Homeland Security Adds to Fake Arab Terrorism with Fake White Supremacy Terrorism

Executive Summary

• Homeland Security was a significant proponent of massively overstating the threat from Arab terrorism.
• With that issue mostly dead, they have moved on to faking a new threat.

Introduction

Ever since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was created, it has pushed to reduce the freedoms of US citizens while using anti-Arab terrorist legislation against the citizenry for things unrelated to terrorism.

This video describes the overreach of the Patriot Act. Establishment media do an abysmal job of publicizing the overreach of US intelligence services. 

Why didn’t the “integration of Homeland Security pay off in Katrina?

Here is a comment about what DHS actually does.

Apparently the Department of Homeland Security has become a monolithic bureaucracy which has hired on countless people who do pointless busy work such as reading average American’s emails which contain no information of concern to the state.

And this…

The USA absolutely does not need the DHS. It has only existed since 2002 and is an unnecessary byproduct of the phony “War on Terror”.

What is concerning is how little coverage there is on this troublesome agency and their both waste of US resources, and their violation of the rights of US citizens.

The degree to which DHS has been poorly thought out and implemented is covered in the following quotations.

Many of the challenges that Homeland Security faces derive from its broad (read: ill-defined) mandate. Currently, DHS oversees Citizenship and Immigration Services; the Coast Guard; Customs and Border Protection; the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office; the Federal Emergency Management Agency; the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the National Cyber Security Center; Secret Service; and Transportation Security Administration.

Such a veritable smorgasbord of bureaucracy has led to continual inter- and intra-agency conflict. For example, Homeland Security and the Justice Department, which includes the FBI and DEA, both are tasked with gathering intelligence and sharing it with state and local law enforcement officials. It’s no surprise then that there are turf battles. The response to Hurricane Katrina illustrated the interagency rift vividly, as DHS and FBI officials fought over which would play a lead role in safety and law enforcement. The most sensible solution would be for DHS to get out of the intelligence business, giving the Justice Department sole responsibility for intelligence gathering, analysis, and transmittal of safety information to state and local law enforcement officials, thereby hopefully reducing interagency conflict, competition for funding, and leadership battles.

Cyber security suffers from similar interagency problems. Homeland Security is responsible for most of it, but the National Security Agency (NSA) is responsible for military cyber security specifically and would like to take some of Homeland Security’s cyber security duties.

The myriad problems at DHS means that the United States is no safer in many areas than it was before 9/11. In a perfect world, Homeland Security would be responsible for prevention–securing U.S. borders, ports, infrastructure, transportation, commerce, and hazardous materials. It wouldn’t duplicate other agencies’ missions nor attempt to be a response force, as it does now. Until that happens, however, the country will be ill-prepared for a future terrorist attack or natural disaster. – The Bulletin

And this multitude of issues found in these quotations.

At the same time, the bloated Department of Homeland Security turned into a boondoggle—an opinion shared across the political spectrum for years.

As the tenth anniversary of 9/11 approached, in a paper for the libertarian Cato Institute, David Rittgers argued that the department’s unusually broad mandate is a recipe for waste and inefficiency. “This arrangement has not enhanced the government’s competence,” he wrote. “Americans are not safer because the head of DHS is simultaneously responsible for airport security and governmental efforts to counter potential flu epidemics.” Matt Mayer, a Homeland Security official under President George W. Bush, argued in 2015 that DHS has too much responsibility. “It goes without saying that I observed up-close the dysfunction, turf battles, and inherent limitations in an entity that does so much,” he wrote in Reason magazine. “These problems are exacerbated due to the fact that, in many cases, the activities DHS engages in require enormous coordination with entities embedded in other federal departments.”

In January 2015, on his final day in office, Republican Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma released a report summarizing what he’d seen during his tenure on the Senate Homeland Security Committee. “Despite spending nearly $61 billion annually and $544 billion since 2003, the Department of Homeland Security is not successfully executing any of its five main missions,”

Coburn wrote, “but a review of DHS’s programs shows that DHS’s main domestic counterterrorism programs—including its intelligence initiatives and homeland security grants—are yielding little value for the nation’s counterterrorism efforts.”

Critics often point to so-called fusion centers—regional hubs for information sharing—as the quintessential DHS boondoggle. In theory, these centers should enable the sort of inter-agency cooperation that may have prevented the 9/11 attacks. But the reality has fallen far short. A damning 2012 Senate Homeland Security Committee report found that the 77 fusion centers scattered across the United States “often produced irrelevant, useless or inappropriate intelligence reporting to DHS, and many produced no intelligence reporting whatsoever.” – The New Republic

A Department Created in a Moment of Crisis Under False Pretenses

Creating DHS was simply a reaction to 9/11 to make it seem like “someone was doing something.”

Virtually every piece of information communicated by the Bush Administration at that time has now been debunked. In one example, Dick Cheney would release false information to the New York Times, which would then publish it, and then Dick Cheney would point to the New York Times as the source for the story (i.e., false information). The New York Times was an accomplice in this, new that Dick Cheney was doing this, yet the New York Times preferred to keep its access (to false information?) rather than inform their readers and the public that they were being used as an untrustworthy source.

The idea presented at the time was that an overseeing agency was required to stop future 9/11s.

