And as I listened to Lee speak recently, February 8th, on Ed Schultz’s radio show, it dawned on me anew that responsibility for many of our nation’s current woes can be directly traced to the fact the we’ve placed congressional members and senators in power who know little to nothing about recent American history, much less events surrounding our nation’s founding.

For example, when Schultz asked Lee why anyone would think Congressional Republicans wanted to better the economy when their chief focus appears to be defeating the president, Lee concurred, in a round-about way, then said:

As I have scanned the annals of history, during the tenure of many presidents, obviously the recent presidents of JFK and Lyndon Baines Johnson, of Richard Nixon who was impeached, and subsequently Ford and Carter. I cannot find in the statement of a message of a minority leader, majority leader, or speaker, whose message has been defeat the commander-in-chief.

Wow. The “recent presidents” Lee referenced were JFK, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. JFK died in 1963 and Carter left office in January of 1981. In other words, “recent” to Lee is somewhere between 31-to-49 years ago? Moreover, Lee said Nixon was impeached. Seriously folks, Nixon made history by becoming the first president in U.S. history to resign the office, and of course he resigned before charges of impeachment were brought against him.

(For the record, the only two presidents in U.S. history who were impeached were Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And both of these presidents share a common denominator: their party affiliation was Democrat.)

But Lee kept going:

This is the most unusual historical period in our lifetimes. I frankly believe that it will be tainted, it will be known as the three ring circus, and it will be a shameful period. Because most times, no matter whether we are a divided government, which I’m arguing for vigorous take-back of the House by Democrats and the win of the president, because we have proven, in the 21st century by those who are elected by the Republicans, you can’t have an effective democratic divided government under the likes of this thinking.

What? The last time I heard something as broken and incoherent as this was when Miss Teen South Carolina tried to explain why a fifth of Americans can’t locate the U.S. on a world map: “U.S. Americans are unable to do so because some people out there in our nation don’t have maps, and I believe that our education, like such as in South Africa, and the Iraq, everywhere like, such as.”

Seriously folks, maybe Miss Teen South Carolina should secure a place in congress so she and Rep. Lee could talk about our recent presidents JFK and Lyndon Baines Johnson.

This observation is most particularly true for the nominating process of either party seeking to replace an incumbent President or the party of an incumbent who is not running for re-election.

With Iowa’s caucus and the New Hampshire primary finished, we should pause and look at a little history to illustrate how our current process, in effect, disenfranchises a majority of voters.

In 1952, Governor Adlai Stevenson of Illinois (perhaps one of that state’s last governors who did not go on to a career of making license plates)  was selected as the nominee at the Democratic convention through a series of state primaries and won the 1952 nomination at the Democratic convention on the third ballot.  Today, nominating conventions have no real purpose to them except for the public learning the nominee’s vice-presidential choice.  Bringing party professionals into the mix might spare us another Sarah Palin debacle.  Perhaps there is a role for smoke filled rooms, even though smoking would be banned!

In 1952 the process produced Senator John Sparkman as the democratic Vice-Presidential choice, an obvious sop to party bosses who did not trust the candidate Estes Kefauver, who went into the convention with the most pledged delegates. After the first two ballots Kefauver led but was overtaken on the third ballot when Stevenson was nominated.  The 1952 presidential race had earlier been thrown into disarray when President Truman announced that he would not seek re-election.  As we all know, General Eisenhower was elected President in November 1952. In 1956 Kefauver ran again and won the New Hampshire and Minnesota primary over Stevenson.  Although Stevenson was again nominated, this time around the party chose Kefauver as his running mate.

Fast forward to 1968 when President Johnson made his surprise announcement to a nation bitterly divided by the Vietnam War that he would not seek another term.  Senator Robert Kennedy won the California primary in June, defeating anti-war Sen. Eugene McCarthy of Minnesota.  Kennedy in his final words said “on to Chicago” before being shot by a lunatic, Sirhan Sirhan.  In the end, Senator Hubert Humphrey received the nomination, but lost the general election to Richard Nixon, who had stated in 1962, after losing the California governorship, that we wouldn’t have Nixon to kick around anymore.

