Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks,This Is Getting Creepy

[bonnie]

Obama DHS Purchases 2,700 Light-Armored Tanks to Go With Their 1.6 Billion Bullet Stockpile

Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, March 3, 2013, 9:55 PM

This is getting a little creepy.

According to one estimate, since last year the Department of Homeland Security has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm.

DHS also purchased 2,700 Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAP).

homeland security mrap

The Department of Homeland Security (through the U.S. Army Forces Command) recently retrofitted 2,717 of these ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.

Although I’ve seen and read several online blurbs about this vehicle of late, I decided to dig slightly deeper and discover more about the vehicle itself.

The new DHS sanctioned ‘Street Sweeper’ (my own slang due to the gun ports) is built by Navistar Defense (NavistarDefense.com), a division within the Navistar organization. Under the Navistar umbrella are several other companies including International Trucks, IC Bus (they make school buses), Monaco RV (recreational vehicles), WorkHorse (they make chassis), MaxxForce (diesel engines), and Navistar Financial (the money arm of the company).

DHS even released a video on their newly purchased MRAPs.

Via Pat Dollard:

The MRAP featured in this video is was in Albuquerque, New Mexico for Law Enforcement Day which was held at a local area Target Store. This MRAP is stationed in El Paso, Texas at The Homeland Security Investigations Office. MRAP is a Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicle.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/03/...llet-stockpile/

[Narcah]

Tanks are cool. Tanks are not cool when they are being used against US citizens...

[lazarus]

Tanks are cool. Tanks are not cool when they are being used against US citizens...

? why not? If they are terrorists or enemies what's the problem?

[OzarkWoman]

Originally Posted By: Narcah

Tanks are cool. Tanks are not cool when they are being used against US citizens...

? why not? If they are terrorists or enemies what's the problem?

So, now you are against trials? hmmmmmm The real problem is that it is the President who decides who is a terrorist and who isn't. The facts are that this government has been stocking up on tons of ammunition and weapons of war and it is not for use outside of the United States.

[lazarus]

Conservatives don't seem to be convinced by Paul's actions...from the Wall ST Journal

This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared.

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

[bonnie]

Conservatives don't seem to be convinced by Paul's actions...from the Wall ST Journal

This shocked Senator Paul, who invoked the Constitution and Miranda rights. Under current U.S. policy, Mr. Paul mused on the floor, Jane Fonda could have been legally killed by a Hellfire missile during her tour of Communist Hanoi in 1972. A group of noncombatants sitting in public view in Houston may soon be pulverized, he declared.

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. That does not include Hanoi Jane.

Maybe the reservations on this come from what has been termed

terrorism or potential terrorists.

Many of us have some very uncomfortable memories of Waco and a few other incidences.

[lazarus]

I'm totally supportive of Paul's stand. Someone has to stand up for basic freedoms. Whatever governments do to foreign nationals they will do to their own people if they ever have need to. If there were ever another Christopher Dorner type situation where perhaps 10 police had been killed. Law enforcement wouldn't bat an eyelid with a lethal drone strike and the news media would cheer them on.

[bonnie]

I'm totally supportive of Paul's stand. Someone has to stand up for basic freedoms. Whatever governments do to foreign nationals they will do not their own people if they ever have need to. If there were ever another Christopher Dorner type situation where perhaps 10 police had been killed. Law enforcement wouldn't bad an eyelid and the news media would cheer them on.

what do you mean....If there were ever another Christopher Dorner type situation where perhaps 10 police had been killed. Law enforcement wouldn't bad an eyelid and the news media would cheer them on

Christopher Dorner was a murderer.Should he have been allowed to continue at will? There was more than one media sympathizing

with that murderer.

Did you mean will or won't..Whatever governments do to foreign nationals they will do not their own people if they ever have need to.

[lazarus]

Sorry my last post was totally confusing. I've edited it.

[bonnie]

I'm totally supportive of Paul's stand. Someone has to stand up for basic freedoms. Whatever governments do to foreign nationals they will do to their own people if they ever have need to. If there were ever another Christopher Dorner type situation where perhaps 10 police had been killed. Law enforcement wouldn't bat an eyelid with a lethal drone strike and the news media would cheer them on.

You are assuming. But what you are assuming is a very real danger to the rapid escalation of drone use and a government that says "only if appropriate"

[joeb]

I'm totally supportive of Paul's stand. Someone has to stand up for basic freedoms. Whatever governments do to foreign nationals they will do to their own people if they ever have need to. If there were ever another Christopher Dorner type situation where perhaps 10 police had been killed. Law enforcement wouldn't bat an eyelid with a lethal drone strike and the news media would cheer them on.

This is exactly the problem. The Obama administration can, through unnamed and fully anonymous bureaucrats unilaterally say any US citizen it pleases them to name as such is a terrorist and an imminent threat to the US. Then, without any due process, that bureaucrat can "legally" order a drone strike against them, or simply hold them in jail forever with no trial.

Just who is deciding what a nation will "have a need to" do against its own citizens? Nameless, faceless, bureaucrats that cannot held accountable.

This is not the right or conservatives doing this as the liberals have always loved to say would do this. This is what is now the mainstream left with Obama at their helm, but then they have always been in favor of a big, completely controlling government and the elimination of all political dissent, as that is exactly what socialism/Marxism is all about.

[lazarus]

This is not the right or conservatives doing this as the liberals have always loved to say would do this. This is what is now the mainstream left with Obama at their helm, but then they have always been in favor of a big, completely controlling government and the elimination of all political dissent, as that is exactly what socialism/Marxism is all about.

Sorry but the most dangerous thing about this is that there is a broad political consensus that this is OK. Obama is continuing Bush era policies and in fact outflanking the neocons. Cheney loves this policy. Notice only 12 GOPers supported Rand Paul. Mc Cain has come out strongly against Rand Paul. This is not about marxism etc. this is about the future of American foreign and domestic policy that will continue going the same direction regardless of which party is in power.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: joeb

This is not the right or conservatives doing this as the liberals have always loved to say would do this. This is what is now the mainstream left with Obama at their helm, but then they have always been in favor of a big, completely controlling government and the elimination of all political dissent, as that is exactly what socialism/Marxism is all about.

Sorry but the most dangerous thing about this is that there is a broad political consensus that this is OK. Obama is continuing Bush era policies and in fact outflanking the neocons. Cheney loves this policy. Notice only 12 GOPers supported Rand Paul. Mc Cain has come out strongly against Rand Paul. This is not about marxism etc. this is about the future of American foreign and domestic policy that will continue going the same direction regardless of which party is in power.

I don't think I made myself very well understood.

Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them conservative or a believer in the principles our nation was founded on. To me conservative means agreeing with our founders on what our goverment is meant to do, and to not do, according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Socialism/marxism is the form of goverment we are tending towards for the last 100 years or so. We've had several Presidents now that found our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be unconscionable and against everything they stood for, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, and possibly even Teddy Roosevelt.

Our public educational system is now fully in the hands of socialists/marxists and educating our young people to despise the very form of government that gives them the right to hold opposing ideas. It's pure self destructiveness if you ask me, but then the young have always been the target of those who would use them to reach their own political agenda.

[bonnie]

.

I don't think I made myself very well understood.

Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them conservative or a believer in the principles our nation was founded on. To me conservative means agreeing with our founders on what our goverment is meant to do, and to not do, according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Socialism/marxism is the form of goverment we are tending towards for the last 100 years or so. We've had several Presidents now that found our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be unconscionable and against everything they stood for, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, and possibly even Teddy Roosevelt.

Our public educational system is now fully in the hands of socialists/marxists and educating our young people to despise the very form of government that gives them the right to hold opposing ideas. It's pure self destructiveness if you ask me, but then the young have always been the target of those who would use them to reach their own political agenda.

I don't think someone on the left can grasp the difference between a republican and a conservative.

Their best and only defense is "Bush"

[joeb]

I don't think someone on the left can grasp the difference between a republican and a conservative.

Their best and only defense is "Bush"

****grins****

[OzarkWoman]

[quote name='joeb

Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them conservative or a believer in the principles our nation was founded on. To me conservative means agreeing with our founders on what our goverment is meant to do' date=' and to not do, according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Socialism/marxism is the form of goverment we are tending towards for the last 100 years or so. We've had several Presidents now that found our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be unconscionable and against everything they stood for, beginning with Woodrow Wilson, and possibly even Teddy Roosevelt.

Our public educational system is now fully in the hands of socialists/marxists and educating our young people to despise the very form of government that gives them the right to hold opposing ideas. It's pure self destructiveness if you ask me, but then the young have always been the target of those who would use them to reach their own political agenda. [/quote']

BINGO!!!!

[lazarus]

Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them conservative or a believer in the principles our nation was founded on. To me conservative means agreeing with our founders on what our government is meant to do, and to not do, according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One thing we know is this. Every conservative who runs for public office runs as a Republican. Conservatives all vote for republican candidates. Republicans call themselves conservatives when they don't like what certain other conservatives in elected office are doing.

The US, for most of its history has not followed the constitution or bill or rights. That's undeniable.

[lazarus]

You guys are fighting the 20th century's political battle; the one that is between left and right. If you fight that battle you will lose your republic.

[bonnie]

One thing we know is this. Every conservative who runs for public office runs as a Republican. Conservatives all vote for republican candidates. Republicans call themselves conservatives when they don't like what certain other conservatives in elected office are doing.

Conservatives run as republican because there is not a viable

third party.Maybe there will be soon.

