09/28/2023 / By Ethan Huff
The federal government is arming itself to the teeth – on the taxpayer dime, of course – in what appears to be the makings of a soon-to-come civil war between We the People and the powers that be.
The latest federal agency to stock up on military-grade hardware like advanced combat and reconnaissance equipment is the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which as of September 14 has already spent nearly $3 million on such equipment.
“As of Sept. 14, 2023, the Biden administration EPA has already spent $2,892,770 on these items, which is 143 percent more than what was spent during the entire Trump administration,” wrote Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Ia.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, in an oversight letter he sent to the agency last week.
What Grassley and the rest of America wants to know is why is the EPA doing this? Is not the job of the EPA to simply regulate chemicals using science? Why does it suddenly require weapons of war just to operate?
(Related: Last summer, the Biden regime mandated that more corn ethanol be added to unleaded gasoline in America so people’s internal combustion engine vehicles fail more quickly, forcing everyone into a “green” electric vehicle [EV].)
Recognizing that the EPA has also become the Biden regime’s climate enforcement arm, it suddenly becomes clearer why in the age of green tyranny there is suddenly this mad rush within the agency to buy up as many guns, ammunition, and advanced tactical equipment as possible. Perhaps it involves trying to force Americans at gunpoint into EVs rather than gas-powered cars?
Grassley called the EPA’s militarization under Biden “frightening,” this comment coming right after a watchdog group found that other non-law enforcement agencies within the federal government are similarly spending gobs of taxpayer dollars to become new branches of the military.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as another example, has spent nearly $4 billion in taxpayer funds since 2006 stockpiling all sorts of guns, ammunition, and “military-style equipment” – why?
“The very same EPA that proposed slapping red tape on nearly every farmer’s ditch in Iowa now appears to be armed to the teeth,” Grassley is quoted as saying to the Washington Free Beacon.
“The Biden EPA already has a reputation for overstepping its bounds, and that makes the agency’s militarization all the more frightening. We need to know what exactly EPA is doing with this equipment, and whether it serves the interests of the American people.”
Since around the same time in 2006 as when the IRS started militarizing, the EPA has been quietly doing the same but with a much smaller budget of around $10 million thus far. Official spending data shows that the EPA has been purchasing “unmanned aircraft, night vision, and radar equipment.”
The EPA’s spending spree for military gear does, to be fair, span multiple presidential regimes, both left and right. It was not until Barack Hussein Obama entered office that the spending really started to increase, though.
While Obama occupied the White House along with Biden as his vice president, the EPA spent more than $6.5 million on guns, armor, radar equipment, mobile command posts, and various other types of advanced weaponry. While Donald Trump was president, the EPA spent about $2 million on such things.
Ever since Biden re-entered the White House as “president,” the EPA has reportedly spent another $3 million, so far to gear up for battle against … someone – perhaps the American people, and specifically those who resist the “green” agenda?
The Biden regime is one of the most tyrannical and illegitimate “presidencies” America has ever seen. Learn more at Tyranny.news.
Sources for this article include:
Tagged Under:
ammo, ammunition, armed, Biden, big government, Chuck Grassley, climate change, combat, conspiracy, corruption, deep state, environ, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, finance, firearms, global warming, guns, Joe Biden, military, military tech, police state, tactical, taxpayers, Tyranny, unexplained, weapons, weapons tech
This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author
COPYRIGHT © 2017 WHITE HOUSE NEWS