However, there was no overseeing agency that should have been necessary to stop 9/11 because NORAD’s distributed fighter rapid response should have easily been able to intercept every single plane. However, either ineptitude or complicity (pick one, there is no third option) stopped that from happening. If NORAD’s response had been explained to the public, there would have been an uproar over how 9/11 was allowed to occur.

The DHS was created without any understanding of how the DHS would integrate into other law enforcement, intelligence, and disaster management agencies.

The Scam of Arab Terrorism

The Bush Administration created a greatly enlarged impression of the threat of global terrorism. This threat was used by the defense establishment to try to replace the previously exaggerated threat of the Soviet Union. There were never very many Arab terrorists, and Osama Bin Laden was in large part construction of the US intelligence services. Bin Laden was used by the CIA to fight the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The Taliban was the outgrowth of the Muhajedeen, also funded by the US. The US has supported Islamic freedom fighters/terrorists in Syria to overturn Bashar-Al Assah. When the organization that is now known as ISIS saw an opening in the weak US-trained forces in Iraq (neighboring Syria), ISIS decided to attack that as well. The US’s view of terrorism seems to ebb and flow depending upon whether terrorists are useful for US foreign policy. However, a primary use of terrorism is to scare the US population into both funding overseas resource control wars, and in gaining support for restricting personal freedoms at home — as well as flowing seemingly unlimited amounts of money into the defense industry.

Sometimes Obama said things that were true, but only by mistake. In this case, by making a comparison, Obama tells the listener that terrorism is essentially irrelevant in the US by discussing the tiny numbers of Americans killed every year by terrorism. Yet the US spends enormous sums on trying to stop terrorism. Far more than the US spends on lowering the incidence of heart disease (with 647,000 deaths per year). Terrorism has been a multidecade con job on US taxpayers, and many people in the defense ecosystem became rich off of terrorism. And the DHS has been a major beneficiary of this enormously exaggerated threat. 

Virtually everything the Bush Administration said about global terrorism was false. The CIA created this fake diagram out of whole cloth — using the statements from a person who they paid to give them fake intelligence. Once US troops went looking for these massive underground command centers, they found nothing. But by that point, the objective of starting the war in Iraq had been accomplished. Not a single member of the Bush Administration apologized for the war based on clearly fake intelligence. There has also been no explanation of how 9/11 and impossible to execute event, without US cooperation, could have occurred. 

The US Government turned its own incompetence and complicity into more power for itself.

Getting Some PR For The DHS

As the ATF did with its ridiculous operations against the Branch Davidians. Where a law enforcement department with a sagging reputation looked for an opportunity to burnish its image, DHS has decided that rather than fix its unfixable departmental squabbles, that it will not focus on a new fake threat.

Yes, the threat of violent white supremacy terrorism!

How many more violent coordinated attacks to our national infrastructure do we have to see by bands of Swastica embroidered shirts, and Confederate flag toting whites do we have to tolerate until the DHS puts its foot down?

Just recall all of the horrific violence caused by white supremacy groups in the past few years.

Yes, think very hard. I am sure that you can come up with dozens of cases in your minds.

How about one case?

The Charlottesville automotive murder killed one person, back in 2017. This man was an avowed follower of Adolf Hitler. The incidents of white supremacy violence are so rare; the government has to try to create false instances. 

Now, if the question is simply the existence of Nazis, well Nazis are all over the place — according to a number of Liberals. However, some of these Nazis have very questionable Nazi credentials.

For instance…

The definition of a Nazi has broadened considerably in recent years. Many now consider the statement of the reality of biological differences between men and women to be unacceptable. The biology professor who pointed out sex differences in this video was referred to as a Nazi and a fascist. 

As we cover in the article Is the Term Nazi Becoming a Label for Whites Who Have Non PC Views?, the term Nazi is now being generalized to people that do not identify as Nazis. This can encompass — as we have shown above, biology professors with non-PC views.

This will, of course, be used to censor people, with the approval and coaxing of DHS, as is explained in the following quotation.

Conclusion

The 1st Amendment to the constitution reads as follows.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

DHS is supposed only to enforce laws passed by Congress, and it is supposed to be a coordinating agency and to “enable” law enforcement/disaster response through other agencies. Congress has not passed a law to restrict speech. Nor is it allowed to do so. The speech of dog show enthusiasts or the speech of white supremacists or the speech of those that are being accused of white supremacy as a tactic by opposing groups. Once a category or group has its freedom of speech limited by law, there is a strong incentive for other groups to have groups they disagree with categorized as that group that lacks freedom of speech protection. All freedom of speech, regardless of how offensive, is accepted as protected under the 1st Amendment, with the exception of speech that either claims false emergencies or incitements to riot or to overthrow the government.

DHS is not supposed to prohibit the freedom of speech of its own accord by “partnering” with search engines and social media firms to accomplish this goal.

DHS cannot do the things that it has been tasked with doing, by all accounts has increased the waste and communication issues between multiple federal agencies. There is a great question as to why the DHS continues to exist. Government entities that have not shown the ability to add value or are generally considered useless tend to look for ways to make themselves relevant.

In this case, the DHS is trying to make itself relevant by violating the 1st Amendment. And as more and more people and thoughts are being categorized as “white supremacists,” this gives broader powers to restrict speech.

Homeland Security is a threat to individual liberty, on multiple fronts, as is covered in this video. 

References

*https://thebulletin.org/2009/06/the-problems-with-the-department-of-homeland-security/

https://newrepublic.com/article/147099/dismantle-department-homeland-security