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.
Follow us on Twitter!
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.
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 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.
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?
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?
There, I shall take the course some others have taken and simply ignore your rantings.
Is there no way that you or Mr. Foley can communicate in a civilized and adult manner?
"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.
Now, go ahead with your snide remarks and inults. That is the bulk of you writing anyway.
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.
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.
I never follow filibusters by guys wearing dead hamsters on their heads. A meaningless stunt by a meaningless senator.
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.