Fast, Furious, and without a Hitch

Charles Lewis


It tickles me how loathe the public is to see patterns, and how reticent the Right is to point them out.  For instance, why do even some of the scandal's ostensively harshest critics seemingly absentmindedly refer to the Obama DOJ's ignominious Fast & Furious as a "failed project?"  


I'll review the facts as best one can piece them together through the fog of disinformation, stonewalling, and executive privilege, and you tell me whether the picture painted is one of a failed operation or rather one that went like clockwork, but for the fact that it was discovered:


1  We had an administration determined to undermine the Second Amendment, with the misnamed "assault weapon" category its first target area.


2  This administration arrived claiming that such weapons, bought in US gun shops, constituted the bulk of the artillery that was resulting in a huge body count in the drug wars south of the border.


3  The idea was to short circuit the availability here of such arms, and maybe shut down many, most, or all American gun dealers in the process, based on the above pretext.


4  Trouble was the vast majority of such weaponry had entered Mexico from points outside the US, and even what little did enter from here (if any) was not the result of purchases from gun dealers.


5  Thus confronted with an agenda without a "good crisis" to propel it, the administration decided to "fulfill the prophecy," by intentionally getting huge caches of such arms into the hands of the worst and most violent of the cartelista narcotraficantes down Mexico way, and hope that it produced a blood bath that would be traced to gun dealers stateside.

6  The result, predictably, was hundreds of corpses among the Mexican populace and at least a couple of our guys to boot.


7  Had the truth not leaked out, this would have set up exactly what the government had sought all along - the impetus to impose draconian strictures on the American self defense industry.


Somebody tell me where the "failure" is in any of this (up to this point in the account, at least)?  As an operation, it was flawless.


It's not the operation's fault if, after the project's rousing success, word got out that the Obama/Holder scenario wasn't the real one.  If I return a punt 90 yards for an apparent touchdown and, as I'm crossing the goal line, one of my teammates commits an illegal block in the back way out at the thirty yard line so that the play is called back, was my run itself "failed," or did something out of my control cause the failure?


Nope, Fast & Furious almost certainly produced pretty much exactly was it was designed to produce, and, for its part, at least, it put the regime in perfect position to capitalize in spades.  It was only the unforeseen revelation that forestalled total victory.


I say "forestalled" and not "thwarted" because when it's your instant replay camera, you get to salvage a lot of blown plays.  What's that coming down the field?  A UN small arms treaty ready for rubberstamping by just enough closet RINOs to push it past the 67 votes necessary for ratification?


Oh, and count on them (or whoever's turn it happens to be) to pile on with LOST, "rights of the person," "rights of the child," "affordable health care" (oops, that betrayal's already old news), and whatever else this runaway one-time republic is slated to endure.  So it's "all good," isn't it?


In a just world, somebody would be facing a Nuremberg-style tribunal for premeditated mass murder.


And in a sane one, not one of those Hispanic Caucus types that walked out of the House in protest of an attempt to "hold Holder" at least nominally accountable for an atrocity where about three hundred of their "raza" compadres were intentionally slaughtered (to facilitate a tyrannical agenda among the gringos) would be re-elected this November.


But, then again, this world is nothing if not unjust and insane...

Handwriting on the Washington Wall

by Charles R Lewis


Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Warren Burger, William Brennan, John Harlan, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter. Lewis Powell, Potter Stewart. Charles Whittaker, John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, and now, most prominently, John Roberts: a list of the Republican-appointed Supreme Court Justices who have participated in 2½ generations of shredding of your Constitution and dissolution of your freedoms.  These wolves in sheep's clothing have given the left victories in every crucial case over a period of more than a half century.  And the close of the latest SCOTUS session underscored that the fix is still in.


If you go back as far as I do, you should have learned by now that, no matter who appointed whom, nothing substantially good is going to come out of America's usurping "highest of the three co-equal branches."  Even if you just go back to the recent Rehnquist Court, if you were paying attention you noticed that an assemblage where the GOP-appointees outnumbered the Dems 7-2 still consistently gave the left victory after victory - from Kelo vs New Haven, which gave local governments the ability to steal people's property and give it to others who would produce more tax revenues, to McCain-Feingold, which essentially outlawed free speech in electoral campaigns, to various anti-Christian rulings, the Court gave America's enemies pretty much exactly what they wanted, time after time.


