On Tuesday of this week, I gave readers a glimpse at a video of New Jersey Congressman Leonard Lance, who stated that Congress needed to demand an answer from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief Janet “Big Sis” Napolitano, as to why her department needed 1.6-1.8 billion rounds of ammunition as well as nearly 3,000 light armored tanks. I thought Homeland Security’s job was to follow FEMA around carrying extra bottles of water after a natural disaster.
According to a story published at Infowars, there are several more members of Congress asking Big Sis for an explanation and not getting one. There are threats that funding would be withheld if the secretary continues to be mum on the subject. Don’t hold your breath.
The only explanation that I have read about is that DHS opted to buy ammo in large amounts to save money. If you buy that explanation, I’d like to sit down and talk with you about buying some bridges and maybe even a National Park or two. Buying in bulk to save money doesn’t give much explanation for the need for 3,000 Army tanks. On that subject, the best excuse I’ve heard, so far, is that they were surplus and cheap. (If you buy one bridge and one national park, I’ll toss in the Florida Everglades.)
In my brief comments on Tuesday about Rep. Leonard Lance’s statements about seeking answers from Big Sis, I wrote that I believed Lance was more saying what he thought he needed to say to protect his butt. I stick with that. As we are seeing, supposedly a few more congressmen are asking for an answer but will they get it, or get the right one? Doubtful. We seldom do.
