Wait a minute,...you're heading in the wrong direction!! This is an article from the Daily Ticker, by Nicole Goodkind. That discusses the economy based reasons why the trend of the population fleeing the cities is now reversing. Those same factors are making a coming economic collapse likely in the next couple of years if not sooner. If you click on the link above you should still be able to watch the short video associated with this article.
I understand that having a means of support,..e.g.. a job, is necessary to live most places, however moving into a high rise apartment or condo in a city places you at much greater risk when the collapse, from whatever angle, hits this country. I would make every effort to secure the safest lodging even if it meant a commute from there to your place of work. The safest off site or out of city lodging while still having a job within the city should include determining and staying off the likely refugee routes. And this out of city lodging while you work therein, should be considered a temporary rally point. A Bug Out plan to a secure location is still required. This makes the stockage of supplies and materials problematic.
Not that staying in the suburbs is safe. As it is not. The only common advantage to living in the burbs is perhaps having just a little more time to make a decision, like to execute a controlled and planned Bug Out,....but we're not talking a week or even days, it may just be a 24 hour advantage. Anyway, without further rant, this is the article. At least the reader can understand the economic issues forcing moves back to the city and these economic factors are what is helping drive the U.S. train to collapseville.
Americans Fleeing to the Cities?
The American dream: a white picket fence and a patch of grass to call your own. In 2002 President Bush declared “owning a home lies at the heart of the American dream,” and wanted, "everybody in America to own their own home.” Twelve years and a housing crisis later, it seems as though that’s no longer the case: Americans are packing up and booking it to the city.
“The American dream is fundamentally about opportunity,” says Vishaan Chakrabarti, director of the Center for Urban Real Estate at Columbia University. “It’s not so much where you live but whether you can do better than your parents and grandparents and a lot of young people today are finding those opportunities in cities. The data are very clear, we’ve seen an enormous migration to every urban area in the country.”
The nation's urban population increased by 12.1% between 2000 and 2010. According to the Census, urban areas accounted for 83% of the U.S. population in 2012. And The Brookings Institute notes that "among the 51 metropolitan areas with more than one million residents, 24 saw their cities grow faster than their suburbs from 2011 to 2012-- that was true of just 8 metro areas from 2000 to 2010."
Single-family homebuilding is at its lowest rate in decades, as only 600,000 single-family homes were built in 2013, down from 1.7 million in 2005. The purchasing of single-family homes is also down 13.3% year-over-year. High-rise apartment buildings now make up 40% of all new construction and metro areas are growing more quickly than the U.S. as a whole. According to The Nielsen Group 62% of millennials would prefer to live in urban centers.
And it’s not just millennials; baby boomers are also leaving their suburban homes for apartments with much less square footage. So why this exodus from the suburbs?
People want to closer access to health care facilities and culture, says Chakrabarti. Gas prices are a factor too.
“Most people have been hit really hard by this last recession and are worried about mortgage debt and auto debt, so this is a pocketbook issue at a significant level,” says Chakrabarti.
The tightening of purse strings is a prevailing issue but there’s more to reurbanization.
“If you look at the millennials they grew up with Hurricane Katrina, Deep-water Horizon, a lot of things that were around the environment—it’s a socially conscientious generation and they are interested in driving less and walking more,” Chakrabarti explains.
There’s also a social aspect to living in a city that people in the suburbs tend to lack. “People like the amount of diversity they find in cities," Chakrabarti notes.
According to Chakrabarti, it’s the perfect storm of economic, social and environmental issues that are driving the suburbs into extinction.
Saturday, May 17, 2014
Sunday, May 11, 2014
Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans - Is Martial Law Coming?
Some of you have written me taking me to task for not being suspicious enough of the
Government. I would rather think I am just cautious, trying to get the facts before making a
decision. However, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) concerns me as it does
authorize a warrantless, indefinite detention of Americans by the Military.