At the prevailing ratio back then, the left needed three "crossovers," and got them in the persons of Souter, Stevens, and (taking turns, as if consciously to preserve their images as "centrists," all the while giving the statists 5-4 victories) either O'Connor or Kennedy.


Flashing to the present, Roberts has completed the conversion of America into a hardcore socialist dictatorship with his convoluted rubber stamping of what I call, "Robomacare," "Robamatax," or even "Robomneytax," in recognition of the inspiration for the plan, who gives America the most vexing presidential electoral "choice" yet.  And don't forget, Kennedy is still on the Court for whenever it's his turn once again to sell us out.


Something's wrong with this picture.  America is being "played."


Supposedly, Republican presidents weren't going to appoint any more Warrens or Souters.  With the goal posts already moved light years to the left of the Founding Fathers' playing field, it was crucial that the "mistake" not be made again.


Roberts, we were led to believe, had been thoroughly vetted and didn't have a Roe vs Wade, a Miranda, a school prayer ban, or a primary runoff prohibition (the one that, ironically, got both McCain and Romney - both despised by the party's conservative rank and file - nominated without winning majorities in individual states, thanks also to seemingly planted "conservatives" who divided that vote and refused to drop out even when it was clear their presence could only result in Mitt's nomination) in his (Roberts') deliberative psyche.


Right.  Even Ann Coulter (currently Romney's self appointed spinmeister) warned us about Roberts very early in his confirmation process.  Now Robomneytax, part of a string of rulings where America lost the farm thanks in large part to Roberts,  lets us know exactly where he - along with America's rationale for trust in Republican appointees - stands.


Beware a president with (D) or (R) after his name, Mitt Romney - who appointed only nine of his fellow Republicans among his thirty-six bench appointments as governor of Massachusetts - especially.


So vote Libertarian, right?  Yeah, for Gary Johnson, who'll push to legalize every drug through heroin, and is pro-abortion (though against the death penalty for serial murderer-rapists, etc), pro-gay marriage, pro-prostitution, pro-open borders (oops, I'm a Christian and a patriot).


Constitutionalist?  Even that party couldn't find anyone better this year than a guy (Virgil Goode) who's spent about as much of his political career as a (D) as as an (R).  He championed the toxic "Equal Rights Amendment" in its heyday, has voted for huge farm subsidies and race-based spoils, and said recently he'd cut defense and not touch entitlements.  No, thanks.


Once again, that leaves America's Party, at least as viable as the aforementioned two "third parties," and ideologically pure, with a rigid policy pledge that will hold all candidates' feet to the fire, on penalty of immediate withdrawal of support.  Tom Hoefling, longtime head of the Alan Keyes braintrust, is the candidate this time around, Keyes (the previous banner waver) having retired from elective politics.


There are a couple others - Wiley Drake and Laurie Roth - with similar issue positions (I can personally vouch for all three, but Hoefling has a big head start on the others in terms of ballot access and party apparatus, and figures to be on by far the most ballots).  Yes, it's a longshot, but America is far enough gone that a candidate like Hoefling, with ballot access very likely in the vast majority of states, appears well worth our consideration, especially if the voters therein ever wake up to Romney.


Romney - you remember him, the one with a lower gun rating than his Democrat gubernatorial opponent, the one who introduced socialized medicine on the state level, imposed gay propaganda on kindergarteners, caused Catholic Charities to be shut down for not adopting out orphans to sodomite couples, and promised he'd never interfere with "a woman's right to choose," the one whose reaction to the Obamnesty executive order was, essentially, to assert it didn't go far enough, the one who was the only Republican candidate absent from most of the "Values Voters" debates - is not the one to save an imperiled America.  No way no how.  


Fool you repeatedly, shame on you.


Desperate times call for desperate measures.  Ask yourself if a vote for McCain was worth it.  Ask if he even tried to win.  Ask yourself if Romney is in any sense a better candidate or even better on the issues than McCain, or, for that matter, Obama.


And, most importantly, ask yourself what your God would have you do.  And pray for America and your children and theirs.