Big Brother Has Purchased Nearly Three-Quarters of A BILLION Rounds of Ammo for Future Domestic Operations

USDA Orders 326,000 Rounds of Ammunition As Homeland Security Stays Quiet Over 450 Million Round Order

The Intel Hub
April 4, 2012

In the last few weeks the fact that the Department of Homeland Security recently ordered 450 million rounds of hollow point ammunition (which was on top of the 2 million ordered in 2009) has been heavily discussed by numerous alternative media outlets.

For their part, the corporate controlled media and the DHS itself have chosen to stay quiet, refusing to answer inquiries as to why they need millions of hollow point bullets at a time when they are largely focusing on domestic operations.

A recent report by RT highlighted this fact:

The DHS has signed off on an “indefinite delivery” from defense contractors ATK that will include, for some reason, nearly 500 million high-power ammunition for .40 caliber firearms.

The department has yet to discuss why they are ordering such a massive bevy of bullets for an agency that has limited need domestically for doing harm, but they say they expect to continue receiving shipments from the manufacturer for the next five years, during which they plan to blow through enough ammunition to execute more people than there are in the entire United States.

“We are proud to extend our track record as the prime supplier of .40 caliber duty ammunition for DHS,” reads an official statement from Ron Johnson, ATK’s president of Security and Sporting, who adds that his group will also be giving up weaponry to the DHS subdivision of ICE, or Immigrations and Custom Enforcement.

While ammunition itself seems not too unreasonable of a request by a major federal entity that emphasizes domestic durability and safeguarding the country from coast to coast, the choice — and quantity — of its hollow point order raises a lot of questions about future plans for the DHS.

ATK says they won their contract with the US government by being able to provide them with 450 million HST bullets, which it describes as “the next generation in high performance duty ammunition.”

Apparently Homeland Security is not the only domestic government agency that has bought a large amount of ammunition in the last 7 months.

In a post published on the now infamous website, the US Forest Service (USDA) solicited and secured a bid for over 300,000 rounds of ammunition (scary raw milk farmers beware) including:

Added: Sep 28, 2011 5:15 pm

(1) 40 caliber, 180 grain, 120,000 rounds or equivalent,
(2) 9 mm, 124 grain, 50,000 rounds or equivalent,
(3) .38 caliber, 135 grain, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(4) .380 caliber, 90 grain, 6,000 rounds or equivalent,
(5) .223 caliber, 64 grain, 87,500 rounds or equivalent,
(6) 12 gauge 00 buck, 15,000 rounds or equivalent,
(7) 40 caliber frangible, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(8) 9 caliber frangible, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(9) .223 caliber frangible, 10,000 rounds or equivalent,
(10) 12 gauge 1 oz slug, 7,500 rounds or equivalent

The cartridges shall be delivered to Albuquerque, NM.

An article from the Prepper Podcast Radio Network also cited a bid from the US Fish and Wildlife services and a solicitation from the FBI.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services require the following items, Exact Match Only, to the following:

1. Remington Frangible .40 Caliber Pistol Ammunition – 2,500 rounds

2. Remington .40 Caliber Pistol Ammunition (180 grain) Full Metal Jacket – 6,000 rounds

3. Remington .223 Caliber Rifle Ammunition (62 grain) Full Metal Jacket – 3,000 rounds

4. Remington FX Marking Cartridges (9 mm) – 2,000 rounds

These requirements seem normal considering the possibility of running into grizzly bears and wolverines. These, to me, are acceptable quantities to order.

And of course the FBI needs about 100,000,000 rounds of .40 caliber ammunition for law enforcement needs. It posted the request November 15, 2011 and the order will be awarded this week.  Oddly, it states a fixed price indefinite-delivery indefinite-quantity type contract; however the pricing requirements go up to 100,000,000 rounds.

That’s right, the US government apparently needs over 750 million extra .40 caliber rounds for use in what can only be assumed to be future “domestic operations.”


