Eric Holder should be in Prison

I heard the latest development of 'Fast and Furious' from Michael Bane's podcast.





This is a photo of a letter to a gunshop owner, ATF Supervisor David Voth specifically said that he was authorized by the government to buy 6 AK pistols, and hinted that the guns would be exported to another country.

The letter was published along with this story from Fox News.

Emphasis added by me.

Link

U.S. Government Used Taxpayer Funds to Buy, Sell Weapons During 'Fast and Furious,' Documents Show

By William Lajeunesse

Published September 26, 2011

| FoxNews.com

Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared.

This disclosure, revealed in documents obtained by Fox News, could undermine the Department of Justice's previous defense that Operation Fast and Furious was a "botched" operation where agents simply "lost track" of weapons as they were transferred from one illegal buyer to another. Instead, it heightens the culpability of the federal government as Mexico, according to sources, has opened two criminal investigations into the operation that flooded their country with illegal weapons.
Related Interactive

Documents Detail ATF Involvement in 'Fast and Furious'

The following documents detail the role the ATF played in buying and selling weapons as part of its controversial "Fast and Furious" operation.

Operation Fast and Furious began in October 2009. In it, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives encouraged gun stores to sell weapons to an arms smuggling gang, then watched as the guns crossed the border and were used in crimes. Each month, the agency allowed hundreds of guns to go South, despite opposition from some agents.

All told, the gang spent more than $1.25 million for the illegal guns.

In June 2010, however, the ATF dramatically upped the ante, making the U.S. government the actual "seller" of guns.

According to documents obtained by Fox News, Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy six semi-automatic Draco pistols -- two of those were purchased at the Lone Wolf gun store in Peoria, Ariz. An unusual sale, Dodson was sent to the store with a letter of approval from David Voth, an ATF group supervisor.

Dodson then sold the weapons to known illegal buyers, while fellow agents watched from their cars nearby.

This was not a "buy-bust" or a sting operation, where police sell to a buyer and then arrest them immediately afterward. In this case, agents were "ordered" to let the sale go through and follow the weapons to a stash house.

According to sources directly involved in the case, Dodson felt strongly that the weapons should not be abandoned and the stash house should remain under 24-hour surveillance. However, Voth disagreed and ordered the surveillance team to return to the office. Dodson refused, and for six days in the desert heat kept the house under watch, defying direct orders from Voth.

A week later, a second vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons. Dodson called for an interdiction team to move in, make the arrest and seize the weapons. Voth refused and the guns disappeared with no surveillance.

According to a story posted Sunday on a website dedicated to covering Fast and Furious, Voth gave Dodson the assignment to "dirty him up," since Dodson had become the most vocal critic of the operation.

"I think Dodson demanded the letter from Voth to cover both himself and the FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee). He didn't want to be hung out to dry by Voth," a source told the website "Sipsey Street Irregulars."

Subsequent to this undercover operation, sources told Sipsey, "Dodson just about came apart all over them (his supervisors). In a 'screaming match' that was heard throughout the Phoenix office by many employees, Dodson yelled at Voth and Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett, 'Why not just go direct and empty out the (ATF) arms room?" (to the cartels), or words to that effect.'

After the confrontation, ATF managers transferred Dodson to a more menial job. Months later, after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, Dodson blew the whistle and went public about the federal government's gunrunning operation.




The Watergate Scandal, the one that built the careers of legendary journalists Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, that forced the resignation of Richard Nixon, was about a cover-up of a burglary. Mexico is saying that at least 200 mexican citizens have been killed using guns smuggled into Mexico by the United States Government. 200. That's about the size of the University of Utah Marching Band.

And that's just based on the numbers or weapons that have been recovered at crime scenes so far. A couple of thousand weapons made their way into Mexico as a result of this evil, hideous act of our government.

The people responsible, up to and including Eric Holder, (and probably President Obama as well) need to be prosecuted and thrown in prison for a very long time.

