Department of Homeland Security ammunition buying is back in the news. Republican House members questioned the amount of ammo being bought, alleging DHS agents use more than Army personnel.

Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz said Thursday that the Department of Homeland Security is using roughly 1,000 rounds of ammunition more per person than the U.S. Army, as he and other lawmakers sharply questioned DHS officials on their “massive” bullet buys.

Democrats called this allegation “conspiracy theories.” Which brings us to today’s lesson on politics and reality, usually two different animals.

According to Rep. Chaffetz, “the DHS is churning through between 1,300 and 1,600 rounds per officer” on an annual basis. This translates into between 108 and 133 rounds per month for their 70,000 agents. We’ve easily shot 200-300 rounds during a one-day tactical training, topping 500 rounds in a weekend. Others report shooting even more. Since shooting skills are perishable, 108-133 rounds per month for professionals isn’t unreasonable.

Nevertheless, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK) and Congressman Frank Lucas (R-OK 3) have introduced legislation banning federal agencies from “stockpiling.” They allege that massive ammunition purchases by federal agencies contribute to what’s become an effective gun ban: Working firearms need live ammunition to be functional, and manufacturers haven’t been able to adequately supply the civilian market for months, leading to sharp price increases.

The DHS “categorically” denied it’s buying ammo targeted for American citizens. But “categorically” is a new-speak term, the verbal equivalent of crossing one’s fingers behind one’s back. Which category does this denial exist within? Is it DHS’s interpretation of reality on the day it made the denial, which can shift as soon as somebody rationalizes reality into another form?

But comparing the historical trend towards less liberty versus political rhetoric exposes more important considerations than whether you can buy ammunition today.

The issue of DHS shooting jacketed hollow-point during training is a red herring. Many agencies train with the ammunition they use on the job. The only issue here is that they are buying more expensive training ammo because they’re not paying for it, we are. Then we have to spend more discretionary after-higher-taxes income for our own ammunition that cost half as much a year ago.

Democrats continue promoting their racist agenda that began with the formation of their party, and hardened before and after the Civil War. These days, they use entitlements and class envy to fool non-Caucasians into accepting the cookie crumbs of slavery in lieu of the risks and rewards of freedom.

Even NPR—which my wife says stands for No Personal Responsibility because it incessantly runs “victimization” stories—reports that “the face of poverty for the nation has changed from being white to being black and Latino.” The very government spending our tax dollars to prosecute this “war on poverty” declared in 2005 that the black middle class hasn’t grown “as a percentage of the African-American population.” Rather than blaming discrimination, here’s this very interesting conclusion from Professor Douglas Besharov from the University of Maryland School of Public Affairs:

Married-couple families tend to have higher incomes than female-headed families. According to data [Besharov] presented, African-Americans are less likely to be in married-couple families.

But the failure of the War on Poverty can get blamed on those “evil Republicans,” or at least some racist Tea Party conservatives. Democrats aren’t responsible, so vote them back in to try again.

Republicans hide behind the Bible and flag, pretending they care about personal rights like the Second Amendment. As liberty continues to erode, they get to blame those “evil Democrats” who are out for our guns. It’s all the fault of Feinstein and Schumer, so reelect these Constitution-loving conservatives (like John McCain) to try again.

And so the Kabuki theater plays on, while we direct our petty revenge towards each other, instead of stepping back from our Pavlovian conditioning and asking perceptive questions like: “If my representatives are so weak-minded and pathetic they can’t successfully implement a decent, high-sounding agenda, why am I still voting for them? Are they seriously trying to represent me, or are they merely hoodwinking me into reelecting them so they can continue feeding at the public trough? Will I continue being a useful fool in their game until I wake up one day to realize I live in a Hunger Games society?”

The famous phrase mistakenly attributed to P.T. Barnum says “there’s a sucker born every minute.” According to Census data, does this mean America grew at six suckers per minute last year?

Will enough Americans wake up in time and say “enough”?