lost track of more than 1,000 guns which have been used in numerous crimes. In Terry's case, five illegal immigrants armed with at least two semi-automatic assault rifles were hunting for U.S. Border Patrol agents near a desert watering hole just north of the Arizona-Mexico border when a firefight erupted and Terry got hit.

We know this only because Washington D.C.'s conservative newspaper got ahold of the court documents before the government suddenly made them off limits. The now-sealed federal grand jury indictment tells the frightening story of how Terry was gunned down by Mexican drug smugglers patrolling the rugged desert with the intent to “intentionally and forcibly assault” Border Patrol agents.

You can see why the administration wants to keep this information from the public and the media, considering the smugglers were essentially armed by the U.S. government. Truth is, no one will know the reason for the confiscation of public court records in this case because the judge's decision to seal it was also sealed, according to the news story. That means the public or media won't have access to any new or old evidence, filings, rulings or arguments.

A number of high-ranking Border Patrol officials are questioning how the case is being handled. For instance, they wonder why the defendant (Manuel Osorio-Arellanes) hasn't been tried even though it's been almost a year since Terry's murder. They also have concerns about the lack of transparency in the investigation, not to mention the recent sealing of the court case.

Osorio-Arellanes is charged with second-degree murder. The four other drug smugglers fled the scene and their names were blacked out in the indictment. In 2006 Osorio-Arellanes had been convicted in Phoenix of felony aggravated assault and in 2010 he was twice detained for being in the U.S. illegally.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing this month to address the flawed gun-tracking program, Attorney General Eric Holder said it's not fair to assume that mistakes in Operation Fast and Furious led to Terry's death. Holder also expressed regret to the federal agent's family, saying that he can only imagine their pain.

Last month we learned (http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-atf-fast-furious-20130705,0,2692834.story) Holder's botched Fast & Furious claimed yet another victim. A "high-powered rifle" from the gun walking scheme was used to kill Mexican police chief Luis Lucio Rosales Astorga.

CBS has learned that those darn guns just keep turning up at crime scenes (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57598487/more-fast-and-furious-guns-surface-at-crimes-in-mexico/).


Three more weapons from Fast and Furious have turned up at crime scenes in Mexico, CBS News has learned, as the toll from the controversial federal operation grows.

According to Justice Department tracing documents obtained by CBS News, all three guns are WASR-10 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WASR_series_rifles) 762-caliber Romanian rifles. Two were purchased by Fast and Furious suspect Uriel Patino in May and July of 2010. Sean Steward, who was convicted on gun charges in July 2012, purchased a third. The rifles were traced yesterday to the Lone Wolf gun shop in Glendale, Ariz.

During Fast and Furious and similar operations, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) encouraged the Lone Wolf and other gun stores to sell massive amounts of weapons to questionable purchasers who allegedly trafficked them Mexican drug cartels.

Patino is said to have purchased 700 guns while under ATF's watch. Ever since, a steady stream of the guns have been recovered at crime scenes in Mexico and the U.S. But the Justice Department has refused repeated requests from Congress and CBS News to provide a full accounting. An estimated 1,400 guns are still on the street or unaccounted for.

Last November, a Fast and Furious weapon was found at a shootout between a Mexican drug cartel and soldiers where a beauty queen was killed. Two weapons used in the murder of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agent Jaime Zapata in Mexico on Feb. 15, 2011 also came from suspects who were under ATF watch but not arrested at the time. And two Fast and Furious AK-47 type rifles were recovered from the murder scene of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry in December 2010; he'd been shot by illegal immigrants who were smuggling drugs.

ATF special agent John Dodson blew the whistle on his agency's gunwalking in an interview with CBS News in 2011.

The government first denied any guns had been allowed to "walk" into criminal hands. Later, the Justice Department acknowledged using the strategy, claiming it was intended to see where the weapons ended up in hopes of capturing a major cartel leader. But the agency ordered an immediate halt to the practice calling it highly improper.

The Justice Department's refusal to turn over certain Fast and Furious documents led to a bipartisan vote in the House of Representatives in June 2012 to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. Then, the Obama administration used executive privilege for the first time, to withhold requested documents from Congress. The Republican-led House Oversight Committee is suing for release of the material.

And yet this administration had the balls to push for gun control. This administration is responsible for much unnecessary death and carnage with more to come because of this, so if you feel the need to vent your spleen about guns and throw rocks about "obstruction" - point your anger at the Obama administration first.