The Dangerous Policy of Letting the Saudis Call the Tune In the Middle East

Saudi Arabia’s Syrian jihad

By Joshua Jacobs

If there was any doubt as to Saudi intentions in Syria, that veil was ripped away on Sunday at the Istanbul "Friends of Syria" conference. The Saudis and their Gulf allies spearheaded an effort to create a formalized pay structure for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and privately ruminated on the possibility of setting up official supply conduits to forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. This decision went much further than what the West, or even neighboring Turkey, seemed willing to embrace. But while the United States and her allies are wary of seeing Syria become a sectarian battleground, the power brokers in Riyadh are enthusiastically hurtling towards it.
When the Syrian uprising began last March, Saudi Arabia was in a state of panic. The revolution in Egypt, the uprising in Bahrain, and the bubbling civil war in Yemen consumed attention and cultivated a manic siege mentality. This fear and clarion call for stability stymied any potential efforts at exploiting the regional chaos. However as the Saudi domestic and geopolitical situation began to stabilize, they began to look hungrily at the potential opportunity in Syria.
The shift onto the offensive began in early August when King Abdullah tested the waters by staking out a position as the first Arab leader to castigate the Assad regime. While the Saudis escalated their rhetoric and began lobbying in Arab diplomatic circles, they also began to unchain their clerical soft power. A steady stream of firebrand clerics and senior religious officials began to take to the airwaves with official Saudi sanction to excoriate the Assad regime and encourage pious Muslims to strive against it. Clerics like Sheikh Adnan al-Arour, a Syrian-born Salafist preacher who has called for a jihad against the Assad regime have been given prime time coverage. The influence of these clerics and the increasing connection between them and fighters in Syria is evidenced by communiques from armed groups like the ‘Supporters of God Brigade’ in Hama which declared allegiance to al-Arour.
To experienced Saudi watchers the escalating religious rhetoric being encouraged in the Kingdom may seem perplexing. For much of the past decade the Saudi government has worked to muzzle and regulate the ability of clerics to make calls for jihad, reinforcing the doctrine that such an action is only valid if endorsed by the King and his senior religious authorities. This was done to suppress the flow of recruits not only to al-Qaeda but to insurgent groups in Iraq and Yemen. However the Saudi decision is a sign that they are once again willing to embrace one of the most potent weapons in the Kingdom’s arsenal, state directed jihad.
It is one of the most tried and true weapons the Kingdom possesses having utilized it to fight Nasser in Yemen, the Serbs in Bosnia, and of course the Soviets in Afghanistan to name just a few. The Saudis have clearly made the calculus that the potential fruits of toppling Assad, and enthroning a Sunni aligned regime in Damascus are well worth the political risk.
While the Istanbul conference marked what could arguably be termed the beginning of an overt state of conflict between Riyadh and Damascus, the signs have been building for months that the covert war has been in full swing. Reports that Saudi agents have been working in Jordan and Iraq to finance smuggling routes appear to have a substantial amount of circumstantial evidence, and is certainly a view endorsed by those taking part in such activities on the ground. While unsubstantiated and likely untrue accusations that Saudi Arabia has played a role in the spate of suicide attacks in Damascus belie a more likely fear that the Kingdom is strengthening its ties amongst Islamist groups in Syria.
The danger of course is that while Saudi Arabia embarks on its jihad to topple Assad, it will get free reign in picking the winners and losers amongst the opposition. This will have the effect of distorting the movement by strengthening ideologically allied Islamist groups at the expense of moderates and secularists. Indeed there is a worrying precedent in Afghanistan where the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence agency altered the political landscape by controlling who did or did not receive support. If the Western powers, Turkey included, voluntarily stand aside and let Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies unilaterally control the process of arming the opposition, then they might find themselves appalled at the result.
The international community as a whole should be cautious in the manner that it approaches intervention in Syria. Footing responsibility to Saudi Arabia and her allies risks ideologically poisoning the opposition movement as Sunni religious groups receive disproportionate support and other groups adapt their message to receive support. If the United States and her Western allies are committed to supporting the Syrian revolution, they cannot afford to sit back and do it through intermediaries.
Joshua Jacobs is a Gulf Policy Analyst at the Institute for Gulf Affairs.

US willfully blind on Syria

US willfully blind on Syria

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the Friends of the Syrian People Conference in Istanbul last week. The White House is willfully blind to the major issue that is driving its allies’ push for decisive action. (AFP photo)

Following the conclusion of the latest meeting of the Friends of the Syrian People in Istanbul last week, there has been speculation about a possible shift in US policy. However, the confusion that has plagued Washington’s thinking remains, as the administration continues to miss the issue that is confounding its regional allies—Iran. Even after Istanbul, the White House is still willfully blind to the major issue that is driving its allies’ push for decisive action.

