DHS to launch offensive on America...not
by Kevin_Foley
 Politics Progressive
March 06, 2013 10:07 AM | 2291 views | 23 23 comments | 11 11 recommendations | email to a friend | print | permalink
At my recent gun safety debate with former U.S. Rep. Bob Barr, we took questions from the audience. I was asked by a guy to explain why the government had purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition.

I said I was unaware of such a claim and added that I had no idea if it was true.

Well, it turns out it is true. The Department of Homeland Security purchased the ammo, but not to be used against American citizens as my questioner was clearly suggesting.

The bullets are intended for the 90 federal agencies and their 70,000 agents and officers the DHS oversees

Organized by the Bush administration in the wake of 9-11, DHS is responsible for U.S. Customs, ICE, the Coast Guard, the National Law Enforcement Training Center and so on.

Such a bulk buy of ammo for training and use in the field to save taxpayer dollars makes perfect sense...except to the black helicopter watchers, who rushed to ascribe all sorts of nefarious motives to the DHS purchase.

So it was the other night Lou Dobbs, who has successfully transitioned from respected business journalist to a monger of nutty conspiracy theories, played to this delusional paranoia by declaring on his Fox Business show that, along with all the ammo, the DHS had also bought "2,700 light armored vehicles."

Let's see: 1.6 billion rounds of ammo plus 2,700 light armored vehicles must equal Obama tyranny!

Dobbs then asked his guest, the NRA's Wayne LaPierre (of all people), "What in the world is going on at the Homeland Department -- the Department of Homeland Security seems to be arming up and the administration is trying to disarm American citizens?"

Except the Obama administration isn't "trying to disarm American citizens" and there is no evidence to suggest it is.

And the DHS didn't buy the light armored vehicles. The U.S. Marine Corps did.

Dobb's bogus information, like so much of what Fox News reports, came from a discredited blogger famous for making sh...I mean stuff up, the Gateway Pundit.

There are many other such hacks and they're a rich source of unsubstantiated and slanted "facts" for right wing media outlets and tin foil hat wearers.

It's a sad but routine formula for Fox News hosts and other such pundits in today's instant news cycle: Grab something, anything, that will affirm the viewers' or listeners' prejudices, dispense with fact-checking, present it as authentic, bounce it around with a kooky guest like LaPierre or Orly Taitz or Victoria Jackson, and then move on, the damage done.

It's also irresponsible and unprofessional, as Mr. Dobbs well knows.

Comments
(23)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Kevin Foley
|
March 14, 2013
@ Nettie Stemm - Spare me your righteous indignation. My M.O. is different from Press', who must play nice because he's a Beltway insider who won't get invited to the better DC cocktail parties if he's not.

When people like Rand Paul or the other tea party hack Ted Cruz make a mockery of the U.S. Senate, they deserve nothing less than disdain, which I am all too happy to heap on them.

So don't get your hackles up because I push back on these people. They richly deserve it. And, BTW, "nutcake" is very tame compared to some of the names I've been called.
Nettie Stemm
|
March 13, 2013
to Kevin F. You and your coat tail hanger, Lib, both make two very tragic mistakes. First you assume there is only one side to every question and that is your side.

Second, you assume that everyone is as two-faced as you are. You both allude to your mistaken conclusion that I approve of Conservatives calling Liberals names, but object when it is the other way around. Sorry to inform you that I have raised as much hell about name calling from the GOP as I have from the Dems. It does nothing to further a discussion and results in wasted time and effort. Once it starts, credibility is shot, just as yours has been. If you cannot talk about an issue wthout name calling and insults, then you should just keep your mouth shut.

BTW, as far as Paul's filibuster, I suggest you read what a real Liberal columnist had to say about it. His name is Bill Press. He discusses issues and leaves name calling and insults to the immature and undisciplined.
Lib in Cobb
|
March 13, 2013
@Kevin: "dead raccoon". That is funny.
Kevin Foley
|
March 12, 2013
@ Nettie Stemm - I'll bet you love it when Coulter and Limbaugh insult and call progressives names.

Lib is right, like it or not. Paul is a nutcake and the second man after Daniel Boone to come from Kentucky with a dead racoon on his head.
Lib in Cobb
|
March 12, 2013
To ignore my "rantings" is your choice, ignoring the truth is also your choice, as you have done when considering that Rand Paul is anything other than part of the GOP lunatic fringe.

When in any discussion about the lunatic fringe, I am left with nothing else other than name calling, especially when the likes of Rand Paul or any other Tea Party member wastes our time and money with a 13 hour filibuster which had nothing to do with the appointment of the now Secretary of Defense.

I will remind you that many members of the GOP called President Obama a variety of nasty names during his election and his re-election. I don't suppose you objected to that. Hmmmmmm?

CobbCoGuy
|
March 12, 2013
@ Kevin Foley

Not a bad article that you suggested in the WSJ. I don't necessarily agree, but the funny thing is that you have placed yourself in the "tent" with the old, white guys - McCain and Graham. Y'all should get along famously!

Not only that, Obama's drone policy places him about two goose steps to the right of Dick Cheney.

