Building an army of bureaucrats

Not just figuratively, but literally

FDA agents training with their firearms https://twitter.com/FDA_ORA/status/1653071049808920576?s=20

I’m not typically one to give serious consideration to far out conspiracy theories (though I don’t even like the term “conspiracy theory,” as it’s simply a retort used to dismiss someone’s thoughts out of hand - that’s a rant for another time), but I’m going to ask you to put on your tin foil hat with me for a few minutes and think about some of the things that are going on around us. After all, many of what people labeled crack-pot contrivances of late have actually turned out to be true. This one may not (or may) be as far fetched as some of the others that have been fomented.

Many have complained about the burgeoning bureaucracy that is the U.S. government. There is an aspect, however, that many may be overlooking. Why is the government spending so much on weapons and ammunition? How is it so egregious that even Forbes magazine has (on more than one occasion) posed that question (from 2017: Why Are Federal Bureaucrats Buying Guns And Ammo? $158 Million Spent By Non-Military Agencies and from 2021: Traditional And Regulatory U.S. Agencies Continued To Stockpile Guns, Ammunition, And Military-Style Equipment Under President Trump)? The latter of the two listed Forbes articles avers that, at the time of writing in 2021, there were “more non-DOD federal employees with firearms (200,000+) than there are U.S. Marines (186,000).” According to a 2018 report published by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (I’m thinking that office isn’t really doing it’s job, but I digress) 20 “federal law enforcement agencies” (by this, they mean “law enforcement” arms of bureaucratic offices, such as the FDA) between 2010 and 2017 spent over $1.5 billion on firearms, ammunition, and tactical equipment (https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-175.pdf). Granted that is a fairly small amount compared to military spending, but we’ll come back to the military in a bit. This report addressed only agencies that employ at least 250 Federal Law Enforcement Officers (FLEOs).

You might be surprised to find out that among the agencies whose spending was assessed were the EPA, the Department of Agriculture, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Veterans Health Administration, and the Social Security Administration. Exactly what purpose does the SSA have in a self-contained law enforcement department? Has the EPA hired and armed Captain Planet? Is the NIH taking out Covid-19 lockdown violators? Why do any of these agencies, outside of those explicitly created for law enforcement, have their own law enforcement arms (yeah - bad pun)? Now, some even within the gun industry have issued statements regarding these purchases, stating that these purchases are not sufficient to be building an army, and that they are nothing out of the ordinary. What has not been addressed (aside from these agencies not needing law enforcement arms of their own) is the availability and accuracy of purchase data. In both cases, the GAO encountered issues which could affect the accuracy of the final report. The report specifically states that “[w]e found the data sufficiently reliable for the purpose of reporting the minimum thresholds of total amounts agencies spent and the number of firearms and rounds of ammunition they bought.” The paper also focused only on twenty particular agencies. So, if anything, this paper is underreporting government bureaucracy firearm and ammunition purchases, due to reporting only on selected agencies and only being confident that they have a “reliable…minimum”. Who is to say agencies with smaller law enforcement departments aren’t making larger purchases or purchases on behalf of other agencies? The government and news outlets have been known to make “straw purchases” (breaking the law) in order to show how “easy” it is to violate other statutes. Some may think this presents little about which to worry, and perhaps they are correct that I am making too much of this, but there is more to the story.

If arming up the bureaucracy isn’t enough, the President wants to sign (back) on to (or already has - it is somewhat difficult anymore to tell where we stand from moment to moment) the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty. While there has been much made of this treaty, in and of itself, it poses no threat. After all, it seeks a noble end, preventing arms leaving the legitimate market and entering the illicit market, not disarmament. That begs the question though, why then is it under the purview of the UN Office for Disarmament Affairs (https://disarmament.unoda.org/att/)? All claims are that it has naught to do with disarmament. Others have raised alarms about the UN’s so-called “Small Arms Treaty.” From what I can find, no such thing exists. However, a brief perusal of the UN’s website will bring you to an article in the UN Chronicle written by Rebecca Peters (Director, International Action Network on Small Arms) titled “Small Arms: No Single Solution.” In this article, Ms. Peters writes, “Disarming civilian populations is more difficult than disarming governments. Nevertheless it is arguably more necessary, given that civilians constitute the overwhelming majority not only of gun owners, but also of the victims and perpetrators of gun violence.” Ms. Peters also believes that “[w]hether from state arsenals, defeated enemies, arrested criminals or civilian owners, small arms that are in surplus, obsolete, seized, surrendered or otherwise removed from circulation should be destroyed.” She goes on to intimate as well that the supply of new weapons should be reduced. A quick scan of the website for the International Action Network on Small Arms’ (a website funded by the UN) reveals it to be the global version of Moms Demand Action.