Idaho Sunsets

Whoever said that California has the best sunsets, obviously hasn't spent any time in Idaho.

Sabbath Day Thoughts

Our bodies and our spirits are much more similar than I had previously thought.

Today in Sunday school we were discussing the importance of the sacrament, why we have it weekly, and it got me thinking.

Our bodies are performing a continual balancing act, between the amount of force we exert, or exercise, and the need to conserve energy. Muscles don't just appear and make us look good, we develop muscle as we apply resistance. I've been riding bikes with my family recently, and the first time we rode an 8 mile loop around our town, I was dead tired and filled with rage when we got back, but just a few days ago when we rode it again, no rage and a good worked out feeling.

What happened?

I made my body perform at a higher level than it was used to, and it adjusted to meet that demand. If I were to go on 8 mile bike rides every day, or try to do the 8 miles faster, then my body would adjust more quickly.

Our spirit gets exercise by learning truths, following promptings, praying and getting answers, etc. . . Except I think that it's nearly impossible for us to strike a balance between activity and inactivity, spiritually. We are either growing, learning and progressing or we are lapsing into atrophy. One purpose of God calling prophets to direct the church on earth is to push us to continually exercise our spirit. The job of the church is to get us to expand our spiritual capabilities. Our spirit does not have the same physical limitations that our body does, and therefore we can continue to learn and increase our understanding and perception of the world around us, forever.

Taking the sacrament is a weekly reminder for us to improve ourselves. When we take the sacrament we renew our covenants and commit ourselves to do better. If we really want to get more out of it each week, then we put in effort during the week to improve, and then the sacrament on Sunday has greater personal meaning.

On the flipside, if we just think about repenting during the 6 minutes that sacrament takes place, then it will become an empty routine. Our minds will get bored and will start to wander. We will see church as a chore, a set of well-meaning rules that don't work out in real life. Eventually we just stop going to church, then we start forgetting things we've learned, and on and on.

For our bodies to stay healthy, they need exercise. They need something to push against, to make them tired, to make muscles grow. For our spirits to be healthy, they need to constantly be learning, stretching, growing. Taking the sacrament every week to renew covenants is a good place to start.

A really stupid opinion posted in Forbes

For some reason, after a big shooting incident that makes the news, it seems like a number of writers for news papers need to comment about how it's a good thing that none of the victims had their own guns, because it would have been SO much worse if they did.

The recent Evil in Norway has proved to be no exception.

Some smart guy wrote a short article for Forbes Magazine.
Click Here

First off, he says, "In fact, it’s quite likely that more people shooting guns in such a scenario would lead to more confusion and possibly more deaths, some of which might be accidental." Yeah, and it's also quite possible that the good guys with guns would clearly identify the man shooting innocent teenagers and direct their bullets accordingly. And it's quite possible that Godzilla may decide to show up and smash your office building, so why even go to work every day?

I can imagine very few situations where it would be unclear who the homicidal maniac was. Especially a situation that is consistent with the historical record of the acts of violence. The Columbine shooters were a bit of a fluke because there were two of them, but most of the time there is only one person involved, because if they had tried to involve anyone else, they would certainly be turned down, and probably reported to the cops.

The attacks in Mumbai involved multiple attackers, but even there the attackers quickly identified themselves by shooting innocent people. So walk with me here, you are at a mall and hearing loud pops and screaming. You turn the corner and see people running away in a panic, others lying on the ground, and one man going from person to person, shooting each one. Who do think is the bad guy?

Also, the killer picked a summer camp being held on an island miles away from shore. There was no way to escape and no way for a rapid response time. The killer had over an hour before the SWAT team pulled up. He killed SEVENTY THREE people. How could this possibly have been WORSE if one of the camp counselors had pulled out his own Glock 19 and fired back at the killer? What could be worse than this?