But for the poorly-thought-out rule change the Republicans instituted for the 2012 primaries, it would have been possible, even likely, that the Republican nominee could have been decided within the next 30 days.  Thus, after the first three or four state primaries, less than three percent of registered voters could have decided the Republican nominee.  Talk about outsize influence.  States that have storied histories associated with their primaries (Wisconsin…always in April and California always in June) will have been effectively disenfranchised as will the remaining US voters in the United States which has an estimated 2011 population of 312 million people. We think the Republican rule change was rather harebrained anyway. If proportional allocation of delegates makes sense prior to April 1^st, why doesn’t make sense thereafter?

What is the solution?  There are numerous ways vastly to improve the system all of which are better than what we now have.  Former President Carter and James Baker, in a report on US elections which contains a mish mash of proposals on voter registration, proposed several serious ideas, one of which recommends four regional primaries, held after the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary at one-month intervals from March to June.  The plan would substantially expand participation in the selection of presidential nominees and give voters the chance to evaluate presidential candidates over a period of three to four months.

The Carter Baker report states:

“Think of a major election in which less than 8 percent of voters cast a ballot, yet millions of other voters want to vote but never get the chance.  While such an election is hard to imagine in the United States, that is precisely how we select the candidates for the highest public office in the land.

In recent election cycles, the races for the presidential nomination of each of our major political parties have effectively ended by March, before people in most states have the opportunity to vote.  As a result, most Americans have no real say in the selection of the nominee. Intense candidate scrutiny by the media and the public is limited to about 10 weeks.  Candidates must launch their presidential bids a year or more before the official campaign begins, so that they can raise the $25 million to 50 million needed to compete.

The Presidential primary schedule has become increasingly front-loaded.  While eight states held presidential primaries by the end of March in 1984, more than three times that – 28 states – held their primaries by March in 2004.

[We have] recommended a comprehensive overhaul of the presidential primary system.  This recommendation was received enthusiastically in numerous editorials, which expressed the view of a great many voters across the country who want a say in choosing their presidential candidates.

We believe that it is important for the parties to maintain control of their own primaries.  Therefore, we would encourage the two parties to make the needed changes in their primary schedule.  If the parties don’t take action, they risk losing that power to Congress, which should make the desired change through federal legislation if the parties remain unwilling to do so.

In the end, voters throughout America deserve a say in the selection of candidates for the most powerful job in the country.”

We would add a provision that over four election cycles, the regions would rotate so each region would have the opportunity to go first. The current system of selecting candidates is not a credit to either American Democracy or our long tradition of American Exceptionalism.  We can do better in selecting candidates for the presidency of a great and exceptional nation.

By Hal Gershowitz and Stephen Porter

Twenty years ago, European nations sought to form their own reserve currency to limit the power of the United States in controlling their economic destiny. Following World War II, the U.S. took control of European monetary policy by pouring over $50 billion of cash into the war shattered economies. Over time, sovereign currencies were re-introduced; but the U.S. maintained dominance over each nation’s monetary policy through its reserve currency status.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon exercised this domination in a trade dispute with Europe and Japan by suspending the convertibility of the U.S. dollar into gold, setting wage and price controls, cutting taxes, and placing a 10% surcharge on all imports in an effort stimulate the U.S. economy by devaluing the exchange rate of the dollar. U.S. stock markets had their largest one day rally in history; while foreign stock markets crumbled. Four months later; the United States forced agreements for currency appreciation by Japan of 16.9%, Switzerland of 13.9%, Germany of 13.6%, France of 8.6%, and Britain of 8.6%. This effective devaluation of the dollar is credited as creating 700,000 American jobs and cementing President Nixon’s reelection in 1972.

Having suffered from such manipulation under America’s control over European financial affairs; in 1992 the nations of Europe began creating an economic integration that would lead to the introduction of the euro currency on January 1, 1999. Overnight, Europe became the largest trading block in the world and the euro with €890 billion in circulation became the world’s second reserve currency.

Prior to the introduction of the euro; the southern European nations of Portugal, Italy, Greece, and Spain (PIGS) regularly devalued their currencies to remain competitive with the highly industrialized and sophisticated northern European countries. The introduction of the euro permanently fixed exchange rates for all euro members; but gave the PIGS access to loans from northern banks at less than half their prior interest costs.

