Been busy latley with two new jobs! But thought youd like this!

Mexican government shrugs off CBS News investigation on ‘walked guns’

• February 26th, 2011 11:28 am ET

Do you like this Article?

Despite corroboration by CBS News of allegations by Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents that monitored guns were allowed to be smuggled into their country by agency managers, the Mexican government has chosen not to address any of the specific charges in its reaction to the report:

Ricardo Alday, spokesman for the Mexican Embassy in Washington, D.C. said Mexico intends to continue to work with the U.S. to enhance intelligence and information sharing, and that Mexico "will continue to encourage more aggressive interdiction efforts on the U.S. side of the border."

Why the public evasion?  Especially since we can extrapolate that Mexican nationals have paid a price in blood for the “Project Gunwalker”* gun monitoring operation gone awry:

What we don't know yet, because the ATF and the Justice Department are unwilling to tell us, are the names of the faceless dead of other people in Mexico killed with rifles of similar provenance, provided them by SAC Newell and friends in the Phoenix ATF office.

“Mexican Government is hip to Bandidos Gabachos as long as they carry ATF badges, apparently,” Mike Vanderboegh of Sipsey Street Irregulars concludes.

And yet the Mexican government had been informed of the allegations long before the CBS News report surfaced, personally by Vanderboegh, who has issued follow-up information releases both to them as well as members of the Mexican press throughout his investigation of this story.

So why the deliberate indifference?

Possibly, it’s because they want to minimize scrutiny of their own corrupt role in arming cartels:

A Mexican army officer assigned to guard President Felipe Calderon leaked military intelligence to drug cartels, trained hit men and supplied military weapons to Los Zetas, according to a U.S. Embassy cable recently released by Wikileaks.

There’s another piece of the puzzle for that State Department tie-in mentioned the other day that could expand the Grassley Senate investigation.

St. Louis Gun Rights ExaminerKurt Hofmann makes a particularly relevant observation about timing:

As Charlotte Gun Rights Examiner Paul Valone pointed out in private correspondence, that U.S. Embassy cable is dated January, 2009, meaning that when, a couple months later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton blamed violence in Mexico on "[o]ur inability to prevent weapons from being illegally smuggled across the border to arm these criminals," she was well aware that the drug syndicates were not depending on the U.S. commercial gun market for their weapons.

So Hillary knew at the time that Calderon’s own inner circle was neck-deep in profiteering from cartel connections and military arms supplying. As did Calderon, of course, who still continued to demand a ban on semiautomatic firearms be imposed against United States citizens.

Information about Calderon’s inner circle being involved would also have been known by William Hoover, ATF’s Assistant Director for Field Operations and Anthony P. Placido, DEA’s Assistant Administrator for Intelligence Division, at the time of their statement before the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommitee on Crime and Drugs, concerning “Law enforcement responses to Mexican drug cartels,” presented March 17, 2009 (over a week before Clinton’s statement on the situation).

Yet here is what Hoover and Placido told the subcommittee, while testifying "the greatest proportion of firearms trafficked to Mexico originate out of the U.S. along the southwest border":

Internationally, the Department enjoys a strong collaborative relationship with law enforcement and other government agencies within Mexico and throughout the world. The Department would not have achieved the success it has without the remarkable support and courageous actions of the Mexican government.

A few questions:

Was that joint agency statement provided under oath?

In re testifying about “a strong collaborative relationship,” will investigations find that a decision to keep the Mexican government uniformed about “gun walking” operations was already either under discussion or in practice (note that Jaime Avila, who purchased the weapons found at  Border Patrol agent Brian Terry’s murder scene, was documented as being under government surveillance in late 2009)?

Noting tie-ins not only with the highest levels in both the Justice and State Departments, as well as within his own government with its ruthless cartel connections, is it any wonder the Mexican spokesman didn’t want to say any more than he did?

Also see:

• A journalist’s guide to ‘Project Gunwalker' for a complete list with links of independent investigative reporting and commentary done to date by Sipsey Street Irregulars and Gun Rights Examiner.

*Note to newcomers to this story: “Project Gunrunner” is the name ATF assigned to its Southwest Border Initiative to interdict gun smuggling to Mexico. “Project Gunwalker” is the name I assigned to the scandal after allegations by agents that monitored guns were allowed to fall into criminal hands on both sides of the border through a surveillance process termed “walking” surfaced.

