D.C. Falls Under Permanent Military Occupation

Washington D.C. Falls Under Permanent Military Occupation

Daniel Greenfield

25,000 National Guard members were deployed to Washington D.C. to protect Biden’s inauguration from a threat that never existed. Even though nothing had happened since the Capitol Riot and even though the 7,000 troops already in the city, who had been authorized to use lethal force, were far more than the 2,500 troops fighting in Afghanistan, more were needed.

The Democrats deployed ten times more troops to fight other Americans than to fight Al Qaeda.

"Every state, territory and the District of Columbia will have National Guard men and women supporting the inauguration," a public statement bragged.

D.C. was filled with armed checkpoints. Razor wire cut off the Mall as the city turned into Baghdad. Visitors to what had once been a tourist site were shocked at its transformation.

The occupation was based on supposed FBI briefings claiming that "malicious actors may incite violence during First Amendment-protected protests." No such protests actually occurred.

There was no emergency and there was no reason to deploy 25,000 troops in a government city that already had over 5,000 police officers, including over 2,000 dedicated to protecting Congress, with more law enforcement per capita than any single city in America.

While Republican governors, including De Santis in Florida and Abbott in Texas, began pulling out the troops after the inauguration, Democrats insisted on retaining thousands of guardsmen.

Governor Pritzker of Illinois claimed that, "We must root out the dark forces of racism, white supremacy and disinformation that have created this moment."

How exactly the National Guard was supposed to do any of that was never explained.

"There are several upcoming events -- we don't know what they are -- over the next several weeks, and they're concerned that there could be situations where there are lawful protests, First Amendment-protected protests, that could either be used by malicious actors, or other problems that could emerge," Secretary of the Army John Whitley had argued.

“We don’t know what they are,” was the single sentence that revealed how baseless this was. Those weeks passed and the threat never materialized. But the D.C. occupation went on.

The Capitol Police issued a press release claiming there was, "obtained intelligence that shows a possible plot to breach the Capitol by an identified militia group on Thursday, March 4."

"Now they are thinking maybe we should gather again and storm the Capitol on March 4," Rep. Adam Smith, a Washington State Democrat claimed. "Stuff like that circulates all the time, does it mean it's going to happen, probably not."

It didn’t. None of the previous excuses and pretexts for the D.C. occupation happened either.

The occupation was supposed to end on March 12. Instead it’s getting a two month extension.

The Democrat military occupation of Washington D.C. will now be extended until May 23. And some 2,300 troops will stay on even as coronavirus cases continue to rise and 50 troops were treated, some hospitalized, due to bad food being provided by the D.C. National Guard. The tainted food included worms, undercooked meat, and metal shavings, leaving the troops with no choice but to pay for their own meals to avoid being poisoned by Democrat contractors.

Forget the threat assessments which were the entire basis for months of the occupation.

The military occupation is no longer about responding to some phantom threat. Instead it asserts that the Capitol Police, with over 2,000 sworn officers, is incapable of doing its job and needs the National Guard there to fill in its “gaps”. Four cops for every member of Congress and 1 officer for every 3 staffers is not enough without also adding thousands of troops.

More...