The euro currency seemed to be a huge success as Greece, Spain, and Portugal experienced huge real estate booms powered by low interest rates. With the southern nations forbidden to devalue under euro membership regulations; the sales and profitability of German and other northern companies increased due to their higher productivity growth against southern companies. But after the 2008 credit crisis; German banks demanded the PIGS pay higher and higher interest rates. These higher rates crushed real estate prices and devastated the economies of the PIGS.
The ECB may have called itself the “Central Bank of Europe”; but it virtually no ability to act as “lender of last resort”, like the U.S. Federal Reserve that prints unlimited amounts of money in an American banking crisis. As fear of potential defaults caused large depositors to pull money out of European banks and convert euros to dollars; the ECB was incapable of stopping a system-wide run on the banks. In desperation; the ECB was forced to surrender its sovereignty back to the U.S. Federal Reserve by agreeing to engage in 90 swaps of euros for dollars.

Given that U.S. banks operate with half the leverage of the European banks; the short-term structure of these arrangements will put pressure on the European banks to deleverage or risk the Federal Reserve refusing to roll over the swap by demanding repayment of dollars. This “dollarization” of the euro seems likely to be a prelude to defaults in the south as one or more of the PIGS seek to devalue by re-issuing their currencies back to escudos, lira, drachmas, and pesetas. But whatever happens; it seems clear that from now on decisions regarding European monetary policy will now primarily be made in Washington D.C.

Feel free to forward this Op Ed and follow our Blog at www.chrissstreetandcompany.com

It is fashionable for the Left to co-opt Barry Goldwater as they have Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton called him a “patriot” and James Carville characterized him a “principled conservative,” at odds with today’s “loony right.” But this was not so in 1964. The mainstream media, not called that then, labeled him a fascist. Walter Cronkite said of him that “Goldwater was going places, among them Nazi Germany.” Psychiatrists lined up behind the Johnson campaign, declaring Goldwater “emotionally unstable.” Reporters were aware that LBJ was heightening the conflict in Vietnam, but said nothing while LBJ promised not to send “American boys nine or ten thousand miles from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”

Journalists on the campaign trail saw Johnson drunkenly board a plane armed with nuclear weapons and then accidentally drop them on the United States. Luckily, by the grace of God, they did not go off. None of this was reported, while newspapers editors worked in overdrive to portray Goldwater as eager to push the button. Today, pundits argue that dirty tricks by Carville and Begalia were something new on the horizon for Democrats and were borrowed from decades of Republican campaigns. But Johnson was a pioneer of the Clinton War Room. He used the FBI to wiretap the candidate, bought political information from Goldwater defectors, and in an eerie foretaste of Watergate, put domestic CIA chief Howard Hunt on the White House payroll to infiltrate, even burglarize, Goldwater headquarters (with Democratic blessing, Hunt filtered his findings and received cash through a dummy corporation called National Press). What is striking about these tactics was how unnecessary they were. Johnson beforehand knew he was going to win, but he wanted “to crucify” Goldwater nonetheless.

Buried under this onslaught was a libertarian, not a big government Nazi (small government Nazi is a contradiction in terms. Without a huge government behind Hitler he would have been, in the words of Bill Buckley, “a street corner racist”). Goldwater was pro-choice, feared the rise of the religious right (he once said of Jerry Falwell that the Republicans should kick him out of the Party), and supported gays in the military (“it isn’t important for them to be straight, just to shoot straight”). Camelot merchants speak of what might have been had Kennedy dodged the bullets in Dealey Plaza: Vietnam would have been avoided, racial apartheid ended, and détente would have come a decade sooner. It is instructive to see what would have happened had Goldwater won.

While LBJ was authorizing secret maneuvers in the Gulf of Tomkin, Goldwater proposed sending Eisenhower to Vietnam, a proposal that worked in 1952, effectively ending the Korean War. Eleven years of bombing might have been unnecessary. Where Johnson imposed the draft, Goldwater wanted to end it, prefiguring campaign advisor Milton Friedman, successfully achieving this libertarian goal while an official of the Nixon administration. Perhaps no draft cards would have been burned. The draconian nature of the Great Society–using taxpayer money to fund the street theatre of the Black Panthers, CONTELPRO infiltrations into the far left, which Goldwater denounced–might never have occurred, and a white backlash avoided.