This article, titled: Supreme Court Just Approved Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans - The defense of liberty has come down to States, County Sheriffs, and We The People, is from Western Journalism.com and begs to be read. Giving the military police powers, and the powers outside the Constitution are very troubling.
America’s founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help ensure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches–each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the “free and independent states” of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.
It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, “We the People” are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration) The “consent of the governed” was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people’s right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.
What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America’s pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. adamantly refuse to use the constitutional obligations placed upon them to hold the federal government in check.
The latter was made crystal clear by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the report:
“A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to ‘detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,’ according to critics.
“The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
“The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.
‘The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,’ the legal team said in a statement to WND. ‘The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people–and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.’”
The report continues: “The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to ‘represent an enduring security threat to the United States.’ “Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
“A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: ‘The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.’
“The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.”
Amici Curiae of the brief included U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Gun Owners of America, the Downsize DC Foundation, the Western Center for Journalism, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the Tenth Amendment Center, the Policy Analysis Center, the Constitution Party National Committee, Professor Jerome Aumente, and yours truly, among others.
The WND report goes on to say: “The 2012 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson.
“Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives. [Disgustingly, Montana's only U.S. House member, Republican Steve Daines, who purports himself to be a staunch conservative, voted for the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, as did Montana's two Democrat Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. How did your congressman and senators vote? In my opinion, this is a monumentally-important vote; and a vote granting this unconstitutional power to the military and federal police agencies is inexcusable and demonstrates how both Democrats and Republicans will unite together to dismantle the constitutional protections of the American people in the name of "national security."]
“Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
“It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
“‘It’s clearly unconstitutional,’ Hedges said of the bill. ‘It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.’
“Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.” Remember that it was Republican President George W. Bush and a Republican U.S. House and Senate that shackled the American people with the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security–along with the rest of the gargantuan police state apparatus under which the people of the United States are now being forced to live. And it is Democrat President Barack Obama and a Democrat U.S. Senate–along with a Republican U.S. House–that continues to expand the reach of this police state. One thing that both Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals agree on is the construction and implementation of a police state. Under the rubric of “national security” or “law and order,” the Bill of Rights is being systematically and deliberately expunged by both sides of the political aisle.
And now we know the judicial branch of government in Washington, D.C. also refuses to hold the executive and legislative branches of government in check–as if we needed more evidence. Both Republican-appointed and Democrat-appointed justices refused to say a word condemning this draconian abuse of power within the NDAA. By so doing, the Supreme Court showed itself unwilling to stand in between the liberties of the American people and an ever-burgeoning police state.
In fact, when it comes to holding the government in DC in check, when does the Supreme Court ever intervene? Hardly ever! If it is a dispute between the states and the federal government, or between individuals and the federal government, SCOTUS almost always rules in favor of DC.
Once in a while, one or the other branch of government (including the judicial branch) in DC will be willing to protect constitutional liberties from another branch of government in DC; but such instances are the exception, not the rule.
And since the liberties of the American people have few friends in the national media or in the country’s pulpits, the protection of our freedoms has quickly come down to the states, the local media (yes, some local media is still friendly to freedom), county sheriffs, and the people ourselves.
Currently, there is a huge momentum building among State legislatures to begin pushing back against the overreach of Washington, D.C. For example, the State of Texas is squaring off against the BLM over tens of thousands of acres along the Red River border of Texas and Oklahoma; and the State of Utah has already passed legislation claiming more than 30 million acres currently controlled by the federal government. Here is an excerpt from a Breitbart.com report:
“Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R), earlier this year, signed the Transfer of Public Lands Act. This new state law calls upon the federal government to turn over control of more than 30 million acres to the State.”
Plus, more and more county sheriffs are beginning to stand against federal encroachments.
And, of course, just recently, it was “We the People” standing against a brutish, totalitarian-style federal assault against the Bundy family in Bunkerville, Nevada. And among the brave souls at Bunkerville were State and local officials and even county sheriffs. And I was there, too.