Like it or not, the UN Secretary General also has an Agenda (literally) for disarmament (SECURING OUR COMMON FUTURE An Agenda for Disarmament ). The document outlining his agenda states that “The Secretary-General will establish a dedicated facility within his Peacebuilding Fund to support government action to tackle small arms and light weapons as part of a comprehensive approach to addressing armed violence and the diversion of weapons, and as a contribution to SDG Target 16.4.” (emphases in original - SDG stands for “Sustainable Development Goals). In addition, SDG Target 16.1 states that “[d]isarmament and arms regulation contribute to reducing deaths from armed violence by prohibiting and restricting the use of certain types of weapons and by establishing effective controls of arms and ammunition.” So yes, the UN and organizations they support are seeking to disarm citizens of member states (if not all countries). Unfortunately, history has shown time and again what happens when a citizenry allows itself to be disarmed by government. Tens of millions of deaths (far more than a century of “mass killings” by firearms in the US) have been perpetrated on those who did not have the means to fight back against tyrannical “leaders.” This is why the Second Amendment was written. Ok, ok….this is some serious tin-foil tam theorization. I know. But wait, there’s more… (just like in infomercials)

Now we have thousands of military-aged young men streaming across our southern border. They come for the promise not of opportunity - but of government handouts. Of course, not all are from South American countries. This is, in essence, an invasion, perhaps not in the sense that most people typically think of “invasion,” but it is an invasion nonetheless. In Ukraine, when war broke out as Russia invaded, the Ukrainian government began issuing fully-automatic weapons to Ukrainian citizens. Yet in the past few months, despite an increasing number of people on terrorist watch lists coming over the border, the administration is facilitating illegal border crossings rather than obeying their Constitutional mandate to protect the border and the states from invasion (U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 4). To whom will any of these “immigrants” be loyal? Hint: not you and me. Still holding tight to the safety bar of this winding ride? If you just keep reading, we’ll go further down the rabbit hole.

For at least a couple of decades now, our military has been gradually weakened. A little here, a little there, and now it is essentially a laughingstock. To what end? Once the most feared fighting force on the face of the planet, the U.S. armed forces have become a giant petri dish in an outrageous social laboratory experiment. Those who would be loyal to the people (long-standing veterans) have mostly been ousted as part of a strategy to (allegedly) purge dangerous extremists, and they have been replaced with social misfits who are more concerned about pregnant pilots and gender affirmation surgeries than they are defending our country (I wrote a little more about this recently: From Corporal Klinger to Yeoman Kelly ). 

Add to all these the constant moves by U.S. government entities, at both the state and federal level, to enact restrictive gun control legislation and “rules,” calls from the White House to ban “assault weapons” (President Joe Biden: The 2022 60 Minutes Interview, FACT SHEET: President Biden Announces New Actions to Reduce Gun Violence and Make Our Communities Safer and other examples too numerous to list), calls for more red flag laws (ICYMI: President Joe Biden Op-Ed: “I’m doing everything I can to reduce gun violence, but Congress must do more”) which violate a citizen’s right to due process, and railing from politicians claiming they are going to “take your AR-15, your AK47” (Beto O’Rourke: Hell yes, we are going to take your AR-15) and pieces of the puzzle appear to start fitting together. How would someone in power go about turning citizens into serfs? Disarmament worked for Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao. In this case, there is a multi-pronged approach: disarm citizens, replace a military loyal to the people with troops loyal only to themselves (or maybe the State), arm up the bureaucracy to create a new army that serves only the government, and if necessary, bring in foreign troops (through illegal immigrants and/or international organizations like the UN). Is it possible the U.S. government is seeking to turn against the people it is intended to serve? Are the fears of our founding fathers coming to fruition? It seems to stretch credulity, but how far? I’m not asking you to jump on board the crazy train, but I don’t think it a theory any more unlikely or insane than many of those that have proven themselves out over the past few years. Do you? As unbelievable as things have been since Covid, it is getting more difficult to dismiss dystopian designs as mere conspiracy. Crack-pot theory, or valid concern? Leave your thoughts in the comments.