All of this is difficult to ascertain since Goldwater was, indeed, crucified. Even though Goldwater humbly thought, “I don’t have enough brains to be President,” he prophesized events the master politician LBJ did not foresee. He saw Vietnam as having the potential to become a “quagmire,” years before journalists applied the term. While LBJ was cutting deals with Nixon, Goldwater predicted that, if elected, Nixon would be “the most corrupt president in history.”

Not bad for an “unstable fascist.”

A month ago, Wall Street protesters revived the kind of protests we witnessed in the late 60s and early 70s. These soon became occupations (Occupy Wall Street) and, like those at Kent State so many decades ago, proved to be but a small part of a larger counter culture movement around the country. Sadly, the protests occupations also proved disrespectful, and frequently downright dangerous, to police officers, as those at Kent State proved to be during those first four days of May. From defecation on police cars, to graffiti on the same, to throwing objects at policemen, occupiers in cities around the country have literally gone after the police with an abandon that begs for relation yet criticizes any. Through it all, the police have somehow restrained themselves.

I often wonder how the police held back while freaks like those at Occupy Oakland were “throwing feces, paint, rocks, and M-80s [firecrackers]” at them? Sure, the police used tear gas and other “less lethal” means to respond, but even this was criticized because one of the protesters was allegedly struck in the eye by a police canister. Of course, had that protester not been with the freaks who were throwing stuff at the police he would have been fine. And in Denver over the weekend, members of Occupy Denver “kicked police and knocked one officer off his motorcycle.” These last 30 days of occupation have been crazy.

On May 4, 1970, the National Guard was finally hit with enough rocks (and in some reports, pieces of concrete), so they opened fire. The rest is history, forever caught in the lyrics of Crosby, Stills, Nash, & Young:

Tin soldiers and Nixon’s coming,
We’re finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.

I don’t know if the hippies and the freaks protesting today want the police to open fire on them the way the National Guard did in 1970, but I do know that throwing “feces, paint, rocks, and M-80s” is pushing the limit (if not crossing it). It just seems like the political correctness that crippled our military after the Vietnam War is now being trusted by hippies who disparage and attack policemen while expecting no consequences in return. In so many ways it’s evident that entire generations of Americans have learned absolutely nothing from our past.

Keep in mind that the battle between those who create wealth and those that want to redistribute it, mainly politicians, is as old as civilization itself.  We read of tax battles and even reform in every age, like Urukagina’s tax reductions in Babylonia/Sumer in 2350 BC.  Equally venerable are the constant set of demagogic lies by those against tax cuts and simplification.  It is important to note that politicians like complicated tax codes and high tax rates because they control those rates and dispense the loopholes and regulations that complicate the tax code.  Tax simplification means they lose power.  As a result, resistance to tax reform is more often the rule than reform. As for the lies, they abound, so let’s consider just a few:

Lie # 1: Tax cuts cause deficits/Tax hikes balance the budget.  The Media and the Left often say that the Reagan and Bush tax cuts led to deficits while Clinton’s tax hikes led to a balanced budget. In truth, according to the IRS, federal tax revenues rose dramatically after the overall Reagan tax cuts/reforms (98%) and the Bush tax cuts (a record $700+ billion). This is just as they did after the Harding/Coolidge cuts (61% revenue increase) and after the Kennedy/Johnson cuts (62% revenue increase).  Those are the four major income tax reductions we have had since the inception of the income tax in 1913 and every time revenues rose after they were in place – every time.

So did the tax rate cut cause a deficit? The lie, of course, is to blame the revenue gathering mechanism (tax code/rate cut) instead of the revenue spending mechanism, i.e. Congress/Presidents.  The spenders kept spending – often at an accelerated rate when they saw the new revenues.  Thus, the fault for continuing deficits lies not with tax rate cuts, which produced higher revenues, but with politicians who spent too much.

Wasn’t there a surplus after the Clinton tax increase? Indeed there was – but only temporarily. First, it must be said that the economy had recovered from the short, Bush 41 tax-increase-induced recession by the end of his Presidency. It then resumed the Reagan recovery that was based on the dramatic reduction in tax rates a decade earlier.