A judge wasn't too impressed with the admin's argument (http://www.politico.com/story/2013/09/fast-and-furious-doj-documents-97604.html) that getting the courts involved with their "negotiations" with oversight might somehow forever alter the balance of government or something.


A federal judge has rejected Attorney General Eric Holder’s attempt to keep the courts from wading into the “Fast and Furious” documents dispute that led to him being held in contempt by the House last year.

In a ruling Monday night, U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson turned down the Justice Department’s request to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee after President Barack Obama asserted executive privilege to prevent some records about the administration’s response to the “Operation Fast and Furious” gunrunning scandal from being turned over to Congress.

“This case presents the sort of question that the courts are traditionally called upon to resolve,” Jackson said in her 44-page decision, issued more than five months after lawyers argued the issue in her packed courtroom and more than a year after the House committee filed suit. “Dismissing the case without hearing it would in effect place the court’s finger on the scale, designating the executive as the victor based solely on his untested assertion that the privilege applies,” she wrote. …

“The Court rejects the notion that merely hearing this dispute between the branches would undermine the foundation of our government, or that it would lead to the abandonment of all negotiation and accommodation in the future, leaving the courts deluged with subpoena enforcement actions,” Jackson wrote. …

Jackson called the Justice Department’s arguments in the current case “flawed and selective.”

Holder can always focus on kicking poor kids out of good schools and waging his race war while he digs up the documents in an exercise of unprecedented transparency the regime is famous for.

The regime is blocking a whistleblower (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/6/atf-tries-block-whistleblowing-agents-fast-and-fur/) from spilling the beans... because it might "hurt morale."


The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is blocking the main whistleblower in the Fast and Furious case from publishing a book, claiming his retelling of the Mexico “gun-walking” scandal will hurt morale inside the embattled law enforcement agency, according to documents obtained by The Washington Times.

ATF’s dispute with Special Agent John Dodson is setting up a First Amendment showdown that is poised to bring together liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union and conservatives in Congress who have championed Mr. Dodson’s protection as a whistleblower.

The ACLU is slated to become involved in the case Monday, informing ATF it is representing Mr. Dodson and filing a formal protest to the decision to reject his request to publish the already written book, sources told The Times, speaking only on the condition of anonymity.

I would think letting guns walk to drug dealers to be used in hundreds of shootings and the death of one of their own would hurt morale much more than talking about it.

US should make straw purchases of guns a felony (http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/us-should-make-straw-purchases-of-guns-a-felony/article_a2231c48-d678-5f39-8c45-a0840c27464b.html)


Arizona's state laws allow straw purchases to be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, and strengthening the federal laws will help fill in that gap.

The legislation passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee last week on an 11-7 vote, with one Republican voting in support. This is a simple, logical measure that deserves widespread support.


Compare that to Arizona law, which treats a straw purchase as a Class 6 felony, a classification so low it can be charged as a misdemeanor.

"Right now it is against the law in Arizona to knowingly sell or transfer a firearm to someone who is a prohibited possessor," said Pima County Attorney Barbara LaWall. Proving that a seller knew that the buyer cannot legally own a gun can be difficult, she said.

If convicted under that state law, the defendant would be eligible for probation, or could face a sentence of six months to 1.5 years.

We all know how tightening gun loopholes are with you 2nd amendment folks no matter how many people get killed by criminals and loonies and profiteers. Arizona still hasn't changed the law despite your outrage.

They have been running guns and killing law enforcement long before fast and furious.

Tell you what... you give up your free speech first... tell us how well that works before you talk to us about giving up ANY second amendment rights...

One right is no more special than the others... so you really won't care if you actually practice what you preach.

I don't think you have to give up your guns, responsible citizens have a right to them under the law. But is it too much to ask that we make sure its responsible citizens that are the ones to own a gun and not a loony or criminal?

300 million guns and there is no safety? What's wrong with that picture?

Tell you what...you give up your free speech first....tell us how well that works before you talk to us about giving up ANY second amendment rights....

One right is no more special than the others....so you really won't care if you actually practice what you preach.

That's not strictly correct. Freedom of speech is a "natural right". 2nd Amendment rights are legal rights. There is an important difference.

The right to defend yourself isn't a natural right ?

That's not strictly correct. Freedom of speech is a "natural right". 2nd Amendment rights are legal rights. There is an important difference.