As the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. become less and less accountable to the checks and balances assigned them by the Constitution, it is going to require that the states, county sheriffs, and people ourselves become more and more engaged in pushing back against federal overreach and abuse of power.
This article, titled: Supreme Court Just Approved Indefinite Detention Of Innocent Americans - The defense of liberty has come down to States, County Sheriffs, and We The People, is from Western Journalism.com and begs to be read. Giving the military police powers, and the powers outside the Constitution are very troubling.
America’s founders, largely distrustful of centralized power, created several checks and balances into the U.S. Constitution to help ensure that one person, or one group of people, would not be able to unilaterally exert his or their will over the American citizenry. First, the federal government itself was divided into three separate and distinct branches–each holding the capability (and responsibility) to check the power of the other. Second, the Bill of Rights was made part of the Constitution for the protection of individual liberties. Third, the “free and independent states” of the nation retained their sovereignty and independence after the central government was created (by the states), with the Tenth Amendment specifically recognizing their authority and jurisdiction over matters not directly delegated to the federal government.
It was also assumed that the freedom of the press and the freedom of religion would help the citizenry be sufficiently informed and inspired to keep the would-be despots at bay. And, of course, “We the People” are recognized as being the ultimate guardians of liberty by the recognition that “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (Declaration) The “consent of the governed” was given teeth by the constitutional recognition of the people’s right to wield the power of the voting booth, the jury box, and, as a last resort, the cartridge box.
What has become increasingly obvious to a large segment of the American populace is the complete unwillingness of the national media to hold the federal government accountable. Neither do America’s pulpits provide the moral leadership necessary to maintain good government. The freedom of the press and religion accomplish precious little today in the safeguarding of liberty. And it is also absolutely clear that the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. adamantly refuse to use the constitutional obligations placed upon them to hold the federal government in check.
The latter was made crystal clear by a recent decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. Here is the report:
“A decision by the U.S. Supreme Court means the federal government now has an open door to ‘detain as a threat to national security anyone viewed as a troublemaker,’ according to critics.
“The high court this week refused to review an appeals court decision that said the president and U.S. military can arrest and indefinitely detain individuals.
“The firm of William J. Olson, P.C., which filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the court to step in, noted that not a single justice dissented from the denial of the request for review.
‘The court ducked, having no appetite to confront both political parties in order to protect the citizens from military detention,’ the legal team said in a statement to WND. ‘The government has won, creating a tragic moment for the people–and what will someday be viewed as an embarrassment for the court.’”
The report continues: “The controversial provision authorizes the military, under presidential authority, to arrest, kidnap, detain without trial and hold indefinitely American citizens thought to ‘represent an enduring security threat to the United States.’ “Journalist Chris Hedges was among the plaintiffs charging the law could be used to target journalists who report on terror-related issues.
“A friend-of-the-court brief submitted in the case stated: ‘The central question now before this court is whether the federal judiciary will stand idly by while Congress and the president establish the legal framework for the establishment of a police state and the subjugation of the American citizenry through the threat of indefinite military arrest and detention, without the right to counsel, the right to confront one’s accusers, or the right to trial.’
“The brief was submitted to the Supreme Court by attorneys with the U.S. Justice Foundation of Ramona, California; Friedman Harfenist Kraut & Perlstein of Lake Success, New York; and William J. Olson, P.C. of Vienna, Virginia.”
Amici Curiae of the brief included U.S. Congressman Steve Stockman, Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall, Virginia Senator Dick Black, Gun Owners of America, the Downsize DC Foundation, the Western Center for Journalism, The Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, the Tenth Amendment Center, the Policy Analysis Center, the Constitution Party National Committee, Professor Jerome Aumente, and yours truly, among others.
The WND report goes on to say: “The 2012 NDAA was fast-tracked through the U.S. Senate, with no time for discussion or amendments, while most Americans were distracted by the scandal surrounding A&E’s troubles with ‘Duck Dynasty’ star Phil Robertson.
