“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.”

Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas

Thursday, May 15, 2014

Why does the USDA need sub-machine guns?

The USDA just put in a request for .40cal sub-machine guns with minimum 30-round magazines. Why does the USDA, or any federal agency other than HLS, need machine guns, or weapons at all for that matter?

Answer: Obama is fulfilling his campaign promise to create a domestic security force as well armed and financed as the US military, by hiding them in each of the malignant, bloated agencies of the federal leviathan so that Americans aren't alarmed by it. And given that the administration litmus test for promotion in the military now is the willingness to fire upon US civilians if ordered to do so, it makes sense to do it under the guise of "agency security".

If the administration had as it's #1 stated goal to collapse the US economy, I can't think of a single thing they'd do differently than get as many Americans as possible onto welfare rolls and punitively tax and regulate business to the point of crushing it. And when the collapse comes, the government will need a heavily armed civilian force to control the population.

Here's a typical USDA bureaucrat in your living room. "Is your hamburger 93% lean? It better be, or else!"


Bill said...

I yield to no one in my disdain and opposition to Obama. However, the militarization of police at all levels predates his presidency by quite a while. All the alphabets want their own SWAT, for reasons unknown. In the real world, any case requiring heavy firepower could easily be accomplished through inter-agency coordination, but "who wants to have to ask?"

I do think 99% of the grunts in these teams are patriots who would balk at abetting some coup, regardless of "orders."

Ed said...

Right you are Bill. It was George Bush signing the Patriot Act of 2003 that gave rise to this militarization, but Obama did promise an Army-like civilian defense force and it has been on his watch that all this ramping up has taken place.

If it were Guard members, like us, who were getting weaponized, I'd agree with you about them being patriots who would refuse to be arrayed against civilians, however, I think a lot of these guys are kool-aid drinking ureaucrats, not former law enforcement or military.

I mean look at how easily those SWAT guys went in after Elian Gonzolaz, David Koresh at Waco, and that couple up state NY who were tax protestors? Very heavy handed if you as me, and they were just following orders.

Bill said...

Elian Gonzalez was way before Bush and the Patriot Act. At least the guys waving the MP-10s around were Justice Dept. Instead of EPA or Fish & Wildlife. I think LAPD's SWAT teams and the reaction to the heavily armed bank robbers out gunning cops is the genesis of this. Remember the LA cops borrowing guns from local gun stores while the robbers in their body armor shrugged off .38 and birdshot hits?

I agree it's gotten too widespread and has already led to tragic unnecessary deaths.

Ed said...

Yeah, I knew that the Elian and Waco cases were on Clinton's watch and the point was that there are guys with guns who'll be happy to bring arms to bear against their fellow citizens if ordered to do so, even if they know it's heavy-handed.