I think people who make comments like this can't think rationally about a situation like this. It's too stressful to think about finding yourself in a situation like that, and so they never get beyond, "Gosh that would be terrible." And then when they do get into a situation like that, all they think is "I can't believe this is happening. I can't believe this is happening." Then they freeze. It's what happened to Colin Goddard, he was stuck in "I can't Believe this" for like ten minutes. It's not because he's stupid, or bad, he just hadn't really thought about it before.

Well, the people who apply for concealed carry permits HAVE thought about this type of thing. Those thoughts are likely what led them to purchase a handgun and apply for the permit in the first place. They've "gamed out" a response in their mind. Usually it involves running away.

But the people who write editorials like this would never carry concealed, and therefore don't think of these situations in terms of them winning. They think of it in terms of the bad guy will stop when the police show up, or he'll just eventually kill himself.

I used to have an attitude of 'if I die, I die.' But that all changed when I got married. I married the most beautiful, smart, affectionate and valuable woman in the whole world. If she and I had been at Trolley Square that in February, she would have been in danger of being brutally murdered, and I would have had nothing but my shoes to fend off the bad guy. That was simply unacceptable. I felt helpless, because I had been at work, she was at home, and the shooting had already long since ended by the time I heard about it. The panic I felt at being unable to protect her even if we had been together set the gears in motion for carrying concealed.


So, in conclusion, don't believe everything you read in the paper. Use your own brain, do research, and make your own decisions. Don't let anyone discourage you from taking measures to protect yourself just because they don't like guns, or don't want to think about a scary situation.

Pen and Paper

(Hint: if you click on the page of handwriting, it will magically grow to a legible size)

Temple Visit

I went and visited the Manti Temple yesterday. It was the first time in a long time that I've gone to the temple to do work for someone. I've been to a few weddings recently, and those are nice, but I felt better doing work for someone else. The guy I got endowed for was named William C. Perry. He was born in Texas in 1875, I guess they couldn't find a death date because it wasn't printed on the card. He was probably a cowboy. He became an adult at a time of major technological advances. Steam engines, automobiles, airplanes, modern manufacturing practices, automatic pistols, rifles and machine guns.

I guess I've lived in a similar time. When I was born, CD's were brand new technology, there weren't cell phones, there were CB radios. The internet was a military experiment involving Stanford, MIT, and the University of Utah. Video phones were a special effect in Star Trek movies.

Cameras used film, and the fancy ones would advance the film automatically after each shot. Now you can fit a telephone in your pocket, and can use skype to see the face of the person you are talking to. Phones can take pictures now, the only people who use film are artists who have time to make chemical prints. Photoshop is a computer program now, not a workshop where you develop pictures. You can now buy TV's that have a better picture than some people are capable of with their own eyes.

The computer I'm using is not physically attached to anything, just sitting here on my lap. The first test of the internet was a text message that crashed the internet halfway through. Now I can upload HD videos to youtube, and there are millions of videos on youtube.

So hopefully William C. Perry's existence is more enriched now, mine certainly is. I really should go more often. All the stuff I let get in the way really isn't worth much.

Carrying a Handgun at School

Recent events at the University of Utah have brought up the subject of guns and self defense on campus. I would like to address a few points that are brought up by people trying to discourage on-campus self defense.

The first that is stated by people who haven't thought the issue through, "When the police show up, how will they know the difference between the bad guy and the good guy?"

Easy.

The good guys comply with the police commands. The bad guy shoots at the cops.

Carrying a gun, having it in an active killer scenario does not mean that your brain turns off. Plus most active killer scenarios involve one psycho shooting at the crowd. The Mumbai style assaults are thankfully really rare. So there is only really one place where there is danger. This thought was recently made in the Daily Utah Chronicle: The likelihood of stopping a rampaging shooter is muddled by the misdirection and chaos of such events—a nightmare for responding police.