Maybe not in Australia... but in the USA it is.

I don't think you have to give up your guns, responsible citizens have a right to them under the law. But is it to much to ask that we make sure its responsible citizens that are the ones to own a gun and not a loony or criminal?

300 million guns and there is no safety? What's wrong with that picture?

How about we regulate freedom of speech too... its obvious there have bgeen way too many Illegals and mentally disturbed people just running off at the mouth. Not to mention the fact the drive by media does nothing but push lies and propaganda... misrepresenting it as truth and fact. How about holding them to at a minimum the same standards Advertisers are held to.

That's not being unreasonible either.

the right to defend yourself isn't a natural right ?

Yes, it is, but you don't have any natural right to defend yourself with any type of firepower you choose. The right to bear arms for these purposes would be subject to civil legislation.

Yes, it is, but you don't have any natural right to defend yourself with any type of firepower you choose. The right to bear arms for these purposes would be subject to civil legislation.

In our case ,that right is guaranteed in the Constitution.

in our case ,that right is guaranteed in the Constitution.


And...

You have a right to bear arms and the arms you bear are subject to discussion, and regulation. And its not for self defense, its for defense of the common good against a tyrannical government. Again, a highly subjective definition.


A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

That's also why we have elections every two years.

You have a right to bear arms and the arms you bear are subject to discussion, and regulation. And its not for self defense, its for defense of the common good against a tyrannical government. Again, a highly subjective definition.



That's also why we have elections every two years.

That "well regulated militia" clause could have said "blueberry donuts." The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is what's relevant. What part of the right, the people, and shall not be infringed do you not comprehend?


Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. -District of Columbia Et al. v. Heller

You have a right to bear arms and the arms you bear are subject to discussion, and regulation. And its not for self defense, its for defense of the common good against a tyrannical government. Again, a highly subjective definition.


Quote:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That's also why we have elections every two years.

Do you really want to debate what the founders meant by 'militia ' in the 19th century ? It is very clear in all their writing that it has no relation to the 21st century definition. Here is a hint for the left... rights are not an issue of "the common good " they are individual rights against the threat of a tyrannical government.

And....

What do you mean "and " ? Rights are not deemed by governments . Powers are .

Maybe not in Austrailia....but in the USA it is.

Again, I would say, this is not correct on two subjects.

Firstly, we don't have a Bill of Rights so the argument isn't applicable to my country.

Secondly, the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment relies of the dependent clause that involves the subject "militia" According to SCOTUS that is.

As far as 1st Amendment is concerned there is no such previses that rely on such a clause to secure the individual aspect. This is one important reason why they are different.

in our case ,that right is guaranteed in the Constitution.

Rights can only be guaranteed by law. In the case of the 2nd this guarantee would be found in a common law tradition dating back a long way.

The constitution and the law are one in the same.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

the constitution and the law are one in the same.
Supremacy Clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause)


Without having read the wiki article I would say they are one and the same, but in a very interesting way. Interesting in terms of "natural rights" At least this is what I think

Again, I would say, this is not correct on two subjects.

Firstly, we don't have a Bill of Rights so the argument isn't applicable to my country.

Secondly, the individual right aspect of the 2nd Amendment relies of the dependent clause that involves the subject "militia" According to SCOTUS that is.

As far as 1st Amendment is concerned there is no such previses that rely on such a clause to secure the individual aspect. This is one important reason why they are different.

The Bill of rights does not differentiate. Rights are rights and can not be taken away simply by dreaming up a law... meaning any law that would be in conflict with ANY of the listed rights would be deamed unconstitutional.

Its clear that Australian citizens have no inherant "Rights" and thus you are at the whim of whatever political party that is in control at the moment.

While we are at the whims of whatever loony fringe minority like the TParty can come up with that's anti government. That's why we are shutdown, and Australia is not, and you fringers are so proud of that fact.

Moved...

While we are at the whims of whatever loony fringe minority like the TParty can come up with that's anti government. That's why we are shutdown, and Australia is not, and you fringers are so proud of that fact.

Wake up Tal... we are in shutdown because Prince Harry and Obama have refused perfectly legal and legitimate spending bills to be approved. Many of which the House has generated... and passed to the Senate, that never ever saw the Senate floor for a vote..

While in the ozone of the lunatic lefts imaginary utopia... where everything caters to the wants and whims of their messiah, the Brown Bozo... the fact remains in the real world where we actually are... the House is who decides what will and won't be an any spending bill.

