First let me say that I don't want to believe what I am thinking. Who would want to? It's border-line unthinkable. Nor will I likely reveal what I'm thinking. Who would believe it?
What I do intend here is to simply lay out some evidences. The reader will then decide for him/herself the sum of those evidences: is it just a nutty theory or should my personal alert level be raised to brilliant red.
EVIDENCES:
Evidence one: Prior to his first election, Barack Obama stated that he believes the country needs a civilian security force that is just as well equipped, just as well armed as the military. It's unclear if he said why—after these 235 years—the republic suddenly grew the need for such a lethal civilian force.
Evidence two: Due to perceived threat levels—and anticipated quality gains—it was decided to make all airport screeners federal employees. That was before this president's time, but it did plant a seed. Then, a flurry of international crises and terrorism threats inspired the country to create a 'homeland security' department. This department folded in all of those screeners. It has since grown exponentially in size and scope.
Evidence three: Who can doubt that this country finds itself in dire financial straits? The government has over promised and at the same time citizens are overtaxed. The two ends won't meet, so we borrow. This is not new. We've been doing it for years. But not like this. George W. Bush inherited six trillion dollars of national debt—accumulated by all of the previous presidents combined. In his eight years, he raised that to ten trillion. That's borrowing a huge half-trillion dollars a year. But, today's administration has taken this to soaring new heights. During Barack Obama's first four years—even with the wars scaled back—we added another six trillion dollars of debt. That's overspending by three times as much. In round numbers, it's overspending by one-and-a-half trillion dollars a year. Now wouldn't you think that sober leaders would look at that and see that it's just not sustainable; see a need to cut back? Some have. The conservative right is screaming that message. But it falls on deaf ears. The liberal left and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) say very directly, we don't have a spending problem. Their leaders refuse to look at spending cuts and continue to propose and implement new taxes and new expensive programs.
Evidence four: Rudy Giuliani, when he took over as mayor of New York City, had some serious cutting to do to get the budget back in line. He is quoted as saying that previous left-leaning administrations had tried to overload the social systems, hoping for a breakdown. Indeed, he cited a theory in radical left-wing thinking—proposed by two professors named Cloward and Piven—that if social systems are overloaded to the point of breaking, radical policies will be much easier to implement. Now, that was New York. I'm not saying that this is happening on a national level. I'm just reporting a coincidence. If it were happening on a national level, your leaders would be spending with no regard to tomorrow—and creating social systems at a feverish pace to put more and more strain on revenue sources—preparing for—maybe even hoping for—maybe even working to catalyze—a breakdown. Why in heaven's name would they want a breakdown? Well…let's just pretend for a minute. The liberal left has a well-intentioned vision of creating utopia for all. But uncooperative citizens continually impede their program–inconveniently hiding their recalcitrance behind the immovable US constitution. This prevents the left's benevolent and idyllic creation. To succeed, they need to find a legal way to rein that element in; to control it. Now suppose financial systems do break down; infrastructure is interrupted; food is not being delivered; electricity is scarce, and it is neighbor against neighbor. There is blood in the streets. Doesn't someone need to step in? Who better to do that than a well-equipped, well-armed civilian security force? Every civil right can be 'temporarily' suspended in the name of order. Those uncooperative citizens can be forced to cooperate at the end of a gun. Presto. Isn't the long dreamed of utopia then within reach? We're just pretending, remember. But it makes quite a story…
Evidence five: Enter the well-armed security force. Homeland security has just in recent weeks ordered seven thousand fully automatic assault rifles. If you're bad at math, that's 135 for each state in the union. It's curious. This is not the Army. It's homeland security. Even 'curiouser' is their ordering of 1.5 BILLION hollow-point bullets in the last year. That's thirty million for each state in the union—or five for each US citizen, if you prefer. Once again, this is not the military—who have their own more-than-ample supply of arms. This is Homeland Security. It has been recently noted that, at the rate the military was using bullets at the peak of the Iraq war, this supply would have lasted more than twenty years. But now comes the main event. The same department has just ordered two thousand seven hundred big, fully-armored Aromored Personnel Carriers. Street-sweepers some call these. Huge rolling boxes with gun ports at every angle. So let's do the math. For each state in the union they have just purchased 54 APCs, 135 automatic assault rifles and 30 million bullets! Why? What does DHS intend to do with this massive supply of armaments? Target practice? These are not for use in a foreign theatre of war. This is Homeland Security! Well…before we get too excited. Even if you think the worst–like some kind of tyrannical takeover–wouldn't a civilian population like ours resist? Wouldn't such a well-armed population as ours be a formidable force to be reckoned with?
Evidence six: Enter gun control. The liberal left is working feverishly to disarm the population. With the heinous—yet (dare we say it) possibly opportune—killing of two dozen Connecticut school children, the time seems ripe. The president has said that he will do everything in his power to sweep these dastardly killing machines from the streets. Senators are introducing draconian control measures—and state legislatures too—in the name of safety and order, of course. When and if they succeed, consider who will have all the guns. And ammunition. And APC's.
CONCLUSIONS
I offer no conclusions. Only dots. Hard evidences of… well, who can read the future with certainty? How the reader connects these dots is for only the reader to decide. Each should do their own research to confirm or debunk these concerns. Conclusions or individual actions are then a personal thing. The purpose here has been simply to report to you a coincidental, some would say more-than-ominous, synergy of events converging on our sweet Lady Liberty at this moment in her always-perilous history.