It's a krazy world, ain't it?
Nettie Stemm
|
March 12, 2013
Lib, I have come to the conclusion that, eiher your intellect, or your ego, will not allow you to accept the simple fact that name calling and insults negate any message you might be trying to deliver.

There, I shall take the course some others have taken and simply ignore your rantings.
Kevin Foley
|
March 11, 2013
@ Skeptical - I'll have an eyeful for your edification on this very subject in Friday's column.
Skeptical in Cobb
|
March 11, 2013
Foley: Many Americans are rightly skeptical of the Obama administration when it takes a Senate filibuster to get a response to a simple question. This president claimed his would be the most transparent administration in history. We the people are still waiting.
Lib in Cobb
|
March 11, 2013
@Nettie: When confronted with "A Best in Show Nutcake" like Rand Paul, the only thing which immediately comes to mind is name calling. His own party is moving in the opposite direction from him, not a new phenomenon for the GOP/Tea Party. Paul used the fillibuster not to make points about the now Secretary of State Hagel, he used the filibuster to make possible political hay which he intends to use in 2016. There is a very small chance in hell that Paul will be elected
Kevin Foley
|
March 09, 2013
CobbCoGuy - A better read is the editorial in the WSJ called "Rand Paul's Drone Rant" - I also loved McCain and Graham reactions. Priceless.

Nettie Stemm
|
March 09, 2013
To Lib in Cobb, The point you seem to continually miss, based on what I have seen, is that phrases like "Rand is a standout nutcake", and references to "hamster" as personal insults, are immature subjective opinions more suited to the mind of an adolescent.

Is there no way that you or Mr. Foley can communicate in a civilized and adult manner?
Lib in Cobb
|
March 08, 2013
@Nettie: An important point you have missed. Rand is a standout nutcake and he has now made that painfully obvious to all. I am looking forward to he and his "hamster" running in 2016. I will bet he quits after the third primary.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 08, 2013
A few nuggets from Ron Fournier yesterday regarding the filibuster:

"Paul is a junior senator from Kentucky...And yet he was able to cow the White House by harnessing Twitter and other social media to rally public support."

"What started as a Paul-only affair quickly turned into an after-midnight gathering of GOP senators who were literally summoned to Capitol Hill by supporters via Twitter and e-mail."

"...the White House was forced to answer a question it had ducked for weeks. At the same time, Obama is suddenly willing to lobby Republican lawmakers personally and aggressively on the federal budget. His job-approval numbers are slipping, according to a variety of public and private polls, which might explain these two reversals."

"Obama's lack of transparency on the drone-warfare program is jarring, given his pledges to run the most open administration in U.S. history."

Yes, these are interesting times for political junkies.
Nettie Stemm
|
March 07, 2013
Meaningless, Mr. Foley? Hardly. It accomplished exactly what it was supposed to. It called national and world attention to an administration that thinls its power has no end.

Now, go ahead with your snide remarks and inults. That is the bulk of you writing anyway.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 07, 2013
Whoa! Dead hamsters? Meaningless stunt? You do know what the filibuster was about, right? You do know that Harry Reid (D-NV) spoke positively about Sen. Paul's right to filibuster?

Allow me to put some words in your mouth as you've tried to do with me. So, it's ok by you for Obama to use drones against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil?

From the Washington Times today:

"Attorney General Eric Holder has sent Sen. Rand Paul a letter expressly saying that the president does not have the authority to use drones to kill American [sic] on U.S. soil who are not enemy combatants."

A small victory for Sen. Paul, but a victory nevertheless.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 07, 2013
What was the price paid by Andrea Mitchell for doctoring the Romney-in-a-supermarket clip?

What about the Trayvon Martin 911 call edited to make Zimmerman look racist?

What about NBC's attempt to make it appear that a father of a child killed at Sandy Hook was being heckled during his testimony?

What about Ed Schultz's edited video to make Rick Perry look racist?

The MSM wins this sorry contest, and Dan Rather takes 1st prize.
Kevin Foley
|
March 07, 2013
@CobbCoGuy - Again, what price will Dobbs pay for making crap up? None. He'll do it again. So will O'Reilly. So will Limbaugh. So will Hannity. So will Fox's straight news because there's never any consequences. The people associated with the CBS debacle were either fired, disgraced or both. Consequences.

I never follow filibusters by guys wearing dead hamsters on their heads. A meaningless stunt by a meaningless senator.
CobbCoGuy
|
March 06, 2013
Here's another difference.

The starting point of Dobbs' report were the facts relating to large ammunition purchases by the Gubmint. Unfortunately, Dobbs went over the top with his interpretation, or speculation, of those facts. Sloppy, I agree.

On the other hand, Mapes produced a story, and Rather reported said story, that was based on a total fabrication. Not only that, Rather continued to defend the story for several days, notwithstanding all the evidence to the contrary.

Interpretation or fabrication - which is more egregious?

In other news, are y'all following the filibuster currently taking place? Mr. Foley, it might be good material for another blog entry.
Devlin Adams
|
March 06, 2013
Thank you for one again proving that the only way you respond to people who disagree with you is through name calling and insults.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, and spam will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides