Standing against big government and for the people!
Prefatory self-disclosure: First, I think an armed citizenry is the best homeland security, not some large and now overgrown and overly bureaucratic government entity. Second, I don't much trust the Obama Administration. After all, what president has lied, or changed his "story," more times on camera and in more videos than Barack Obama? Entire carefully researched and heavily footnoted and annotated books have been written about our Liar-in-Chief's liberal liberties with the truth. And then, there's Fast & Furious, as well as Benghazi-gate, and all the Administration liars involved in those, just not to be too picky.
But, I especially don't trust Obama's Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the mismanagement of Janet "Big Sis" Napolitano, or as I like to call her because of her ineptitude, Incompetano. Anyone who, for liberal, demagogic and idealistic reasons, contorts the English language into calling terrorist acts "man-made disasters," just to avoid calling them what they are, is someone not to be trusted. It's almost like she, AG Holder and Obama have a gag reflex about using the term "terrorist." But, there are other reasons.
It was Big Sis Incompetano who, I think back in April 2010, published to all law enforcement (LE) agencies across the country a memo highlighting that military veterans (like me), previous LE personnel (like me) and conservatives who disagreed with Obama's policies (like me) should be considered potential domestic terrorists. Rather than make me feel paranoid (because it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you, you know), that made me feel "special," as if I had somehow been included on Oblame-o's "list." (And I thought I might make Obama's list just with all my right-wing blogging. Sigh.) Perhaps not as special as Dana Carvey's Church Lady's, "Well, isn't that speee-SHUL?," but I felt special to be a triple category "suspect" nonetheless.
Then, there were all those rumors, conspiracy theories, or possibly factual comments about FEMA building "camps" in remote locations and what such camps might be for (internment, re-education, national work programs, gulags?), and then about FEMA buying thousands of stackable coffins, one theory being that would be so much neater than mass grave pits in the ground, which is what the Nazis sometimes used in Germany and Pol Pot used in Cambodia.
But, back specifically to the DHS. It was Incompetano who said, before the sequester even took effect, that thousands of already arrested illegal aliens had to be released back onto American community streets because the sequester meant she wouldn't have enough money for beds for them, yet she had time, and there were evidently enough funds available, for her to sneak a $50M contract under the wire just before the sequester for 5,000 TSA employees to get new uniforms, which strangely, given TSA's job to provide security services in our nation's airports, included helmets and protective gear. Hmmm, helmets and protective gear to do pat downs and check carry-ons of air travelers? As my granddad used to say, with a twinkle in his eye, "That's a puzzlement."
It was also Big Sis who, since the sequester began, said that major airports were seeing lines "...150 to 200 percent as long as we would normally expect" as a result of the federal spending "cuts" (read: slow down in federal spending) that went into force with the sequester. However, when contacted by The Daily Telegraph, spokespeople for both O’Hare and LAX, as well as representatives from the travel industry in general, denied that airports had been hit by delays. "We haven’t had any slowdowns at all," said Marshall Lowe, a spokesman for LAX. Mr. Lowe said that he had been on duty over the weekend and received no reports of unusual security delays at all. So, Big Sis is either lying or is, as I've nicknamed her, Incompetano, or both.
In more nefarious DHS news, a TEA Party report recently described how the DHS has redacted portions of government documents dealing with its massive purchases of ammo and firearms from Remington Arms Company, Inc., in sole-source, no-bid contracts (so much for liberal complaints about no-bid contracts for Big Oil). Normally, government agencies are only allowed to redact documents which are classified, which these contracts weren't, and/or those dealing with national security, so what is DHS trying to hide from the American people?
According to one estimate, just since last year, the DHS has stockpiled more than 1.6 billion (that's with a B) bullets, mainly .40 caliber and 9mm, including many hollow point rounds, which are not, as alleged by the DHS, used for "target practice" but which are highly lethal kill rounds which expand inside the body, for those of you who don't know.
Why does the DHS need millions of rounds of hollow point ammo and about 7,000 also recently purchased and fully automatic rifles, which they describe as "personal defense weapons"? Hey, I would also like a full auto, "personal defense weapon," please -- but liberals are trying to restrict the guns I already have and severely hamper my ability to buy any more of my choice. [But more about the liberal assault on the Second Amendment elsewhere, in another article I'm working on, called "Tyranny's Creeping Incrementalism," to be published soon.]
Thus, the DHS has amassed enough firepower to shoot every, single American at least five times and/or wage a 30-year war. Sarah Palin theorized it was in preparation for civil unrest over Obama's policies and she was, as usual, excoriated by the curiously incurious mainstream media (AKA liberal, lapdog media), who seem to prefer simply accepting whatever lame excuses or explanations the DHS or other Obama Administration officials feed them, instead of really trying to find out if the DHS has something to hide.
And why is the DHS ordering and sponsoring that other LE agencies also buy so-called "no hesitation" targets of everyday, armed Americans for practice in not hesitating to shoot such people? It’s been confirmed that Law Enforcement in the DHS requested these “no hesitation" targets, which depict images of a pregnant woman, children and an elderly man holding guns, and that they are meant to train law enforcement to shoot at civilians holding firearms, when normally they would hesitate to shoot to kill pregnant women, children and elderly people.