“Eighty-five of 100 senators voted in favor of the new version of the NDAA, which had already been quietly passed by the House of Representatives. [Disgustingly, Montana's only U.S. House member, Republican Steve Daines, who purports himself to be a staunch conservative, voted for the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA, as did Montana's two Democrat Senators Max Baucus and Jon Tester. How did your congressman and senators vote? In my opinion, this is a monumentally-important vote; and a vote granting this unconstitutional power to the military and federal police agencies is inexcusable and demonstrates how both Democrats and Republicans will unite together to dismantle the constitutional protections of the American people in the name of "national security."]
“Hedges, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, and others filed a lawsuit in 2012 against the Obama administration to challenge the legality of an earlier version of the NDAA.
“It is Section 1021 of the 2012 NDAA, and its successors, that drew a lawsuit by Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.
“‘It’s clearly unconstitutional,’ Hedges said of the bill. ‘It is a huge and egregious assault against our democracy. It overturns over 200 years of law, which has kept the military out of domestic policing.’
“Hedges is a former foreign correspondent for the New York Times and was part of a team of reporters awarded a Pulitzer Prize in 2002 for the paper’s coverage of global terrorism.” Remember that it was Republican President George W. Bush and a Republican U.S. House and Senate that shackled the American people with the USA Patriot Act and the Department of Homeland Security–along with the rest of the gargantuan police state apparatus under which the people of the United States are now being forced to live. And it is Democrat President Barack Obama and a Democrat U.S. Senate–along with a Republican U.S. House–that continues to expand the reach of this police state. One thing that both Republicans and Democrats and conservatives and liberals agree on is the construction and implementation of a police state. Under the rubric of “national security” or “law and order,” the Bill of Rights is being systematically and deliberately expunged by both sides of the political aisle.
And now we know the judicial branch of government in Washington, D.C. also refuses to hold the executive and legislative branches of government in check–as if we needed more evidence. Both Republican-appointed and Democrat-appointed justices refused to say a word condemning this draconian abuse of power within the NDAA. By so doing, the Supreme Court showed itself unwilling to stand in between the liberties of the American people and an ever-burgeoning police state.
In fact, when it comes to holding the government in DC in check, when does the Supreme Court ever intervene? Hardly ever! If it is a dispute between the states and the federal government, or between individuals and the federal government, SCOTUS almost always rules in favor of DC.
Once in a while, one or the other branch of government (including the judicial branch) in DC will be willing to protect constitutional liberties from another branch of government in DC; but such instances are the exception, not the rule.
And since the liberties of the American people have few friends in the national media or in the country’s pulpits, the protection of our freedoms has quickly come down to the states, the local media (yes, some local media is still friendly to freedom), county sheriffs, and the people ourselves.
Currently, there is a huge momentum building among State legislatures to begin pushing back against the overreach of Washington, D.C. For example, the State of Texas is squaring off against the BLM over tens of thousands of acres along the Red River border of Texas and Oklahoma; and the State of Utah has already passed legislation claiming more than 30 million acres currently controlled by the federal government. Here is an excerpt from a Breitbart.com report:
“Utah Governor Gary Herbert (R), earlier this year, signed the Transfer of Public Lands Act. This new state law calls upon the federal government to turn over control of more than 30 million acres to the State.”
Plus, more and more county sheriffs are beginning to stand against federal encroachments.
And, of course, just recently, it was “We the People” standing against a brutish, totalitarian-style federal assault against the Bundy family in Bunkerville, Nevada. And among the brave souls at Bunkerville were State and local officials and even county sheriffs. And I was there, too.
As the three branches of government in Washington, D.C. become less and less accountable to the checks and balances assigned them by the Constitution, it is going to require that the states, county sheriffs, and people ourselves become more and more engaged in pushing back against federal overreach and abuse of power.
Friday, May 9, 2014
Government Stocks up on Ammo - For the Coming Collapse?