In an event where there is only one bad guy, sure there will be confusion and chaos, but it will be crystal clear where the shooting is happening. It's where the gun shots are coming from. People may be running around, but they will be running away from the shooting. If your goal is to stop the shooter, then you move toward the shooting and shoot the guy who is trying to kill defenseless people in the crowd, or who is moving from room to room, shooting the people inside.

When the police arrive, they will make a lot of noise, it will be hard to miss, especially if you are expecting them at any second. So when you hear the cops, put your gun away, take cover and point to where the bad guy is.

In addition, the police only know something is happening if someone calls them. After the shooting starts, it will take some time for someone to call the cops, then the dispatcher has to get information out of the caller, like where it's happening and what the guy looks like. Then the dispatcher has to sort out the information, summarize it and pass it on to the officers, who have to fight through traffic on the street or the University's sidewalks, and then find the bad guy.

If the bad guy is in your classroom, or right outside your classroom, you are going to have to deal with the bad guy before the police arrive. And if you don't fight back, you are going to die.

Another is that there is a risk that the student may miss the bad guy and hit other innocent people. Honestly it could happen, if the armed student doesn't practice or is unfamiliar with how firearms work. Anyone who has a concealed firearm permit is at least 21 years old, and they have taken a class that reminds them how dangerous, both legally and physically, a gunfight is.
They have invested time and money into getting the gun and permit. They probably go shooting periodically. They may seek out some private training to help them to shoot accurately. If they've ever gone out in the desert to 'shoot stuff' then they are aware that bullets go through things. All those factors will be going through their mind as they move through the building, looking for the bad guy. (or better yet, an exit)

It has been shown that in most active shooter incidents, the bad guy changes his plan at any sign of resistance. This doesn't mean simply holding the door shut. If the bad guy gets into the room, the occupants need to attack him. Throw books, backpacks, desks, any thing at him until he leaves or you can get his gun away. When he's being pummeled with textbooks and backpacks, his attention will diverted away from shooting people. The longer his attention is diverted, the more opportunity the class will have to tackle him. There is danger in rushing toward a man with a gun, yes, but the alternative is to rely on a mass murderer to spare your life. The choice is between a 95% chance of being killed while cowering or maybe a 90% chance of getting killed while attempting to stop the bad guy. Doing ANYTHING will increase your chance of surviving such a situation.

We have seen from the Tucson shooting and even the Virginia Tech shooting that in the face of death, some people will still put themselves in danger to protect others. At Virginia Tech, a professor who had survived the Holocaust, held the door to his classroom shut, trying to use his body as a shield. He was killed, I don't remember if he prevented the bad guy from getting in, but I'll bet his last thoughts weren't, "Boy I'm glad I'm not allowed to carry a gun here at school."

The first person to confront the guy in Tucson was a grandmother in her 60's, who rushed him when she saw him attempting to reload. If she was brave enough to confront the guy with her bare hands, think of how much more effective if she had a gun? Maybe she wouldn't have had to wait until the bad guy ran out of ammo.

If people are willing to fight, even if it is dangerous, why should they not be allowed and encouraged to use a gun? A handgun allows someone to inflict damage on a bad guy from a distance, instead of having to charge him first. In an active killer situation, the targeted people are already at a disadvantage. Why should that disadvantage be amplified by making rules against students legally carrying a gun?

Another argument is that someone with a gun might flip out and start killing, that the stress of college is too much for some. First, do you think that making a rule banning handguns on campus is going to stop a flip-out? Second, and more importantly, people who receive a permit have passed a criminal background check. They have shown that for at least twenty one years, they have been able to avoid having a run in with the cops. They are not the type of person that flies off the handle and gets into fights with people, they don't drink too much and get themselves arrested, etc. . . They aren't in the habit of being dangerous to the community. The state trusts them to be responsible with a gun as they go about their business everyday, and enrolling in a University doesn't suddenly change their judgment or the years of good decisions they have made up until this point in their life. It's just common sense.

If I've left anything out, or been unclear on any points, let me know and I'll try to address it.