DHS purchases 2700 MRAPs

[anygunanywhere]

“After we win this election, it’s our turn. Payback time. Everyone not with us is against us and they better be ready because we don’t forget. The ones who helped us will be rewarded, the ones who opposed us will get what they deserve. There is going to be hell to pay. Congress won’t be a problem for us this time. No election to worry about after this is over and we have two judges ready to go." Valerie Jarrett

Anygunanywhere

[SamBodie]

Anyone remember this?

"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Barack Obama

[stevie_d_64]

From the link in Stevie_d_64's post

An earlier version of this post included a figure of over 2,700 vehicles, as cited from the original RT link. This figure likely comes from a press release from Navistar Defense, mentioning delivery of 2,717 to the U.S. Marine Corps. A DHS Spokesman confirmed with Business Insider that they have only 16 nationwide.

16 of these vehicles in DHS's hands is bad enough. We do need to get to the bottom of how such purchases are being made. Like others, I've written to my Federal representatives and asked them to specifically look into this matter. I'm not optimistic. When you combine the ammo purchases, the drones and now these, one has to really stretch the imagination to believe it is anything but a problem for the law abiding American people.

I'm not going to ask who your US congressman is, it is up to you to contact them and ask these questions...Keep the pressure on and expect a timely answer!!!

The more of those folks we light a fire under the more this issue will stay on the front burner up there...

I would love for them to turn this into a wonderful waste of tax dollars and manpower at the end of the day...And hang it like a noose around the necks of those who have alterior motives...

[stevie_d_64]

...A DHS Spokesman confirmed with Business Insider...

See, they knew this might not stay under the radar for very long, and now they are circling the wagons and lying to those in the media not letting this issue go away...

Only 16??? hehehe, what a crock...

[anygunanywhere]

Some site called "Little Green Footballs" is spinning that the MRAPs are for the Marine Corps.

Anygunanywhere

[mamabearCali]

I expect they will be used little but will rust much. A nice toy for those who can to play with.

I doubt that.

They will be used to great effect once the tyrants decide to implement the plan.

These are not $500 toilet seats.

These go right along with the drones. If folks do not believe this then reread what government mafioso hit man holder wrote to Rand Paul

Anygunanywhere

It is not that I think they don't have malice. I believe they do. It is just that I think they are (as usual) preparing for the last war. This is not Iraq, or Afghanistan. We are not paralyzed people used to being ruled with an iron fist. We have been free at least to a certain degree. If they really think they will be fighting heartland Americans (not to mention southern Atlantic states, they need to think beyond drones and armored personnel carriers. I just think that these things will have limited uses. Whatever they can produce an insurgency can steal. This is a big country. It is wide and varied.

[stevie_d_64]

Some site called "Little Green Footballs" is spinning that the MRAPs are for the Marine Corps.

Anygunanywhere

I am familiar with that blog site...Fairly good and timely info...But I believe they are mistaken...Yes, some of those vehicles were slated for the Marines, and were utilized in theater ops...Specifically, the 400+ M1117's that are being "refurbished" from those operations are being transferred to the DHS from the other reports...These MRAP's I have seen were totally bought and paid for for the DHS "army"...I will certainly go to Green Footballs and see what they found out...no problem...

Bottom line:

We need to connect these dots, and those who are most able to do that are elected to offices, where we should expect them to get to the bottom of these things...

Are you still in Pete Olsen's district??? I still get the impression he is still looking like a deer in the headlights on this issue...

If it's Steve Stockman, you have an easy sell on this, if its Randy Weber (US-14), then that may be even easier...

I remember him (Randy) and I working together as Precinct Chairs on CD22 stuff back in the day...He is very much on our side of the issue...

[stevie_d_64]

@anygunanywhere...

I just read the Charles Johnson's (little green footballs) blog about this being a fake story about the "tanks"...

I guess to put this mildly, that if a senior congressman who is on the US Congressional Finance Committee (Jeb Hensarling) can confirm these purchases, then I have to wonder where Charles Johnson is basing his claims on...