THere is a shutdown because democrats are having a childish tantrum and meltdown.

The house can propose whatever it wants, the answer is hell NO! The house proposals are as stupid as the TPARTY. You got what you wanted, the government is shut down.

What you aren't happy about it?

The house can propose whatever it wants, the answer is hell NO! The house proposals are as stupid as the TPARTY. You got what you wanted, the government is shut down.

What you aren't happy about it?

The emperor and the Dems owns the shut down .They blew off one Republic CR bill after another . So they own it ,and the emperor will own it if a debt limit resolution isn't reached . But he won't let it go that far... it would mean he would actually have to do his job and make allocation priorities.

The house can propose whatever it wants, the answer is hell NO! The house proposals are as stupid as the TPARTY. You got what you wanted, the government is shut down.

What you aren't happy about it?

Its clear the Democrats are so stupid they think they are in a position to DEMAND what everyone else is going to do... News flash... Obama isn't a God figure... and neither is Harry Reid... the are both mentally ill men with delusions of grandeur.

You DON'T control the House and you are in NO position to demand the house do anything... and I hope they keep everything shut down until those two needle d*cks Harry and Barrak learn to show some respect to people who are NOT subserviant to them.

I never even had to put up with that from a customer... every time someone got an attitude like that with me... I told them, well this isn't going to happen today then... I'll call you back in a few weeks and see if we can try this again or not.

They always show a lot more respect when they have to wait a few weeks extra for getting rude.

http://rlv.zcache.com/fast_furious_gun_running_to_mexico_postcards-r19d945b7d06b47699648c0799cd4038a_vgbaq_8byvr_512. jpg

http://nathanbickel.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/obamainchargeofeverythingresponsiblefornothig.jpg

The Bill of rights does not differentiate. Rights are rights and can not be taken away simply by dreaming up a law....meaning any law that would be in conflict with ANY of the listed rights would be deamed unconstitutional.


You have got 1 out of 3 correct. "Rights are rights" has no validity in this case because it is a tautology. It doesn't necessarily render the whole statement you made meaningless, but that is partly in error as well. This is because the only way rights can be realized is by people dreaming up legislation. Can you think of any other way of giving expression to these rights other than legislation?

The bit you got rights is that legislation can be tested against rights is actually correct. This is why some laws are deemed unconstitutional.

[/QUOTE=smoothy;3566115]

Its clear that Australian citizens have no inherant "Rights" and thus you are at the whim of whatever political party that is in control at the moment.
[/QUOTE]

At least decisions are made so government can getting on with the business at hand.

At least decisions are made so government can getting on with the business at hand.

Tell the Dems to come to the table and work it out.

Tell the Dems to come to the table and work it out.


Sounds reasonable but I don't think they will listen to me.

You have got 1 out of 3 correct. "Rights are rights" has no validity in this case because it is a tautology. It doesn't necessarily render the whole statement you made meaningless, but that is partly in error as well. This is because the only way rights can be realized is by people dreaming up legislation. Can you think of any other way of giving expression to these rights other than legislation?

The bit you got rights is that legislation can be tested against rights is actually correct. This is why some laws are deemed unconstitutional.



At least decisions are made so government can getting on with the business at hand.

You might not see them as rights... but we in the USA do... and we have for several hundred years... in fact we fought a war with England over it.

You might not see them as rights....but we in the USA do...and we have for several hundred years...in fact we fought a war with England over it.

I think you might need to revisit your American history again.

First of all where did I say they weren't rights? In fact I actually arguing they are rights.

Having said that it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your statement as to what I see or the rest of the population see as correct.

I think you might need to revisit your American history again.

First of all where did I say they weren't rights? In fact I actually arguing they are rights.

Having said that it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your statement as to what I see or the rest of the population see as correct.

Really... all the way from Australia you KNOW what the rest of the USA sees them as... but I don't... Thats mighty presumptuous isn't it?

The fact such a large percentage of the USA owns at least one gun indicates they view it as I do... its only the loudmouth liberals here that don't think they are rights... the same ones that want to pick and chose which of the other "Rights" enumerated in our Bill of rights they think we are entitled to. And what anyone outside of the USA thinks means absolutely nothing... because what they think has absolutely no value. Because they aren't US Citizens. They can cower in fear of criminals... because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves in their own homes in their own country.

