DHS Refuses to Answer to Congress on 1.6 Billion Bullet Purchase

[n2sooners]

A U.S. Congressman was asked about the Department of Homeland Security’s purchase of 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition that the agency will stockpile over the near future, as confirmed by the Associated Press.

According to the video description posted by WeAreChange:

“At CPAC, Luke Rudkowski interviewed Congressman Timothy Huelscamp on his decision to vote against the NDAA which was due to the unconstitutionality of the indefinite detention provision. They also discussed Obama’s Disposition Matrix and the large ammunition purchases made by the DHS.”

Militarization of domestic police forces is not permissible under U.S. law; and specifically posse comitatus (mentioned during Rand Paul’s filibuster). DHS has some explaining to do and there will be plenty of people analyzing if its stockpiling of weapons and ammunition passes muster.

It is irrelevant matter whether one is suspicious or trusting of the federal government when it comes to enforcing the law. It is the executive branch’s obligation to report to Congress what activities it is undertaking in order to be in legislative compliance and to receive funding.

If the DHS can’t handle being under the supervision of Congress, it should be defunded without an apology to the administration or to the mainstream media. Such matters are extremely serious and fall outside the realm of partisan bickering.

Source

Good place to start budget cutting.

 

[SMS]

How can they answer questions relating to a purchase that didn't happen?

Seems even our Congress critters don't understand the concept of Competitive Sourcing....just like people on OSA who keep posting about the 1.6 billion round purchase that never was.

 

[Lightsluvr]

If you believe in snopes....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/ssabullets.asp

LL

 

[SMS]

This is a classic example of the liberal tactic of "Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth". Except now, folks on the right are doing it. This has been mutating for over a year with numerous articles piggybacking on each other and giving it new legs, like the one in the OP that states "as confirmed by the AP", but if you actually read the AP article they confirmed no such thing. But someone prints it and it spreads and becomes the truth.

There NEVER has been a purchase order submitted for 1.6 billion rounds nor has there ever been multiple smaller quantity purchase orders submitted that total 1.6 billion.

There have been RFQs and IDIQs submitted, the caps on which may total 1.6 billion rounds. If someone takes a few minutes to get educated on IDIQ, RFQ, and competitive sourcing they will soon seen that none of those equal a purchase. No funds are exhanged, there is no commitment to purchase, agencies aren't funded for any future purchases in advance, and no product ever actually needs to be delivered.

The process of IDIQ can actually save the government money...heaven forbid we do that right?

This guy breaks it down, back to the original source documens better than I can: http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gear...ys-ammunition-purchases-should-not-worry-you/

 

[Hobbes]

This is a classic example of the liberal tactic of "Repeat the lie often enough and it becomes the truth". Except now, folks on the right are doing it. This has been mutating for over a year with numerous articles piggybacking on each other and giving it new legs, like the one in the OP that states "as confirmed by the AP", but if you actually read the AP article they confirmed no such thing. But someone prints it and it spreads and becomes the truth. There NEVER has been a purchase order submitted for 1.6 billion rounds nor has there ever been multiple smaller quantity purchase orders submitted that total 1.6 billion. There have been RFQs and IDIQs submitted, the caps on which may total 1.6 billion rounds. If someone takes a few minutes to get educated on IDIQ, RFQ, and competitive sourcing they will soon seen that none of those equal a purchase. No funds are exhanged, there is no commitment to purchase, agencies aren't funded for any future purchases in advance, and no product ever actually needs to be delivered. The process of IDIQ can actually save the government money...heaven forbid we do that right? This guy breaks it down, back to the original source documens better than I can: http://militarytimes.com/blogs/gear...ys-ammunition-purchases-should-not-worry-you/

This article must be mistaken. Sarah Palin herself has said the Obama administration is stockpiling ammo to use against US citizens and she's never been known to prevaricate or pander to our fears and paranoia for political gain before.

 

[SMS]

This article must be mistaken. Sarah Palin herself has said the Obama administration is stockpiling ammo to use against US citizens and she's never been known to prevaricate or pander to our fears and paranoia for political gain before.

Nope never...and there no ground to be made by any politician...especially an unknown junior Congressman from Kansas trying to get himself some national attention.

 

[reddog1]

Nope never...and there no ground to be made by any politician...especially an unknown junior Congressman from Kansas trying to get himself some national attention.

"These are not the droids you are looking for...move along."

 

[SMS]

"These are not the droids you are looking for...move along."

Yeah, except in this case there aren't any droids in the first place. Not even the decapitated, hollowed out head of a 3PO to function as a pot to piss in....

So I don't need to use my Jedi mind trick.

 

[Belthos]

How can they answer questions relating to a purchase that didn't happen?

Seems even our Congress critters don't understand the concept of Competitive Sourcing....just like people on OSA who keep posting about the 1.6 billion round purchase that never was.

If that is true, wouldn't the appropriate answer be there is no such purchase?

Seems like that would be an answer. They are required by law to answer congress, not surprising since congress passes laws for a living.

 

[SMS]

They did that very thing and said it was competitive sourcing. People who can't or won't grasp the concept of CS, or who are looking to gain attention and push an agenda continue to ignore that simple fact...and lack any proof to the contrary.