It is true that conservatives identify themselves as such when they don't like what liberals dressed as republicans do.

[joeb]

Originally Posted By: OzarkWoman

Just because someone is a Republican doesn't make them conservative or a believer in the principles our nation was founded on. To me conservative means agreeing with our founders on what our government is meant to do, and to not do, according to our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

One thing we know is this. Every conservative who runs for public office runs as a Republican. Conservatives all vote for republican candidates. Republicans call themselves conservatives when they don't like what certain other conservatives in elected office are doing.

The US, for most of its history has not followed the constitution or bill or rights. That's undeniable.

Hmmm.... Just what party is a conservative more likely to identify with? The Democratic party? While the Republican party has long ago abandoned most of its principles it's still closer to conservative values than the Democratic party is and thus a large percentage of the conservative politicians run as such. Ever wonder just why the Republican party can never come out with a singular message like the Democratic party does routinely? Because those who self-identify as Republicans are much more individualistic and have a much wider range of beliefs.

As to the US never following its Constitution or Bill of Rights, on just what do you base that? The fact that the founders fought a losing battle with the slave trade that was brought in by the English government and mandated by it for more than a century in several southern colonies and thus made it an institutionalized problem?

Those people who settled the northern colonies were in search of religious freedom and were against slavery. It is from them we get our form of government. The people the English settled the southern colonies with, many times the very dregs of English society, were made to embrace slavery by their English overlords for the profit it brought the Englishmen.

The only option the founding fathers had to tolerating slavery but starting the process of getting rid of it was to abandon the ideas of liberty and self-government completely and resign themselves to living under a monarchy. However, that still wouldn't have gotten rid of the slavery problem as it was a deeply-rooted problem that pre-dated them.

The argument that always condemns the founding fathers for slavery is a non-starter because it's based on some kind of wishful thinking.

[bonnie]

As to the US never following its Constitution or Bill of Rights, on just what do you base that? The fact that the founders fought a losing battle with the slave trade that was brought in by the English government and mandated by it for more than a century in several southern colonies and thus made it an institutionalized problem?

Those people who settled the northern colonies were in search of religious freedom and were against slavery. It is from them we get our form of government. The people the English settled the southern colonies with, many times the very dregs of English society, were made to embrace slavery by their English overlords for the profit it brought the Englishmen.

The only option the founding fathers had to tolerating slavery but starting the process of getting rid of it was to abandon the ideas of liberty and self-government completely and resign themselves to living under a monarchy. However, that still wouldn't have gotten rid of the slavery problem as it was a deeply-rooted problem that pre-dated them.

The argument that always condemns the founding fathers for slavery is a non-starter because it's based on some kind of wishful thinking.

Altho slavery was not specifically mentioned,it is a favorite club that some are known to use.

Aren't you relieved that you don't have to carry such a heavy chip on your shoulder for centuries?

[lazarus]

We don't need to go back as far a slavery to discover that many of the key previsions the US constitution have been denied to significant portions of the US population. In 2013 the majority population is now feeling the apprehension that other groups have felt throughout US history

The founding fathers had good reasons for doing what they did. Oppressors have always had solid reasons.

[bonnie]

The founding fathers had good reasons for doing what they did. Oppressors have always had solid reasons.

The founding fathers drafted a document with unheard of liberties and rules for governing this country.

Did they draft a perfect document?Of course not.However they were forward thinking enough to include in the drafting of the Bill of Rights and the constitution language was generally unheard of at that time.

For some reason you seem to think that the crossing of an ocean

would somehow transform and change thousands of years of culture,history and a mind set.

Doesn't happen in the real world,not even the one you live in.

The founding fathers were ordinary men,not perfect in any sense.

They did not draft a document with an eye on maintaining oppression but rather a fear of it.

The US is still a relatively young country as compared to "European" countries. Many issues have taken a long time to resolve,but the resolution of those issues was already built into this "document of oppression".

[joeb]

We don't need to go back as far a slavery to discover that many of the key previsions the US constitution have been denied to significant portions of the US population. In 2013 the majority population is now feeling the apprehension that other groups have felt throughout US history

The founding fathers had good reasons for doing what they did. Oppressors have always had solid reasons.

Hmmmm.... I'm impressed that you think so, but I've never agreed with that premise. In fact, I've yet to see an oppressive power that can give a solid reason for their oppression.

[OzarkWoman]

We don't need to go back as far a slavery to discover that many of the key previsions the US constitution have been denied to significant portions of the US population. In 2013 the majority population is now feeling the apprehension that other groups have felt throughout US history

The founding fathers had good reasons for doing what they did. Oppressors have always had solid reasons.

Well, what a lot of bunk!!! You might want to your leader, Obama, when you are talking about oppressors having solid reasons for they do.