This article is by Alfred Adask, titled - "Going Postal?: Gov't Co Stocks up on Ammo"
Going postal just took on a whole new meaning. Apparently, Postal Employees are no longer content to shoot each other and are therefore preparing to shoot the public.
We know this because the USPS has joined the list of federal agencies that are stocking up on ammunition and firearms.
For example, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point bullets. Do they fear that the retirees are about to grab their walkers and storm the SSA buildings?
The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds. Do they fear farmers and ranchers-or an attack by cows and pigs?
The Department of Homeland Security has requested 450 million rounds. That's enough bullets to shoot every American about 1.5 times.
The FBI has sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds. Why does a weather service need ammunition?
To date, some two billion rounds of ammunition have been purchased or ordered by a variety of domestic federal agencies. If only one agency purchased ammunition, we might write it off as an aberration. But when seemingly inexplicable purchases are made by a significant number of agencies, we can assume we are witnessing evidence of a general governmental policy. It's not just the FBI, DHS or even the USPS that wants to stockpile ammo-it's the government, itself.
As a result of this stockpiling, many wonder what government has planned for the American people. Confusion and conspiracy theories abound.
UrbanMan comments: I was recently talking to a commercial firearms representative, froma company everyone would recognize, who has been known to me for 10 years. He said he was stocking ammunition at his back country retreat in the east, because he fears what is coming. He said the Government purchases were primarily because of the limited bulk ammunition makers having contrtainsts on raw materials and production scheduleing, so often the large purchases are due to price breaks and delivery scheduling, but again he said words to the effect "that having said that I still belive this country will collapse,......it can't be helped given the totality of the unsurmountable problems we now have, which is my reason for stocking ammunition, food and being situated where I will be after the first indication of the collapse happening."
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said:
"We're seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don't understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but [purchasing all this ammunition] doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The amount of ammunition they're buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they'll use-they'll never use it all."
Well, let's hope Gottlieb is right. Let's hope the government will never use all of those bullets within The United States of America. But Gottlieb can't be right when he says that purchasing all this ammunition "doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
In fact, major purchases of ammunition by a wide variety of domestic governmental agencies costs money. The government is largely broke. It won't spend more money if it doesn't have to. It seems extremely unlikely that government would spend so much money on ammo without a compelling reason to do so.
The government is generally distrusted and viewed with contempt. It's on shaky political ground. The political implication of domestic governmental agencies stockpiling all that ammunition is that government is preparing for a major armed conflict within the USA. Thus, those purchases must cause a further loss of public confidence in the government. It seems extremely unlikely that government would risk the political fallout of purchasing so much ammo without a compelling reason to do so.
Purchasing all that ammunition may seem incomprehensible to most Americans. However, given the financial and political costs associated with stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition, it's apparent that those purchases must "make a whole lot of sense" to somebody in a very high position of power.
Gottlieb may be right to say that purchasing all of that ammunition doesn't make sense under current, publicly-perceived economic and political conditions.
But maybe government isn't looking at current conditions. Maybe government is instead looking forward towards a moment when future conditions may become conducive to widespread social disorder and even public violence against government.
To understand those possible future conditions, let's consider reasons why government might stockpile two billion rounds of ammo. I can imagine three:
• To subsidize the ammunition industry;
• To reduce the supply of bullets so the public can't buy them;
• To stock up on bullets to be used to attack or defend against the American people.
Clearly, the anti-gun-rights Obama administration is not intending to subsidize the ammunition industry.
Reducing the public's supply of ammunition presupposes that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants the people disarmed. Stocking billions of bullets implies that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants to ensure that gov-co has enough ammo to deal with potentially millions of armed dissidents. I.e., gov-co doesn't need billions of bullets to deal with a few "lone gunmen".
Gov-co needs billions to deal with, at least, tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, potentially several million armed Americans who are furious with, and firing at, overnment. Billions of bullets implicitly anticipates a widespread public revolt.