Really...all the way from Austrailia you KNOW what the rest of the USA sees them as....but I don't....Thats mighty presumptuous isn't it?


Yes, it would be presumptuous, but I didn't say that.

Yes, it would be presumptuous, but I didn't say that.



I think you might need to revisit your American history again.

First of all where did I say they weren't rights? In fact I actually arguing they are rights.

Having said that it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your statement as to what I see or the rest of the population see as correct.

Fact is what anyone thinks is irrelevant.. because it's a right and would require a change to the constitution to change... which can not simply be legislated. Ratification my a supermajority of the States would be required.

And it legally can be done absent the input of House or Senate... or the President. As there is a mechanism built into it for that very purpose.

Repubs don't want to pay the price of waiting until the last minute and screwing things up since both house and senate budgets were on the table in April, of this year.

Their dithering was intentional, and destructive. Now they whine that nobody wants to talk to them.

Repubs don't want to pay the price of waiting until the last minute and screwing things up since both house and senate budgets were on the table in April, of this year.

Their dithering was intentional, and destructive. Now they whine that nobody wants to talk to them.


Yes I agree the Democrats dithering was intentional and destructive... we've been saying that all along when Prince Harry was refusing to even let anything see a vote. Glad you've finally come around to see it too.

I was referencing republican intransigence at not forming a conference committee in April, where this could be hashed out under the rules. The senate had a conference committee ready to go, and the chairman sent 18 letters in regards to this that where not acted on.

That's what makes current events utter BS, theater, and lies.

Repubs don't want to pay the price of waiting until the last minute and screwing things up since both house and senate budgets were on the table in April, of this year.

It only took the Senate almost 4 years (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/us/politics/senate-passes-3-7-trillion-budget-its-first-in-4-years.html) to pass a budget, why are you in a hurry now?

To avoid another credit down grade, and fiscal chaos, and my buddies who have yet to retire losing all their 401k money, and 1.2 billion dollars a week added to the deficit.

To avoid another credit down grade, and fiscal chaos, and my buddies who have yet to retire losing all their 401k money, and 1.2 billion dollars a week added to the deficit.

Since when are you worried about the deficit?

To be honest, I am not because a deficit, and Americans are taken care of is acceptable to deficits that are wasted for nothing or given to someone flush with loot.

A shutdown for republican pride is stupid, since it only makes the loony wingers happy, until they start to suffer.

To be honest, I am not because a deficit, and Americans are taken care of is acceptable to deficits that are wasted for nothing or given to someone flush with loot.

A shutdown for republican pride is stupid, since it only makes the loony wingers happy, until they start to suffer.

It's not about pride, we cannot sustain the type of spending your side wants to engage in. I cannot believe even Democrats treat their personal budgets like they do the country's budget.

Most families run deficits. They have to, be it for car repair, or college tuition. Or catastrophic health concerns. Heck a broken leg is expensive even with insurance.

Most families run deficits. They have to, be it for car repair, or college tuition. Or catastrophic health concerns. Heck a broken leg is expensive even with insurance.

No they don't HAVE to... they do it because they don't know how to or don't WANT to live within their means.

I know that for a fact because despite growing up fairly poor... and going through most of Jr And Sr High school during a crappy economy in a part of the country with a lot of poverty... with both parents having nothing but part time jobs AND a Mortgage... and two boys... They did it.

And it took almost losing everything I had in my 20's from spending more than I made to really grasp that lesson... which I have embraced since then... Except for the mortgage I haven't owed anyone anything that wasn't paid for immediately from money (not floated on a card or with a loan) on hand in almost 25 years. Not even a for a car. And I am below the average median income for the area I live.

Most families run deficits. They have to, be it for car repair, or college tuition. Or catastrophic health concerns. Heck a broken leg is expensive even with insurance.

Most families do not run the type of deficit Washington does and you know it. The point was the people spending all our money (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) do not manage their own budgets that way because it's unsustainable and stupid, why are they doing it to us and why do you excuse it?

Most families do not run the type of deficit Washington does and you know it. The point was the people spending all our money (http://www.usdebtclock.org/) do not manage their own budgets that way because it's unsustainable and stupid, why are they doing it to us and why do you excuse it?

Most families are not responsible for the whole freakin' country. And who shuts down their own household because they owe debts?

Well responsible families control their spending if they are running too much debt. They don't run to the bank and demand more credit .

Families implement a reasonable plan to address needs and pay bills responsibly.

