Skip to main content

Washington, D.C. — Those who would sacrifice freedom for security, a wise person once said, deserve neither freedom nor security. A society who thinks that being kept under constant police surveillance and militarized police presence is a society that does not desire freedom. And, when the commander in chief of that society openly advocates for both constant police surveillance and a heavily militarized domestic police force, this should be exposed and resisted.

Luckily, for Americans, there are still a few good politicians in D.C. who are unafraid of going against their own party to point out the disastrous nature of building a domestic standing army. Rand Paul is one of those people.

After the White House announcement this week, noting that they are going to over turn one of the few good things Obama did while in office—ending the 1033 program—Paul was quick to cry foul.

As the Ron Paul Liberty Report points out, local police are not meant to be warriors. They're not meant to look or act like an army. President Trump is planning on moving very far away from the U.S. Constitution that he swore to uphold. Ironically enough, the supposed 'freedom loving' Trump supporters who voted him in are choosing to remain entirely silent on the president's decision to make America a police state again. Sadly, those on the right perceive opposing the 1033 program as a 'liberal' move or anti-police — neither of which are true. The 1033 program is an unprecedented expansion of government. Creating a massive militarized presence inside the borders of the US — to be used against the American people — is the exact opposite of limited government and conservative politics.

Unfortunately, the two-party paradigm is so powerful that it can often blind people to reality and make people think they are for small government—when in actuality—they are promoting and advocating for the expansion of the freedom hating police state.

1033 program

As the classic adage goes, Republicans are for big government, if with war, and Democrats are for war, if with big government. And now, the American police state is once again preparing for war at home.

When you tell someone that their police department has bayonets, their immediate reaction is denial or ridicule. "Why would cops need bayonets?" they ask.

Exactly, why would cops need bayonets? Why do they need grenade launchers, .50 caliber rifles, Apache attack helicopters, camouflage uniforms, or tracked tank-like vehicles for that matter?

Over the past decade and a half, up until 2015, police departments used the 1033 program to acquire these weapons of war. The feds provided surplus military hardware to local police to fight a seeming war against its own citizens. These actions went unchecked and very little government or public oversight existed.

Then, when the events that took place in Ferguson beamed across the globe, the militarized U.S. police state revealed its ugly face to the world.

The images of the militarized police in Ferguson made clear that the days of Andy Griffith and Mayberry are a distant memory. They had been replaced by something that looks as if it belongs on a war-torn battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq.

Scroll to Continue

Recommended for You

These revelations caused many to question why small police departments across the country were procuring mine-resistant armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, and other weapons of war.

Because of backlash from the citizens, the federal government was forced to act. In January of 2015, in an extremely rare move toward liberty, then President Obama signed Executive Order 13688. And now, Trump has duped his supporters into thinking that in order to MAGA we have to militarize police again. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

Unfortunately, Trump has duped his supporters into thinking that in order to MAGA we have to militarize police again. In fact, it is the exact opposite.

To think that cops must be armed to the teeth with weapons and equipment from war to 'protect' Americans is as asinine as it is dangerous. These weapons of war will rarely be used to keep Americans safe. In fact, they are more likely to be used against freedom loving Americans who dissent once the federal government destroys the country—and government is unafraid of admitting it.

A police sergeant in Morgan County, Indiana admitted in May of 2014 that his department had obtained an armored vehicle in part because of returning military veterans were deemed domestic terror threats by Homeland Security in 2009.

In August of 2013, Concord, New Hampshire Police Chief John Duval secretly contacted Homeland Security and demanded an armored vehicle due to the alleged “threat” posed by peaceful libertarians.

The MIAC Report, a federal training document famously presented to Missouri police in 2009, went as far as falsely tying supporters of former Presidential Candidate Ron Paul and the Constitution to “extremist groups” as well.

In 2014, a sheriff's deputy admitted on video that these weapons of war were needed to fend off “constitutionalists” with firearms.

Now, those former constitutionalists, including the repugnant turncoats at Infowars, who once opposed this program under Obama, are now praising their own enslavement—because their party is in power.

Those who do not see this move for what it is would do well to remember this most compelling warning from James Madison.

"The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."