Whatever the exact explanation for stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition may be, it seems certain that the government views the probability of a widespread and violent confrontation with the American people as growing.
OK-why might such confrontation take place?
Because Congressmen are corrupt?
Because Obama is black?
Because taxes are too high?
Because liberty is being lost? Or,
Because the economy has collapsed, people are starving and therefore rioting against government?
Answer?
As Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid."
Americans don't much care about corruption, the President's race (or even place of birth), taxes or liberty. They care about their money, standard of living and the economy. If there's going to be a violent confrontation between government and the people, that confrontation will be based on some sort of sudden and significant economic decline or even collapse.
Government's purchase of two billion bullets for the apparent purpose of shooting the public, indicates that government fears a near-term decline in the US economy that's sufficiently sudden and deep to cause lots of people to shoot.
Therefore, I don't view government's purchase of two billion bullets as a political anomaly or irrational act. I see it as a reliable economic indicator that tells us that government believes there's a growing probability that an economic collapse may soon occur that's sufficient to trigger widespread violence.
We can have a scholarly (or heated) debate on the economic significance of the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, and the price of gold. When that debate is over, we can go home, order a pizza and watch some TV.
But it's hard to engage in a scholarly debate on the economic significance of domestic government agencies buying two billion bullets. Two billion bullets tells us that it's not time for pizza-it's time to stockpile whatever you can afford that you think you'll need if the economy tanks: food, water, guns, ammo, silver and gold. You needn't believe me. But you should certainly consider the economic and political implications of multiple government agencies seeking to purchase over two billion rounds of ammo. Those purchases cause predictions of economic collapse to rise from the level of mere conspiracy theories to the level of a government-validated, growing probability.
Going postal just took on a whole new meaning. Apparently, Postal Employees are no longer content to shoot each other and are therefore preparing to shoot the public.
We know this because the USPS has joined the list of federal agencies that are stocking up on ammunition and firearms.
For example, the Social Security Administration put in a request for 174,000 rounds of .357 Sig 125 grain bonded jacketed hollow-point bullets. Do they fear that the retirees are about to grab their walkers and storm the SSA buildings?
The Department of Agriculture requested 320,000 rounds. Do they fear farmers and ranchers-or an attack by cows and pigs?
The Department of Homeland Security has requested 450 million rounds. That's enough bullets to shoot every American about 1.5 times.
The FBI has sought 100 million hollow-point rounds.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration also requested 46,000 rounds. Why does a weather service need ammunition?
To date, some two billion rounds of ammunition have been purchased or ordered by a variety of domestic federal agencies. If only one agency purchased ammunition, we might write it off as an aberration. But when seemingly inexplicable purchases are made by a significant number of agencies, we can assume we are witnessing evidence of a general governmental policy. It's not just the FBI, DHS or even the USPS that wants to stockpile ammo-it's the government, itself.
As a result of this stockpiling, many wonder what government has planned for the American people. Confusion and conspiracy theories abound.
UrbanMan comments: I was recently talking to a commercial firearms representative, froma company everyone would recognize, who has been known to me for 10 years. He said he was stocking ammunition at his back country retreat in the east, because he fears what is coming. He said the Government purchases were primarily because of the limited bulk ammunition makers having contrtainsts on raw materials and production scheduleing, so often the large purchases are due to price breaks and delivery scheduling, but again he said words to the effect "that having said that I still belive this country will collapse,......it can't be helped given the totality of the unsurmountable problems we now have, which is my reason for stocking ammunition, food and being situated where I will be after the first indication of the collapse happening."
Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Washington-based Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, said:
"We're seeing a highly unusual amount of ammunition being bought by the federal agencies over a fairly short period of time. To be honest, I don't understand why the federal government is buying so much at this time. I don't believe in conspiracy theories, but [purchasing all this ammunition] doesn't make a whole lot of sense. The amount of ammunition they're buying up far exceeds their needs. It far exceeds what they'll use-they'll never use it all."
Well, let's hope Gottlieb is right. Let's hope the government will never use all of those bullets within The United States of America. But Gottlieb can't be right when he says that purchasing all this ammunition "doesn't make a whole lot of sense."
In fact, major purchases of ammunition by a wide variety of domestic governmental agencies costs money. The government is largely broke. It won't spend more money if it doesn't have to. It seems extremely unlikely that government would spend so much money on ammo without a compelling reason to do so.
The government is generally distrusted and viewed with contempt. It's on shaky political ground. The political implication of domestic governmental agencies stockpiling all that ammunition is that government is preparing for a major armed conflict within the USA. Thus, those purchases must cause a further loss of public confidence in the government. It seems extremely unlikely that government would risk the political fallout of purchasing so much ammo without a compelling reason to do so.
Purchasing all that ammunition may seem incomprehensible to most Americans. However, given the financial and political costs associated with stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition, it's apparent that those purchases must "make a whole lot of sense" to somebody in a very high position of power.
Gottlieb may be right to say that purchasing all of that ammunition doesn't make sense under current, publicly-perceived economic and political conditions.
But maybe government isn't looking at current conditions. Maybe government is instead looking forward towards a moment when future conditions may become conducive to widespread social disorder and even public violence against government.
To understand those possible future conditions, let's consider reasons why government might stockpile two billion rounds of ammo. I can imagine three:
• To subsidize the ammunition industry;
• To reduce the supply of bullets so the public can't buy them;
• To stock up on bullets to be used to attack or defend against the American people.
Clearly, the anti-gun-rights Obama administration is not intending to subsidize the ammunition industry.
Reducing the public's supply of ammunition presupposes that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants the people disarmed. Stocking billions of bullets implies that the government expects an armed conflict with the public and wants to ensure that gov-co has enough ammo to deal with potentially millions of armed dissidents. I.e., gov-co doesn't need billions of bullets to deal with a few "lone gunmen".
Gov-co needs billions to deal with, at least, tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, potentially several million armed Americans who are furious with, and firing at, overnment. Billions of bullets implicitly anticipates a widespread public revolt.
Whatever the exact explanation for stockpiling two billion rounds of ammunition may be, it seems certain that the government views the probability of a widespread and violent confrontation with the American people as growing.
OK-why might such confrontation take place?
Because Congressmen are corrupt?
Because Obama is black?
Because taxes are too high?
Because liberty is being lost? Or,
Because the economy has collapsed, people are starving and therefore rioting against government?
Answer?
As Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid."
Americans don't much care about corruption, the President's race (or even place of birth), taxes or liberty. They care about their money, standard of living and the economy. If there's going to be a violent confrontation between government and the people, that confrontation will be based on some sort of sudden and significant economic decline or even collapse.
Government's purchase of two billion bullets for the apparent purpose of shooting the public, indicates that government fears a near-term decline in the US economy that's sufficiently sudden and deep to cause lots of people to shoot.
Therefore, I don't view government's purchase of two billion bullets as a political anomaly or irrational act. I see it as a reliable economic indicator that tells us that government believes there's a growing probability that an economic collapse may soon occur that's sufficient to trigger widespread violence.
We can have a scholarly (or heated) debate on the economic significance of the unemployment rate, the inflation rate, and the price of gold. When that debate is over, we can go home, order a pizza and watch some TV.
But it's hard to engage in a scholarly debate on the economic significance of domestic government agencies buying two billion bullets. Two billion bullets tells us that it's not time for pizza-it's time to stockpile whatever you can afford that you think you'll need if the economy tanks: food, water, guns, ammo, silver and gold. You needn't believe me. But you should certainly consider the economic and political implications of multiple government agencies seeking to purchase over two billion rounds of ammo. Those purchases cause predictions of economic collapse to rise from the level of mere conspiracy theories to the level of a government-validated, growing probability.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