[anygunanywhere]

It is not that I think they don't have malice. I believe they do. It is just that I think they are (as usual) preparing for the last war. This is not Iraq, or Afghanistan. We are not paralyzed people used to being ruled with an iron fist. We have been free at least to a certain degree. If they really think they will be fighting heartland Americans (not to mention southern Atlantic states, they need to think beyond drones and armored personnel carriers. I just think that these things will have limited uses. Whatever they can produce an insurgency can steal. This is a big country. It is wide and varied.

Think total chaos in the big cities, moving assault teams in the countryside.

This purchase is just the tip of the spear.

Command and control will be from hardened sites. Remember all of those "Emergency Operations Centers" built for hurricanes and other "natural disasters"?

Current countless SWAT teams already have vehicles that pre-date these.

The government is not going to initiate anything formally. They will not drop the greeen flag and roll the forces on their side.

The goverment's response will be entirely reactionary in nature to the mobs and chaos created by the collapse of the economy and the resultant lack of food, water, electricity, and fuel.

Once the reaction starts and martial law is declared then the real use of the vehicles and the true numbers will become apparent.

You will also see the true nature of the survival mentality even among the military and law enforcement that stay true to their superiors and ignore their oath.

Anygunanywhere

[Beiruty]

Anygunanywhere,

Your views are drifting to extreme right, or whatever it is called. One has to cool down and cool heads all the time will prevail. I am not trying to attack you or your credibility but too much tin foil is not good for your health.

I think being prudent and prepared to any eventuality is good practice. However, rest assured that many in high places cherish stability and growth in land of the Free.

The upcoming Fiscal derailment is tough, however, so far the Fed banks proved capable to smooth the ride at minimal cost to all. The Feds are silently bailing us all and the world is happy with that.

Have good day, it is lovely spring day here in Big Ole' Texas.

[Nightshift]

I also have questioned the veracity of the article about 2700 tanks because I can find no mainstream media outlet even Drudge Report that can verify this claim. However I do not think it impossible, in fact I think it could be quite likely most of these large media outlet have long ago abandoned any real reporting and they are also all owned by a very few large companies. They may have been told to keep quiet about this, I dont know, but the one thing I wanted to point out is that the the most important part of the letter from Eric Holder was left out of this discussion:

"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. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such fore if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstance of a catastrophic attack the like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."

So whether this is true or not, I think it very concerning that just yesterday the TSA as you know announced that it was now legal to carry small pocket knives on planes. Now the reason that these knives have been banned is clearly because they are not really that different in terms of potential use as a weapon from box cutters. They both have a similar sized blade and could potentially be lethal if used in a hostage situation and clearly capable of doing great damage even taking down a pilot if used on someones jugular. So my question is this. If you look at the line in the quote above from Eric Holders letter to Rand Paul, it says that using military lethal force against American citizens would in Eric Holders mind be constitutional if there were to occur another terrorist attack such as 9/11. So why then would they be allowing these knives which for the past 10 years have been considered a danger all of a sudden to be o.k. It seems as if they are almost inviting another terrorist attack to have an excuse to declare martial law. This is very disconcerting and probably will be dismissed by most as black helicopter conspiracy but as we have seen a good majority of what was once considered conspiracy is no longer conspiracy.

[Excaliber]

I also have questioned the veracity of the article about 2700 tanks because I can find no mainstream media outlet even Drudge Report that can verify this claim. However I do not think it impossible, in fact I think it could be quite likely most of these large media outlet have long ago abandoned any real reporting and they are also all owned by a very few large companies. They may have been told to keep quiet about this, I dont know, but the one thing I wanted to point out is that the the most important part of the letter from Eric Holder was left out of this discussion:

"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. For example, the President could conceivably have no choice but to authorize the military to use such fore if necessary to protect the homeland in the circumstance of a catastrophic attack the like the ones suffered on December 7, 1941, and September 11, 2001."

So whether this is true or not, I think it very concerning that just yesterday the TSA as you know announced that it was now legal to carry small pocket knives on planes. Now the reason that these knives have been banned is clearly because they are not really that different in terms of potential use as a weapon from box cutters. They both have a similar sized blade and could potentially be lethal if used in a hostage situation and clearly capable of doing great damage even taking down a pilot if used on someones jugular. So my question is this. If you look at the line in the quote above from Eric Holders letter to Rand Paul, it says that using military lethal force against American citizens would in Eric Holders mind be constitutional if there were to occur another terrorist attack such as 9/11. So why then would they be allowing these knives which for the past 10 years have been considered a danger all of a sudden to be o.k. It seems as if they are almost inviting another terrorist attack to have an excuse to declare martial law. This is very disconcerting and probably will be dismissed by most as black helicopter conspiracy but as we have seen a good majority of what was once considered conspiracy is no longer conspiracy.