Families implement a reasonable plan to address needs and pay bills responsibly.

THen why does the average family have an average credit card debt of $15,185


American Household Credit Card Debt Statistics: 2013 (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/)

Where the average income is $51,017 a year..

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/17/news/economy/poverty-income/index.html

That's CLEARLY not reasonible.

You analysis is a bit off.

American Household Credit Card Debt Statistics: 2013 (http://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/credit-card-data/average-credit-card-debt-household/)

What lower credit card debt means for the economy


What does this mean? Credit card debt is holding fairly steady – but whether that's a good thing is up for debate. On the one hand, higher consumer spending puts the economy on a positive track. Higher spending leads to more jobs and higher incomes, which in turn lead to higher spending. However, if wages and employment are improving at this sluggish pace, this might well be an indication that families are borrowing to make ends meet rather than a reflection of a well-founded increase in consumer confidence.

This consumer driven economy is in trouble if EVERYBODY stops spending.

Fact is what anyone thinks is irrelevant..because its a right and would require a change to the constitution to change....which can not simply be legislated. Ratification my a supermajority of the States would be required.

And it legally can be done absent the input of House or Senate....or the President. As there is a mechanism built into it for that very purpose.

I see the problem. You are confusing natural rights with legal rights. No one is going to change natural rights. It is impossible for anyone to change natural rights through legislation or Supermajority, or another means what so ever. They are the rights that you have when you are born. No one can take them away.The only thing that can be changed is the legislation that doesn't conform to natural rights.

We will assume for the moment that natural right and natural law are one and the same are one and the same.

Families implement a reasonable plan to address needs and pay bills responsibly.

Unlike the government.

First of all where did I say they weren't rights? In fact I actually arguing they are rights.

Having said that it is irrelevant to the truth or falsity of your statement as to what I see or the rest of the population see as correct.

Ok, let me explain. What I have said here is that truth or falsity of a statement cannot be determined by popular opinion or lack of popular opinion. The statements truth values is something that exists independently of opinions

Unlike the government.

Governments can levy taxes, but you guys don't believe in it. You rather levy poor people, working families, and victims of the strictly for profit business cycle.

Hell you think it's okay the cops and first responders work for free. If you wanted a million workers to have a paid vacation why didn't you just say so?

I see the problem. You are confusing natural rights with legal rights. No one is going to change natural rights. It is impossible for anyone to change natural rights through legislation or Supermajority, or another means what so ever. They are the rights that you have when you are born. No one can take them away.The only thing that can be changed is the legislation that doesn't conform to natural rights.

We will assume for the moment that natural right and natural law are one and the same are one and the same.

As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned... Natural rights and legal rights are one in the same.

They trump any legal statute (meaning you can't write a law that does away with one of the enumerated rights)... as we are discussing the Bill of Rights... Not the legal code of a country. At least in our case. Your actual rights in many countries are about as solid and secure as a fog bank.

Governments can levy taxes, but you guys don't believe in it. You rather levy poor people, working families, and victims of the strictly for profit business cycle.

Hell you think it's okay the cops and first responders work for free. If you wanted a million workers to have a paid vacation why didn't you just say so?

Sorry Tal, I call bullsh*t on that one. All of it - a clear demonstration of Democrat aversion to reality.

As far as the Bill of Rights is concerned...Natural rights and legal rights are one in the same.

They trump any legal statute (meaning you can't write a law that does away with one of the enumerated rights)....as we are discussing the Bill of Rights....Not the legal code of a country. At least in our case. Your actual rights in many countries are about as solid and secure as a fog bank.

They are not one and the same for a not only a very interesting reason, but a logical reason as well. And it is all to do with natural rights. If they were one and the same then they would take the form of a tautology ( X's are X's) and therefore be logically indistinguishable. This is not the case.

They are logically distinguishable for one very good reason. Natural rights or natural laws ( being the same for the purpose of this argument) are actually UNWRITTEN. Where as rights that appear in the Constitution are WRITTEN.

If we don't acknowledge this subtle distinction then you run into contradictions as per your second paragraph.

When you say you are discussing the Bill of Rights and not the legal code of the country; natural rights and legal rights being one and the same, then you are in fact discussing the legal code of your country.

Now I know I will be accused of counting angels on the head of a pin, but if we don't acknowledge important logical distinctions when required then we usually end up with a logical contradiction on our hands.