In another example of wasting finite taxpayers funds, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) gave the University of California-Berkeley $200,000 to buy an “armored response counterattack truck” for its campus police.
According to Campus Reform, the armored truck “is used by U.S. troops on the battlefield and is often equipped with a rotating roof hatch, powered turrets, gun ports, a battering ram and a weapon system used to remotely engage a target with lethal force.” The reason given by the UC-Berkeley campus police for needing the armored truck: their erroneous belief in 2011 that an Occupy Wall Street protestor had an AK-47 on campus.
As they say, if they (don’t) bring an AK-47 to the fight, we’ll bring an armored truck.
In all seriousness, if we are at a point in the allocation of federal homeland security funds where we are buying heavily armed trucks for campus police at one of the most elite universities in the world, perhaps it is time to end the homeland security grant programs.
From 2003 through this year, the funds allocated to states and localities has surpassed $40 billion. At a minimum, we need to stop sending funds to campus police at leafy, secluded college campuses where a small proportion of trust fund students want to try to recreate the1960s protest movement.
If we must continue to fund state and local homeland security programs with federal tax dollars, can’t we at least send it to the places in the United States where the risk of a terrorist attack is high, such as New York City and Los Angeles? This grant only highlights the need to reform the DHS grant programs as we’ve recommended here, here, and here.
When Ronald Reagan was governor of California, he famously defeated protestors at UC-Berkley by simply making them laugh. Too bad this $200,000 grant by DHS is no joke.
I beg to differ. It is not time to end the Homeland Security spending programs. It is time to abolish DHS entirely. This monstrosity has created its' own mandates, and needs to go. Contrary to general opinion, we were mostly just fine with the agencies that were in place before 9/11. Need reform? Yes. Need a new super agency? Absolutely not.
The sufficiency of the agencies in place prior to 9/11 had fallen into disrepair because that is what Bill and Hillary Clinton wanted. That entire administration allowed and in many cases encouraged intelligence and security functions to deteriorate at the national level. And as the above writer suggests, all that was needed was a little reform and an executive office which would take a pro stance on the single most important function the federal government is responsible for. Congress created the DHS, congress can terminate it.
Military Intel (Wolf) files false report; harassment by all library staff; symptoms of 24/7 directed energy assaults continuing uninterrupted for about eight years:
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19-updatefor.html
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19.pdf
Criminal assaults & battery by fbi operative on UT campus & cover up by UT Counsel; UT police coverup and refusal to take my report of crime against my person:
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19a-updatefo.html
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19a.pdf
Proof Chancellor of UT aware of criminal assaults on my person; court documents on Alonzo Yanez (fbi operative):
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19b-updatefo.html
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19b.pdf
Fraudulent 'BOLO'(Be On Look Out) issued by UT Police; falsification of the contents of the fraudulent police report; Texas Ag and DA refuse to investigate public corruption:
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19c-updatefo.html
http://www.sosbeevfbi.com/part19c.pdf