I don't see a relationship between the two circumstances.

Hurting or even killing someone with a pocket knife will not get you into the cockpit these days, and injuring or killing one or two people on a plane won't be perceived by anyone as justifying drone strikes in the U.S.

A pocketknife with a non-locking 2.36 inch blade also won't get you very far with flight crew or passengers. A determined attacker could slash a few people, but the post 9/11 response of the rest of the passengers would be overwhelming and decisive.

The TSA decision looks like just a rare moment of lucidity in line with the removal of the bans on things like eyebrow tweezers and hairpins. The motivation is being sold as risk based, but it appears more likely to be motivated by a desire to reduce workload and increase throughput at checkpoints by eliminating the need to open bags and confiscate things that have little potential weapon value.

[anygunanywhere]

Anygunanywhere,

Your views are drifting to extreme right, or whatever it is called. One has to cool down and cool heads all the time will prevail. I am not trying to attack you or your credibility but too much tin foil is not good for your health.

I think being prudent and prepared to any eventuality is good practice. However, rest assured that many in high places cherish stability and growth in land of the Free.

The upcoming Fiscal derailment is tough, however, so far the Fed banks proved capable to smooth the ride at minimal cost to all. The Feds are silently bailing us all and the world is happy with that.

Have good day, it is lovely spring day here in Big Ole' Texas.

I can't figure out if you really believe what you post or if your tongue is in yer cheek.

Anygunanywhere

[texanjoker]

So in reading this threat, I can't even tell if this is true or not. I saw the comment about 16, and swat teams having older vehicles. I can say there is a need for swat to have them. That armored vehicle comes in handy when you are pinned by gun fire, doing officer/citizen rescues, ect. Do they need this many? Can't say until we have proof they even have them. That does seem like a lot.

[Nightshift]

don't see a relationship between the two circumstances.

Hurting or even killing someone with a pocket knife will not get you into the cockpit these days, and injuring or killing one or two people on a plane won't be perceived by anyone as justifying drone strikes in the U.S.

A pocketknife with a non-locking 2.36 inch blade also won't get you very far with flight crew or passengers. A determined attacker could slash a few people, but the post 9/11 response of the rest of the passengers would be overwhelming and decisive.

The TSA decision looks like just a rare moment of lucidity in line with the removal of the bans on things like eyebrow tweezers and hairpins. The motivation is being sold as risk based, but it appears more likely to be motivated by a desire to reduce workload and increase throughput at checkpoints by eliminating the need to open bags and confiscate things that have little potential weapon value.

Well I hope you are right but I dont necessarily agree with your assessment of the danger of pocket knives on planes now just because they have locks on doors and attitudes of people now being such that current flyers would not tolerate what happened on 9/11. If a group of attackers like on 9/11 had pocket knives to the throats of all of the flight attendants I would think that would be a serious threat, yes if there were enough able bodied people to form an attack on the terrorists than Im sure they could overcome them but at the expense of what the slit throats of all of the flight attendants. There are many people that wouldnt be able to overcome the mental hurdle of knowing that any attack would likely result in the death of the flight attendants.

Clearly the flight attendants union thinks that this is a serious issue this is a quote from them:
“Today’s announcement to permit knives back into the aircraft cabin is a poor and shortsighted decision by the TSA,” the group said in a statement. “As the last line of defense in the cabin and key aviation partners, we believe that these proposed changes will further endanger the lives of all flight attendants and the passengers we work so hard to keep safe and secure.”

How do you know that a pilot might not be convinced to open a cockpit door should one of his flight attendants be threatened to be killed by one of these atackers should he have a knife to her throat. The fact is there are most likely pilots out there that could be convinced to do so.

I would like to think that this could never happen again but I have seen plenty of situations on the news happen where groups of people were so afraid to get involved that they did nothing to render aid in a situation that called for it.

All I can say is I hope you are right.