Clinton then raised taxes on the recovering economy, and by the end of his 2nd term, we had the highest tax burden in American history considering federal, state and local taxes combined. To no surprise, we slipped back into a recession by the end of Clinton’s Presidency because of that record tax burden. As a result of the recession, federal expenditures went up (as welfare-related payments rose automatically) and tax revenues faltered along with the economy. The deficit reappeared, fulfilling John Maynard Keynes warning that “high tax rates defeat their own object” — to collect revenue. Thus, the Clinton tax hike temporarily gathered more revenue and, when combined with spending slowed by the Republican Congress, a surplus emerged. But over time, the Clinton tax hike weighed down the economy and reproduced deficits just like the Bush 41 tax increases that also weakened the economy and wound up doubling the deficit during his term.  To give Clinton credit for the surplus, but not the later deficit, is to credit a pitcher with 6 good innings of pitching and fail to report when he lost the game in 7th inning.

Lie #2: Tax revenues would have risen even without a tax cut.  This lie posits that tax rate cuts cost the government money because the revenues would have increased without the cuts as part of a natural business cycle uptick.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  First, as the current economy proves, recoveries are not automatic nor do they necessarily significantly increase employment and/or revenues.

Second, prior to the Reagan tax cuts, the 12 years of combined Nixon/Ford/Carter bad policies resulted in stagflation and tax revenues dropping at a rate of 2.8% per year.  By the end of Carter’s term, the economy was dreadful and showed no appreciable signs of a turnaround. Reagan then dramatically cut tax rates and reduced regulations.  The lie is to assert that the Reagan tax rate cuts had no influence on the economic turnaround that resulted in more employment, more business transactions and therefore more tax revenues.  In truth, without the Reagan tax cuts, especially given the Federal Reserve’s inflation fighting tactics at the time, the economy would not have magically turned around and produced 92 straight months of growth, let alone led the revenue growth. Claiming otherwise is just silly.

Want more proof? Consider the tax rate cuts that produced the Roaring 20’s.  By 1917, just over three years after the income tax code was instituted with a top rate of 7%, Democrat Woodrow Wilson raised the top rate to 77%!  Not surprisingly, we were in a deep recession by 1918.  During the 1920’s, however, the economy turned around and after the tax rate reduction to a top rate of 25%, revenues jumped 61%. So, did the Roaring 20’s just happen to occur or did the tax cuts cause them? The tax rate cuts reversed a dynamic of capital being placed in tax-free government bonds and encouraged capitalists to put their money at risk.  As a result, people were employed, more business transactions occurred and – of course – tax revenues rose.  That changing dynamic would not have magically occurred without the tax reductions.

In sum, tax rate reductions produce more revenue over time because they provide incentives, which result in more business transactions, more income and more sales tax.  It worked in 2350 BC and it will work again once Obama is defeated.  On the other hand, tax hikes produce less revenue over time, because they reduce incentives and weigh down economies.

Lie #3:  Tax cuts  don’t lead to economic growth.  The four major tax cuts (Harding/Coolidge, Kennedy/Johnson, Reagan, and Bush 43) all were followed by economic growth.  The Harding/Coolidge cuts were followed by The Roaring 20’s, the Kennedy/Johnson cuts were followed by three years of growth averaging over 6%, and the Reagan cuts were followed by 92 straight months of economic growth. The Bush tax cuts were followed by 52 straight months of job growth.  Was that all just a mere coincidence?  Given that tax reductions were the only major policy changes shared by those times, the answer is no. Tax rate cuts do lead to economic growth.  Not only that, according to IRS figures, after each of those major tax cuts, the top earners paid a greater percentage of income taxes not less.

Lie #4: The rich don’t pay their fair share.  This is the rallying cry of those who want to raise tax rates.  According to the IRS, however, the top 1% pays nearly 37% of all income taxes.   The bottom 50% pays just over 2% of all income taxes.  For those that claim that is not a fair share, I submit to you that no percentage would be fair.  By using the “fair” card, they are seeking a rhetorical advantage and that will continue to be effective unless these lies are rebutted.

Lie #5:  The Bush tax cuts led to a bad economy in 2008.  It is true that there was a bad economy in 2008, something that occurred 5 years after the Bush tax cut.  So does that mean that those tax cuts caused the bad economy?  Certainly not. The main cause related to government distortion of the housing market combined with bad business practices and mistakes by the Federal Reserve.  There is no plausible economic theory as to how lowering tax rates across the board by a few percentages points (and removing millions from the tax rolls) led to the Wall Street/housing problems 5 years later.  In other words, it’s just a lie.