------------

Help wanted--inquire within

Regular readers: If you agree that mainstream press coverage of the gun rights issue demands a counter-balance, please help me spread the word by sharing Gun Rights Examiner links with your friends via emails, and in online discussion boards, blogs, etc. (Also note “Share” options, below.) Then get more commentary at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.

By David Codrea

Continue reading on Examiner.com: Mexican government shrugs off CBS News investigation on ‘walked guns’ - National gun rights | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/mexican-government-shrugs-off-cbs-news-investigation-on-walked-guns?CID=examiner_alerts_article#ixzz1F7YsgWAY

Feds Want, Feds Want, Feds Want!!!! The Hell you Say!

They just Keep Pushing and Pushing...Time to just Say NO!

Feds want reporting for high-powered rifle sales

AP

By ALICIA A. CALDWELL, Associated Press Alicia A. Caldwell, Associated Press – 1 hr 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The federal agency that monitors gun sales wants weapons dealers near the Mexican border to start reporting multiple sales of high-powered rifles, according to a notice published in the Federal Register.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has asked the White House budget office to approve an emergency request requiring border-area gun dealers to report the sales of two or more rifles to the same customer within a five-day period.
The emergency request, published Friday in the Federal Register, is likely to face stiff opposition from gun rights advocates, including the National Rifle Association. ATF wants the Office of Budget Management to approve the request by Jan. 5.
NRA officials did not immediately return a telephone message for comment Monday. Last week the group's chief lobbyist, Chris Cox, told the Washington Post that the "NRA supports legitimate efforts to stop criminal activity, but we will not stand idle while our Second Amendment is sacrificed for politics." The Post first reported the proposal.
High-powered rifles have become the weapon of choice for Mexico's warring drug cartel. More than 30,000 people have been killed in Mexico's drug war since President Felipe Calderon launched an offensive against the powerful drug gangs shortly after taking office in late 2006.
Officials on both sides of the border have said weapons bought legally in the United States are routinely smuggled into the Mexico. The proposed reporting requirement would apply to sales of two or more semi-automatic guns more powerful than .22-caliber rifles that use a detachable magazine within a five-day period.
ATF, which tracks weapons found in Mexico and has tied tens of thousands of recovered guns to U.S. dealers, has been criticized for not doing enough to curb the flow of guns to Mexico, where firearms sales are highly restricted.
Last month a Justice Department report on the agency's Operation Gunrunner criticized the program as being narrowly focused on individual gun buyers and not larger smuggling organizations believed responsible for significant numbers of guns being shipped across the border.
Currently there are no reporting requirements for rifles.
If approved by the White House, the new reporting requirement would affect nearly 8,500 border-area gun dealers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas and be in place for 180 days.

Will Somebody Tell that Little Turd, the FCC, to leave my Internet Alone!

NO MORE GOVERNMENT CONTROL!!

The Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal

The FCC's Threat to Internet Freedom

'Net neutrality' sounds nice, but the Web is working fine now. The new rules will inhibit investment, deter innovation and create a billable-hours bonanza for lawyers.

By ROBERT M. MCDOWELL

Tomorrow morning the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) will mark the winter solstice by taking an unprecedented step to expand government's reach into the Internet by attempting to regulate its inner workings. In doing so, the agency will circumvent Congress and disregard a recent court ruling.

How did the FCC get here?

For years, proponents of so-called "net neutrality" have been calling for strong regulation of broadband "on-ramps" to the Internet, like those provided by your local cable or phone companies. Rules are needed, the argument goes, to ensure that the Internet remains open and free, and to discourage broadband providers from thwarting consumer demand. That sounds good if you say it fast.

View Full Image

David Klein

Nothing is broken that needs fixing, however. The Internet has been open and freedom-enhancing since it was spun off from a government research project in the early 1990s. Its nature as a diffuse and dynamic global network of networks defies top-down authority. Ample laws to protect consumers already exist. Furthermore, the Obama Justice Department and the European Commission both decided this year that net-neutrality regulation was unnecessary and might deter investment in next-generation Internet technology and infrastructure.

Analysts and broadband companies of all sizes have told the FCC that new rules are likely to have the perverse effect of inhibiting capital investment, deterring innovation, raising operating costs, and ultimately increasing consumer prices. Others maintain that the new rules will kill jobs. By moving forward with Internet rules anyway, the FCC is not living up to its promise of being "data driven" in its pursuit of mandates—i.e., listening to the needs of the market.

