Skip to comments.Why does Obama need 1.6 billion bullets? (challenges Old Media to cover multiple federal ammo dumps)
Posted on 03/14/2013 9:54:41 PM PDT by Perseverando
Dear Mainstream Media,
Back in 2008, candidate Barack Obama went off his teleprompter and added a couple of sentences to the text of a speech about expanding the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. Over rolling applause, the soon-to-be president of the United States said: We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that weve set. Weve got to have a civilian national security force thats just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.
At the time, Joseph Farah of WND.com wrote a column calling on you to help shine a light on what this shocking statement really meant. In a permanent state of vapors over Obamas candidacy, you were of no use when it came to extracting anything but press releases from Team Obama.
Nearly five years later, it hardly matters that candidate Obamas promise to double the Peace Corps and the rest has come to naught. But the presidents unscripted determination to empower a civilian national security force is a different story. As far as youre concerned, though, its also a nonstory.
This complacency or complicity has to stop. During the last 10 months, the Department of Homeland Security has purchased 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition, including millions of hollow-point bullets. The department also has purchased 7,000 fully automatic assault rifles, and it has overseen the retrofitting of more than 2,000 light tanks, which, of course, were originally designed to resist the mines and ambushes of the battlefield. Why does DHS need such offensive and defensive firepower?
Remember, DHS stands for Department of Homeland Security, and homeland, just to be extremely clear, means the USA. Obama must be asked against which domestic enemy he is arming nonmilitary forces. It sounds incredible, to be sure, but are we watching administration battle
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
old media is covering, if they cover they will be protected. simple as that.
What guns are they armed with?
Important is that a segment of the US population is alert to this fact, but a majority does not even understand its implication. IMHO the US gov is not preparing to subjugate the entire US population, but rather preparing for a siege or regional outbreak of civil disorder. Add to the 2700 MRAP vehicles, and 1.6 billion rounds of ammo is about 10 million #10 cans of dehydrated food FEMA brought in the spring and summer of 2011. Food, guns, fighting vehicles, existing military forts and underground shelters. Sounds like Uncle Sam is ready for a siege.
IMHO the US gov/banks are entering a very unstable and dangerous financial scenario. Pumping money to keep the stock market afloat, banks solvent, and unknown/unseen obligations banks got the US involve with SWAPS, CDO, CDS etc etc, as well as secret loans to overseas banks to prevent the international currency printing from imploding, the behavior of the US gov makes you wonder. I always thought the US would pull back its forces overseas if they anticipate domestic disorder. Rather the US gov and the power elites decided to build a domestic internal security force instead for possible domestic collapse. You know what that means, the US gov is prepare to abandon her military forces overseas if an emergency happens to our financial system and a collapse occurs.
Since we may have a glimpse of what the gov is preparing for, then what are we as freepers who are aware going to do to prepare our families and community for the potential calamity?
I think the author is referring to MRAPs.
Why is the author claiming that civilian law forces are arming with 2000 “light tanks”?
Because some conservative outlets are reporting that DHS recently purchased 2,000+ MRAPs. Nobody can explain why.
Because, those attack vehicles, are actually easter bunnies.
The author is deliberately lying to people, an MRAP is not a light tank armed for tank warfare.
Or the author doesn’t understand the difference.
Ok, they are not tanks but they are very scary, even though it says “Police/Rescue” on the side.
Before one picks up the pen to tell the public that “tanks” are coming after them, shouldn’t they at least look into it, or google it, or talk to a veteran or someone who reads a little bit?
She knew what she was doing, it is WND, it is what they do with everything.
An AR-15 is not a heavy machine gun, and an MRAP is not a tank.
Thats where you in the mainstream media come in. This story has been burning up the alternative press [it's time for you to join in!]
Not to worry.. "nonpartisan" CoastToCoastAM is featuring this problem in the last three hours of tonight's show.
Yes, "the government" is up to no good.. and it's Bush's fault, he started it is the likely conclusion if the usual C2C take on these matters prevails.
The guest tonight is frequent guest and author of books like "The Hydra of Carnage: Bush's War-Rule of Law." Craig B Hulet. "Bush's Imperial War-making and The Rule of Law".
In all this conundrum my thoughts center on how could USA citizen peace officers take armed conflict against other law abiding citizens. The spirit of a disunited citizenry apart from political is beyond my reasoning especially as a WWII vet. Where are all the Vet organizations on such a possibility? The 4th of July can’t have much real patriotic motivation if such a situation can happen. I do believe that putting Brennan, A Muslim, in as CIA chief and his taking an oath on a personal version of the Constitution is ominous for our freedoms apart from Sharia law. We have lackeys and/or traitors in Congress as well as an enabler of such as POTUSA. I’ll let you know if I get a special call.
I think you are quibbling Ansel. A ‘tank’ can be any armored vehicle. It doesn’t necessarily have to be armed as well. The German ‘panzer’ means ‘armor.’
The British were the first to develop tanks. They were code-named ‘cisterns’ or ‘reservoirs.’ Churchill was one of its backers, following grinding WWI trench warfare and the remarkable feat of the French in rushing troops to the front in taxis. Eventually the term ‘tank’ stuck. They actually had (what they called) ‘male’ and ‘female’ versions of their early tanks and I believe the ladies were unarmed.
The most extraordinary thing here, I think, is someone—myself—actually defending WND ...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.