This is not without consequences for US standing, as its words ring increasingly hollow with its allies, and its posture, more resembling a spectator than a shaper of dynamics, seems sharply out of sync with the strategic contest with Iran that is playing out in Syria.

Heading into the conference, the Obama administration had made amply clear that it opposed the arming of the opponents of the Assad regime. It’s now old news that regional allies deeply resented this decision. They have become so frustrated with the administration’s dithering that they are not only publicly criticizing its lack of action, but are also now openly ignoring Washington’s preferences.

For example, prior to the Istanbul meeting, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held talks with the Saudis aimed at securing their continued compliance with the US position on military support to the Syrian rebels. “Our main focus is to try and get the guns silenced,” a senior US official said afterward. Clinton told the Saudis that the priority was to forge a ceasefire and to support Annan’s mission. However, in another revealing comment, an unnamed Western diplomat noted what had become rather obvious: “What we are doing is not necessarily to the liking of some regional states.”

Sure enough, the Saudis were not impressed with the US secretary’s appeal. At the conclusion of the Friends of the Syrian People meeting, it was announced that the Gulf Arab states, led by Riyadh, were establishing a fund to pay salaries for the Free Syrian Army (FSA).

The public defiance of the US in itself was remarkable. Moreover, that it has fallen on US allies and clients to threaten concrete measures against the Assad regime speaks volumes about Washington’s lack of leadership. In fact, according to a report in the Kuwaiti al-Rai, some of these Arab states have grown so exasperated with US passivity that they are now coordinating closely with the UK to see what it could do to help the rebels.

The administration’s public messaging following the conference has further compounded its incoherence. When asked about where the US stood on the effort to directly fund the FSA, the State Department spokesperson noted that Washington’s regional allies “are making their own sovereign decisions about what they think is important,” adding that the administration “[has] not discouraged this initiative.”

Of course, the whole point of Clinton’s meeting with the Saudis was precisely to discourage any such initiative. But far from switching tracks, the administration remains stuck in the same frame of mind. What it seems poised to do next is to use the threat of this regional support for the FSA in order to get the Russians to pressure Assad to comply with Annan’s plan. Already, US officials are talking of an “important shift” in the Russian position following Moscow’s public support for an April 10 deadline for Assad to begin implementing the plan.

Needless to say, US and Russian interpretations of Assad’s compliance are bound to differ. What is sure, however, is that the Russians, much like Assad, will point – as indeed they have already – to any assistance to the opposition as a violation of the plan’s terms. But the Obama administration is also likely to cite these stipulations and to call on its regional allies to withhold lethal support for the FSA under the guise of fostering a fragile ceasefire.

Ironically, Washington’s own decision to supply the opposition with non-lethal communications equipment will likely be presented by the Russians and Assad as a breach of the Annan plan. All this underlines the absurdity of the administration’s current policy, whose logical trajectory leads to conforming the US position to that of Assad’s backers.

And this is where the growing chasm with US regional allies lies. These states view the Syria crisis in terms of the regional balance of power. Tensions between Iran on the one hand and TurkeySaudi Arabia and Qatar on the other are becoming more visible every day. The Saudis in particular read the regional context in stark terms. They see the Iranians making moves in Bahrain and Yemen after having secured strong gains in Iraq, as well as an established influence in Lebanon. The last thing they want to see is Iran scoring a victory in Syria through an initiative that keeps Assad in power. Worse still, they saw that Tehran was clearly using the Annan mission to secure a seat at the Syrian negotiating table. Little wonder then that these allies stressed at the Istanbul meeting that the endgame of any initiative should be Assad’s departure from power.

The problem, of course, is that the administration has willfully dug itself into a hole with its support for the Annan plan. By wedding itself to this controversial initiative, Washington has created tensions with its regional allies instead of reassuring them that it is committed to advancing their common strategic interests by any means necessary. After Istanbul, it’s clear the US is not there.

Tony Badran is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. He tweets @AcrossTheBay.