Lie #6:  The current American tax burden is lower.  That statement is partially wrong and used to demand higher taxes on the rich.  It is true that the federal tax burden has dropped to an abnormally low 14%. It generally is closer to 18%.  The biggest cause for that drop, however, is the prolonged and deep recession.  When a nation has considerably less income for such a prolonged period, tax burdens tend to drop because they are paying fewer taxes then when they had higher income.  Lower incomes leading to lower tax burdens is hardly something to crow about.  Beyond that, the current 14% refers to federal taxes and that number fails to take into account the massive growth in non-federal income taxes such state and local taxes.  Those non-federal taxes have replaced the federal burden.  So, the next time you hear that the top federal income tax rate is lower than in 1950 (true) – tell that person we didn’t have gas taxes, cell phone taxes, cable taxes, cigarette taxes in 1950.  When they say the tax burden is lower than before, tell them it came at the expense of a lower standard of living and that the way to raise tax revenues is to create a vibrant economy.

One last tidbit for your bushel of truths:

The last 8 Presidential winners were the perceived tax-cutting candidate.

1. Reagan over Carter,

2. Reagan over Mondale – who threatened to raise taxes,

3. Bush 41 (read my lips) over Dukakis,

4. Clinton (middle class tax cut) over Bush (who broke his pledge),

5. Clinton (promised to do it again even though he raised taxes) over Dole (who refused to take the No New Tax Pledge and made a career of brokering tax deals as the Republican Senate leader – and whose reputation overrode his tax plan which came too late in the game),

6. Bush 43 over Al Gore (who called tax cuts a risky scheme),

7. Bush 43 (who cut taxes) over Kerry,

8. Obama (promised to cut taxes for 95% of Americans) versus McCain who didn’t believe in the Bush tax cuts.

Knowing all of that, will the 2012 Republican nominee support tax cuts against the tax-raising Obama?  It seems likely if this discussion of tax code simplification continues.  To get it enacted, however, that nominee has to be able to make the case for tax cuts and expose the lies.  Not just in passing, but with all the passion of a true reformer.

What degree of consternation must he have felt when the court order for those tapes sealed his doom?

For that matter, what was going through Bill Clinton’s mind when “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky” no longer sufficed? I’ve wondered what he must have thought when the game was uncovered, and he knew he was going to have to come clean (for a change).

Now, with the rapidity of events surrounding the investigation of “Fast and Furious,” and the extremes to which the current administration seems willing to go in order to cover its tracks, I’m actually wondering what’s going through President Obama’s mind right now?

And what is Eric Holder thinking?

In my opinion, with every release of new documents in the Fast and Furious investigation and every discovery of new aspects of the cover-ups related to the operation, Obama and Holder are inching closer to the days when they’ll be forced to admit their roles in a scandal that dwarfs Watergate and makes the crimes for which Clinton was impeached seem like misdemeanors.

For example, in the past few days alone it has been verified beyond a shadow of doubt that the White House received and maintained detailed knowledge of Fast and Furious via regular updates between ATF Supervisor William Newell and White House Official Keith O’Reilly. This explains why when Obama said neither he nor Holder authorized Fast and Furious (in March 2011), he quickly qualified the statement by adding that “[But] this is a pretty big government, the United States Government, I’ve got a lot of moving parts.” (In other words, he covered his butt just in case a connection between people like Newell and O’Reilly was discovered.)

And of course, as I wrote last week for Big Government, the secret recorders have already put Holder in a bind by showing that his May 3^rd testimony to Congressman Issa was not accurate. In that testimony Holder made claims that indicated he learned of Fast and Furious some time in April, but on the secret recordings it was clear he had thorough knowledge with the operation and the people involved in the operation by mid-March at the latest.

For the record, Holder’s search for a scapegoat has now grown so desperate that he’s thinking about abolishing the ATF all together. (But such a move is a non-starter, because everyone knows Fast and Furious was a top down operation and that the ATF agents on the street were themselves victims of this ludicrous crime.)

Yet, for anyone who still isn’t convinced of the magnitude of this lawless operation, and the subsequent need to prosecute those involved to the fullest extent of the law, documents released last week contained a diagram that shows the areas of Mexico that were blanketed with the illegal guns of Fast and Furious.

As you look at the chart, keep one thing in mind – the White House knew about this, the Department of Justice knew about this, and of course the ATF knew as well: