Our Ruling Class Prepares to Meet the Growing Threat…

…of the American people:

DHS has 2700+ of these. Because we don’t live in a police state or anything.

Feel safe. Or you are an enemy of the State.

  • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

    You didn’t give a link or any real information here so I tried following the picture credit on the lower right. Straitjacketbliss.com did not exactly reassure me that this was real. They are a picture site with commentary and have recently moved to facebook. They are also not averse to including faked and otherwise manipulated photos. So off to google for more information. The number 2700 is significant because it turns out that the DoD changed the spec for MRAP vehicles and the manufacturer, Navistar, has 2701 partially assembled, no longer salable to DoD, MRAP frames that they’re looking to get rid of at deep discount. Did DHS buy the lot? It’s unclear. They could have but the linked article says that a contracts search doesn’t turn it up. Depending on the discount, it might even be justifiable for border patrol use, though they probably want to work on the gas mileage and lighten up some of the anti-mine armor underneath. When the drug cartel people mix it up with the border patrol, mines are generally not their weapon of choice. There is video evidence that they might have a few dozen of these for unusually high risk warrant service. The 2700 number seems to be an alarmist 2+2=5 extrapolation that DHS is going to pick up all those spare frames.

    Long-story short, keep your powder dry but don’t swallow these stories whole without research.

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      Sorry, double checked and it’s 2717 frames in the linked article, not that it makes much difference.

    • Steve P

      They are using them in all sorts of settings, including Gotham:


      Note that the vehicles are sold to DoD and to domestic and local agencies. Whether the numbers are accurate or not, there is no question in my mind that this is WAY too much firepower and expenditure for most of the little places that think they need this equipment.

      • Sal

        But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t places that do need them.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        The vehicle itself has zero firepower. In spending a few minutes researching the the story, I came across a DHS tour of the thing. There are no built-in weapons on it, just scary looking metal and bullet resistent windows (up to .50 cal). Now if we’re talking about the 2717 Navistar frames, these are likely to be very deep discount as those frames are perfectly good and in many cases will be practically new. There is no money attached to the stories I’ve seen. New MRAPs cost about $500k These will likely be less.

  • Gary Keith Chesterton

    I live just a ten minute walk from DHS headquarters here in Washington. I see these things from time to time.

  • Gary Keith Chesterton

    And I still think “Homeland Security” sounds like a failed S&L.

  • Forrest Cavalier

    The local police department of a nearby sleepy eastern PA town was proud to show off their DHS armored personnel carrier at the county fair a few years ago. If they had one, I’m sure many local PDs got one, too. I’m pretty sure they’d accept an upgrade if someone else was buying.

  • phillip

    You know, don’t discount govt silliness when it comes to stuff like this. DHS has been the recipient of huge sums of money which has to go somewhere. “If we don’t spend it in FY12 we’ll get less next year.” Though I live in a large metro area a small community near me got a hugely expensive “mobile command center” paid for with “anti-terrorism” DHS funds. The local police cheif was quoted, “we had to spend it on something.”

  • dean steinlage

    Where can I get one?

  • Ron

    Is it just me or does anybody else have an overwhelming urge to let the air out of one of the tires?? :-)

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      They’re run flats. It wouldn’t make much difference other than you getting charged.

  • Mario Mirarchi

    If you look closely underneath the “Homeland Security” on the side you will see “Immigration and Customs Enforcement”. Based on this fact, as well as the paint scheme, this vehicle is probably bound for the Southwest border.

    Some free advice Mark: Lay off the Alex Jones screwball conspiracy hookah. You do realize that your ignorant, paranoid rants will damage your credibility.

    • ivan_the_mad

      “as well as the paint scheme” … But here’s one in black! Where is this one bound? The Moon? http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2552/4186387905_c04c5c125a_o.jpg

      • Lloyd Petre

        Uh, mind telling me how the vehicles in this picture cast shadows and neither the pedestrians nor the tree does?

        • ivan_the_mad

          I guess they were so focused on correctly reflecting everything on the convex surface of the vehicle in the foreground that they forgot! :D

    • Mark Shea

      It is not paranoia but fact that our Ruling Class has *already* voted itself the power to indefinitely detain and murder American citizens without arrest, evidence, trial, judge, jury or verdict or any other form of due process, in the name of “security”. If you do not think this extremely dangerous development and the militarization of our police are not cause for alarm, you’re not paying attention.

      • http://natewinchester.wordpress.com/ Nate Winchester

        As someone that’s worked in government (but the smaller, state kind), I wouldn’t be too worried (though still vote against them in the ballot box). It’s all to dysfunctional to ever be much of a terror with competing departments constantly stabbing each other in the back.

        Ya just gotta get some popcorn and (sometimes) know where to push things to instigating new infighting. :D

  • http://corkyagain.blogspot.com CorkyAgain

    I was amused by the fact that the vehicle is labelled “Police/RESCUE.”

    Who exactly are they planning to rescue, and what circumstances require this sort of armored vehicle to do it?

    Obviously, it’s meant to give our betters a safe ride out when there’s rioting in the streets.