It wasn't long ago that bipartisan and international consensus centered on insulating the Internet from regulation. This policy was a bright hallmark of the Clinton administration, which oversaw the Internet's privatization. Over time, however, the call for more Internet regulation became imbedded into a 2008 presidential campaign promise by then-Sen. Barack Obama. So here we are.

Last year, FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski started to fulfill this promise by proposing rules using a legal theory from an earlier commission decision (from which I had dissented in 2008) that was under court review. So confident were they in their case, FCC lawyers told the federal court of appeals in Washington, D.C., that their theory gave the agency the authority to regulate broadband rates, even though Congress has never given the FCC the power to regulate the Internet. FCC leaders seemed caught off guard by the extent of the court's April 6 rebuke of the commission's regulatory overreach.

In May, the FCC leadership floated the idea of deeming complex and dynamic Internet services equivalent to old-fashioned monopoly phone services, thereby triggering price-and-terms regulations that originated in the 1880s. The announcement produced what has become a rare event in Washington: A large, bipartisan majority of Congress agreeing on something. More than 300 members of Congress, including 86 Democrats, contacted the FCC to implore it to stop pursuing Internet regulation and to defer to Capitol Hill.

Facing a powerful congressional backlash, the FCC temporarily changed tack and convened negotiations over the summer with a select group of industry representatives and proponents of Internet regulation. Curiously, the commission abruptly dissolved the talks after Google and Verizon, former Internet-policy rivals, announced their own side agreement for a legislative blueprint. Yes, the effort to reach consensus was derailed by . . . consensus.

After a long August silence, it appeared that the FCC would defer to Congress after all. Agency officials began working with House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman on a draft bill codifying network management rules. No Republican members endorsed the measure. Later, proponents abandoned the congressional effort to regulate the Net.

More on Technology

• Your Apps Are Watching You
• Holiday Help: People vs. Robots

Still feeling quixotic pressure to fight an imaginary problem, the FCC leadership this fall pushed a small group of hand-picked industry players toward a "choice" between a bad option (broad regulation already struck down in April by the D.C. federal appeals court) or a worse option (phone monopoly-style regulation). Experiencing more coercion than consensus or compromise, a smaller industry group on Dec. 1 gave qualified support for the bad option. The FCC's action will spark a billable-hours bonanza as lawyers litigate the meaning of "reasonable" network management for years to come. How's that for regulatory certainty?

To date, the FCC hasn't ruled out increasing its power further by using the phone monopoly laws, directly or indirectly regulating rates someday, or expanding its reach deeper into mobile broadband services. The most expansive regulatory regimes frequently started out modest and innocuous before incrementally growing into heavy-handed behemoths.

On this winter solstice, we will witness jaw-dropping interventionist chutzpah as the FCC bypasses branches of our government in the dogged pursuit of needless and harmful regulation. The darkest day of the year may end up marking the beginning of a long winter's night for Internet freedom.

Mr. McDowell is a Republican commissioner of the Federal Communications Commission.

My Dog and the Bible...Merry Christmas!

This from my wife...then she told me if I didn't understand the difference between the Left and the Right, Liberals v Conservatives...look up Ecclesiastes Chapter 10 vs 2 and, once again the Bible explains it all! Merry Christmas and Happy Hanukkah to all! See below on My Dog, Charley, photo attached! The leg is getting better!

Regards,
Mike McNulty

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Julie McNulty
Date: Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 8:33 AM
Subject: Fwd: MY DOG
To: Michael McNulty <cops556@gmail.com>

 

 

MY DOG:My dog sleeps about 20 hours a day.
He has his food prepared for him.He can eat whenever he wants, 24/7/365.
His meals are provided at no cost to him.
He visits the Dr. once a year for his checkup, and again during the year if any medical needs arise.
For this He pays nothing, and nothing is required of him.
He lives in a nice neighborhood in a house that is much larger than He needs, but he is not required to do any upkeep.
If he makes a mess, someone else cleans it up.
He has his choice of luxurious places to sleep.
He receives these accommodations absolutely free.
He is living like a king, and has absolutely no expenses whatsoever.
All of his costs are picked up by others who go out and earn a living every day.
I was just thinking about all this, and suddenly it hit me like a brick in the head.

Holy Smokes, my dog is a Democrat!

=

100_1204.jpg 1361K   View   Download

Oh Boy! This is like my Grandma's Dose of Cod Liver Oil!