It’s been confirmed and documented the DHS has ordered $2 million worth of these targets. Law Enforcement Targets, Inc. (letargets.com), got the $2M contract and manufactures targets for the DHS, Justice Department, and apparently thousands of other law enforcement agencies.
The product description on LET’s website about these targets reads: “[H]elp the transition for officers who are faced with these highly unusual targets for the first time…[includes] pregnant woman threat… older man with shotgun… older man in home with shotgun…older woman with gun… young school aged girl…young mother on playground… [and finally]…little boy with real gun.”
Not really being all that much of a conspiracy theorist, I just provide you with this information and let you draw your own conclusions, but it does seem strange to me, to say the least. In all my years in military law enforcement, although we had live-fire training in mockups of buildings with both friendly and unfriendly pop-up targets, to train us to quickly ID "friendlies" from the bad guys, we never trained on any targets like these.
And there's also this, from Liberty News:
"Recently uncovered government documents reveal that the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) unmanned Predator B drone fleet has been customize designed to identify civilians carrying guns and track cell phone signals.
"The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) obtained a partially redacted copy of Homeland Security’s drone requirements through a Freedom of Information Act request; CNET uncovered an unredacted copy.
"Homeland Security design requirements specify that its Predator B drones '...shall be capable of identifying a standing human being at night as likely armed or not' and must be equipped with 'interception' systems capable of reading cell phone signals (emphasis added).
"The first known domestic use of a drone to arrest a U.S. citizen occurred last year in the small town of Lakota, North Dakota when rancher Rodney Brossart was arrested for refusing to return six of his neighbor’s cows that had wandered on to his property. Critics say the fact that domestic drones are being used in such minor matters raises serious concerns about civil liberties and government overreach.
"If that’s not bad enough, add a little execution from the sky without due process: Attorney General Eric Holder can imagine a scenario in which it would be constitutional to carry out a drone strike against an American on American soil. He wrote in a letter to Senator Rand Paul (R-KY): 'It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.' Holder was replying in a letter to Senator Paul’s question in an earlier letter about whether Obama '...has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil, and without trial.'
"Just to summarize: the DHS is basically performing stop and frisk searches from the sky, denying citizens their Fourth Amendment rights, and the main legal advisor to the President of the United States is telling him he can, in “extraordinary circumstances,” rain down fiery death on citizens, violating their Fifth Amendment rights.
"Meanwhile, the same people are waging a full scale war on the Second Amendment, because only the government can be trusted with 'weapons of war.' And the people (liberals in and out of the media) cheering them on are the same people who called Bush a dictator."
That's the end of the information from Liberty News but, by the way and just for a little comfort, Obama's AG, Eric "Stonewaller" Holder, even more recently further "clarified" his position in an additional statement in which he told Congress that the federal government has “no intention” of using drones to strike at targets within the US, saying it’s easier to capture people here so that tool is not as important.
Well, Mr. Attorney General, at least you seem to have practical, even if not constitutional, reasons for not killing Americans with drone strikes, without due process, here at home, and at least have "no intention," at least for now, of doing so. So, that's, uh, supposed to be reassuring?
It was a little more encouraging when, just last week, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), after one-and-a-half months of asking and an almost 13-hour filibuster, which no doubt embarrassed the White House, finally got Holdout Holder to send him a letter saying Obama as president didn't have the right to drone strike unarmed Americans on American soil. Holder's terse letter said: ""It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: 'Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?' The answer to that question is no."
Remember, folks, arrogant attitude and Columbia law degree notwithstanding (if not questionable), Holder is the same guy who at one point wanted our soldiers to Mirandize captured, enemy terrorist combatants on the battlefield (showing he knows nothing about battlefield conditions), who had the Underwear Bomber Mirandized and told all his "rights" under our Constitution (even though the bomber was a terrorist and not an American citizen), and who also wanted to bring Guantanamo terrorist detainees to the US to be tried like regular criminals in federal court, instead of being tried by military tribunals at Gitmo (until too many liberal Democrats yelled NIMBY).
Oh, but also last week, we learned that Team Obama-Holder sneaked a captured key terrorist, Osama bin Laden's son-in-law, into the US, not to Guantanamo to be questioned and tried by a military tribunal but to New York City to be tried as a common criminal in federal court, with Miranda rights and all the protections of an American citizen. I'm now waiting for those same liberal New York Democrats in Congress to cry foul at this being done, this time behind their backs and without their chance to even yell NIMBY once again. I sometimes wonder if Holder's clock even goes all the way around the dial.
Meanwhile, back at the ole DHS ranch: The DHS has also purchased 2,700 Mine Resistant Armor Protected Vehicles (MRAP). These are massive, armored trucks. What do you think the DHS needs these for? Most views of them I've seen don't show them very well, but these armored monsters have gun ports as well. Hmmm, armored vehicles, with gun ports, just for crowd control? My 25-plus years in the military, in law enforcement and specializing in security, tells me -- no, they're for intimidation, for suppression, just like Hungary's or China's tanks in the streets were during their own popular uprisings against tyrannical government -- and I think that may be what the DHS is gearing up for.
What do you think? Feeling safer now?