    • Mario Mirarchi

      You need to familiarize yourself with the North Hollywood Shootout of 1997.

  • Jeanna

    Ignorant, paranoid rants? Do you feel the same about Alan Keyes, Hilaire Belloc, Cecil Chesterton, and G.K. Chesterton?

    “Now the organ of legislation in this country is Parliament. Of course we all know the real power is in the hands of the big Trusts, beginning with the banking monopoly of which the Politicians are either members or servants. Still, overtly and at the end of the chain of action comes Parliament.

    But Parliament today means Plutocracy. It used to mean Aristocracy, which, whether liked or not, is a stable form of government and works in the open. Plutocracy is neither stable nor open, and is compelled to work through falsehoods.

    The beastly condition of Parliament is a byword. The atmosphere of bribery and blackmail – it is rather a stench than an atmosphere – is the very air of what is called “Politics.”

    Until you have got rid of that you can do nothing.

    Those who insist upon the necessity of reform in the moribund and degraded machine at Westminster and better still is replacement by popular and monarchic powers are often thought futile precisely because that which they are attacking has become so heavily and deservedly despised. Yet the direction of their attack is right. It is the key point. So long as the legislative machine is controlled by and composed of the monopolists, all effort at restoring healthy economic life will fail.” – Hilaire Belloc, “Flee to the Fields” p.p. 17-18 (Belloc served as a MP in the House of Commons from 1906-1910)

    Even in his first year as an MP, Belloc was disillusioned with the party system and parliamentary politics. In November he wrote: “I cannot stand the House.” A couple of months later, he was even more damning: “I can see little object in the House of Commons except to advertise work. It does not govern; it does not even discuss. It is completely futile.” He gave vent to these frustrations in political satires such as Mr Clutterbuck’s Election (1908) and A Change in the Cabinet (1909).

    Belloc had decided to leave Westminster. In a bitter final speech in November, he claimed that the election was being forced on the country by the parties, and that “I shall not be at pains to play the party game…”. Unless he could operate as a truly independent representative of his constituents, he would pursue other avenues: “Even the most modest pen in the humblest newspaper is as good as a vote in what has ceased to be a free deliberative assembly.”

    “My retirement from Parliament at this moment is necessary under the present electoral law. Without a second ballot, without proportional representation, nothing but a very great expenditure or some particular hold upon the locality can give a man a chance against the two official candidates. Had I fought South Salford an official Liberal would have been put against me, and the sum of £600 to £1000 would have been put at his disposal, and an expenditure of £600 would have been necessary upon my side. The official Liberal would have received anywhere from a thousand to two thousand votes, proceeding from convention, tradition, Non-Conformist opposition to a Catholic, and so forth. My quarrel would not have been that the Conservative would have got in, for it does not matter in this election who gets in, but that £600 on my side would have been thrown away. Moreover one must be inside the House to see how utterly futile is any attempt at representative action. It is all very well as advertisement, but it is without any practical consequence whatever, and it is like trying to feed on air to attempt to satisfy the appetite for action under such conditions.” -Hilaire Belloc, letter to A.C. Tait (29th November 1910)

    May I suggest reading:




    • Sal

      So- what was the alternate plan?
      Because that’s what I’m asking from now on. Anyone who posts “oh, no- bad thing is happening!” needs to present a solution or steps to a solution. Because otherwise that makes you the Pharisee in Matthew who binds heavy burdens on the people, but doesn’t help lift them.

      And I don’t care if it’s just a tiny step. Because, let’s face it “Distributism” is a big unwieldy answer.
      To give Mark credit, he’s not as bad as some on this, in that he usually does present some kind of potential action.

      • Jeanna

        Sorry Sal, I missed this.
        It kinda seems like we are stuck between only two choices, socialism
        or capitalism but there is a third way. Belloc and Chesterton spent
        much of their time studying the economy of Christendom and trying to
        develop a way
        the modern world can embrace those same Christian principles. I
        believe the Center of Economic and Social Justice has found a way to do
        so in their Capital Homestead Act. This will distribute ownership and
        thus power. As Sheen also said;

        follows property, and they who own things to a great extent own
        persons. That is why in Russia, since all the productive property is in
        the hands of a few selfish opportunists, the citizens may go to the
        polls, but they may never exercise their freedom. So too under a highly
        capitalistic system, the laborers may vote for the president of their
        country, but they have nothing to say about the industry where they
        work. Once you concentrate property in the hands of the few, you create
        slaves; when you decentralize it, you restore liberty.”

        -Fulton Sheen; Freedom under God, Economic Guarantee of Liberty, 1940.


        Think Reganomics and ESOP’s:

        “All the component parts of Capital Homesteading have at some point been tested and work. They have
        just not been put together as an integrated system at the macro level.
        Every ESOP company, however, is a working model of Capital Homesteading
        at the micro level, although none is perfect.”
        -Michael Greaney


  • Jeanna

    I think one answer Mark advocates is obvious. Don’t vote for them. If everybody did that, maybe then we could start making some real changes. I’m going to vote 3rd party myself. Also, in regards to distributism, here’s 12 ideas one can use to get started.