...But, I'll sure feel better when I'm done!!!!
...Reading Glen Becks' Book, "Broke!"
        Oh Gosh this is hard to...not swallow, but live with, because it's reality and I'm not sure I want to know
but I've gotta, keep, reading, GULP!

If you got the book 'Broke' and keep wanting to put it down...Don't.... KEEP READING!

Then we'll talk.

MOST IMPORTANT THING I CAN TELL YOU TODAY...

GO AND BUY GLENN BECKS NEW BOOK , "BROKE." AND READ IT!
STUDY IT AND  GET READY!           $17 AND CHANGE AT SAM'S CLUB.

I'LL HAVE MORE TO SAY ON "BROKE" AFTER I FINISH READING IT.

BEST REGARDS,

MIKE MCNULTY

An Important Question Everyone Needs To Answer for Themselves...

Our friend David Codrea poses one of those Questions that helps decide when the "fun" starts... The Founders had to pose it when the British went for the Colonies' Musket and Ball at Concord...Do you know where your Concord bridge is?

 

David Codrea

• Gun Rights Examiner

SubscribeSponsor an Examiner

 

Can corrupt government legitimately decide who it allows to keep and bear arms?

• December 2nd, 2010 1:00 pm ET

Do you like this story?

“46 Prince George's County officers suspended or on administrative duty,” The Washington Post headline informs us.

The three Prince George's County police officers arrested as part of the sweeping federal investigation into corruption in the county represent only a fraction of those accused of wrongdoing, according to police officials and internal department records.

Bear in mind:

[T]hree of these cases are known to have a direct relationship to the federal probe that led to the arrest this month of County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D).

Charges against “at least 10 of the suspended officers… include driving while intoxicated, assault and drug possession…”
Then there are “nine others...suspected of criminal wrongdoing that includes sexual assault and theft,” and “[a]t least seven officers are either suspended or on administrative duty because of an allegation of excessive use of force…”
It’s no surprise for those of us who follow such things.  Prince George’s County law enforcers have made recurring appearances over the years in the “Only Ones” Files at my online journal, The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance.  Consider these incidents:

• One of Prince George’s finest, with a history of abusive and violent behavior shoots unarmed deliverymen.  The department’s initial reaction is to consider how the victims can be charged with assault.
• Another pulled a gun on a real estate appraiser.
• A prisoner died from strangulation. We further learn “There have been several problems recently at the county jail, including a former police corporal convicted of murdering a man who was found with a handcuffs key. The county's director of corrections was fired in early June when four handguns went missing from the jail armory."
• They killed the pets of “innocent victims” and did not apologize because “officers felt threatened.”
• One of their lieutenants racked up four DUIs, a cruiser, a hit-and-run, a…
• Here’s one where they weren’t at fault. Home invaders posed as police.  How is someone to know, particularly with the way this gang conducts itself?
• PGC sheriff’s deputies forced their way into a woman’s apartment and pepper sprayed her to serve a warrant on a suspect who was not there.   And even though her rights were violated, it was all within “protocol.”
• Then there's this: "More than 20 guns seized by a state-run firearms task force in Prince George's County are unaccounted for, and investigators believe that one of the weapons was used in the shooting of an off-duty police officer late last year…”

Understand that these are glimpses based on infrequent and random story tips—as with the “Only Ones” Files in general, I don’t go looking for them, so it’s reasonable to assume a dedicated effort would show this merely scratches the surface.
Here are some other excessive force and other incidents to consider.  Then consider this: The Prince George’s County Police Department has1,683 employees that includes 1,420 sworn officers.  How many companies have you worked for of comparable size that exhibited this level of outright criminality?
This protection racket is what the citizenry is forced to shell out over $250M a year for? And the brass is complaining about cuts?
This is not “just a few bad apples,” as the ubiquitous police [state] apologists would have us believe. For every one exposed, there’s an entire support system of co-workers, superiors and subordinates who witness attitudes,  behaviors and actions every day and keep silent, going along to get along, to protect their own place at the table and/or activities. And as the Johnson case, and before that the case of Baltimore Mayor Against [Your] Guns Sheila Jackson demonstrate, it’s not just the police.  The entire system is corrupt and appears to be more a criminal enterprise than a government—but I repeat myself.
Then keep in mind that Maryland is a “may issue” state requiring an approved “good and substantial reason” to obtain a handgun carry permit (see Dave Workman’s related column), so they have the option of saying “No.” Even the purchase of handguns or a so-called “assault weapon” is subject to a seven-day “waiting period” for the police approval process.