Posted on 12/25/2024 5:20:14 PM PST by Bratch
The surveillance state comes from the creation of the Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) which is an entirely inward-looking agency. Prior to the Patriot Act, the surveillance sweep searching for terror threats focused outward, looking outside the U.S borders. The Patriot Act took the surveillance sweep a full 360 degrees and looked inside the Homeland for terror threats. Hence, DHS was created.
The office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) was also created by the Patriot Act, and was specifically created as the pivot point to combine the surveillance sweeps. The Pentagon and CIA intel agencies sweeping outside the U.S. and the DHS sweeping inside the U.S.
It was the creation of The Dept of Homeland Security (DHS) that destroyed what remained of privacy protections within the constitution (4th amendment). Americans are no longer secure in their ‘papers and effects’, nor protected by the ‘probable cause’ need for warrants. The erosion of the 4th amendment was absolutely connected to the creation of DHS; there is zero doubt about this cause and effect.
With the ODNI and DHS created, the sub-silos of the surveillance state then began. The Transportation Safety Administration (TSA) is one agency within the Dept of Homeland Security that was an outcome. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) also gained massive tools within this new system.
The key point behind all of this context is what I refer to as the ‘Surveillance State.’ American citizens have lost all privacy protections within this new system of surveillance, that has extended far beyond even what most people fathom.
When you understand the root origin of the Surveillance State, then the discussion turns to what we have accepted within its creation, and what is the current status of American Liberty as an outcome of it.
The fact that this system was weaponized by Barack Obama and Joe Biden to target their political opposition is only one aspect of this dynamic. Yes, it is a big issue, and yes what they did was horrific, corrupt and in my opinion unlawful. However, their ability to weaponize this system only existed because the domestic surveillance state was created and authorized by the legislative branch of government.
Now we are left arguing about who controls a system that should never have been authorized.
TSA encounter via X
Now, we shift to discuss the system itself against the backdrop of President Trump and our new technology MAGA allies.
All of President Trump’s cabinet and key appointments carry the same outlook toward the surveillance state. They fundamentally believe the system is needed, the DHS system holds national security value, and the capacity within the DHS system is only a problem when corrupt political operatives are in charge of it. If good, virtuous and moral people are in charge, the DHS surveillance system is okay.
I have talked to many of them, key people including Devin Nunes for perspective, and I can say directly that President Trump’s team believe the system is good and necessary, it was just controlled by bad actors.
To be clear and fair to readers, I disagree with the Trump administrations’ foundational perspective of the Surveillance State. I do not believe the system holds greater benefit than it does cost. However, that is not the primary reasoning for my opposing viewpoints.
There are two larger issues within this surveillance state. The first, is the potential weaponization of it; this is a simple matter of accepting the historic reality of it. The second issue is an issue that will surface quickly in the next few years, just as rapidly as the advances in technology that support it.
He will not do so with willful, corrupt or malicious intent, rather it is an inherent problem built into any surveillance network.
There are going to be tiers of people who are not subjected to the rules of the Surveillance State. There are going to be tiers of people, powerful, influential, some intensely rich people, to whom the application of the surveillance does not exist.
I have already seen this ‘tiered’ system starting to come into place. I have witnessed firsthand the outcomes of the software being deployed within the design of their building. I have witnessed real identities masked by the system as an outcome of their status. Facial recognition programs that black out search results based on arbitrary definitions and determinations of those who control the surveillance application.
Inside the surveillance system, supported by the policy team behind President Trump, there will be classes of people. Just as we defined “essential workers” within the COVID-19 pandemic. This essential group will be classed based on their administrative value to the government operators who control the mechanics of outcomes; perhaps “essential administrators.” This is a natural outcome of the mindset behind “continuity of government,” the baseline for the Patriot Act creation.
The system to classify Americans by personage is currently being developed inside the silos of the Intelligence Community, the Dept of Homeland Security and combined with the technological creations of those who are contracted to build it – like Palantir (Peter Thiel).
Within this matrix of categorized Americans there will be those who are not subjected to the surveillance, their constitutional rights will be protected, and they will be afforded all benefit of personage. However, there will be lower classes who are continual targets for it who do not have such protection. There is no way to avoid this caste system outcome; in fact, many components of it are already in place.
[PERSONAL NOTE: Even when given the opportunity to join or align with the elite group, I decline. I am an American, of no greater or lesser value than any other American. Unfortunately, my internal compass viewpoint is not carried by those who are currently building or will operate the system. I do not fault them, for it is perhaps an expected weakness within human nature to align with those of greater benefit when the benefit can transfer to a lifestyle of greater abundance. I do however let them know they are defining their own moral compass heading. It was with this perspective I previously presented this image. I embrace my choice.]
President Trump’s unwitting uthorization of the caste system within the Surveillance State will be the issue of debate in a few short years. I do not hold positive perspective on the outcome of litigation because the judicial branch has already conceded their view of liberty to those in the executive branch who hide behind the shield of “national security.”
Peter Thiel (Oracle), Elon Musk (xAI, SpaceX), Larry Ellison (Oracle), David Sacks and a host of mutually aligned artificial intelligence builders stand to benefit financially from a technologically efficient Surveillance State. Their companies and their AI software products are the targeting tools within the DHS surveillance system itself.
The tools created by Palantir et al, are multifunctional. They can be used by the Pentagon and CIA for military application, and they can be used by DNI, DHS, FBI and TSA for domestic application. Just as the Patriot Act redefined “terror threats” to begin sweeping 360 degrees, so too are the tools of the surveillance state designed for both foreign and domestic application.
There is no way to avoid being the target of a weapon once that weapon is created. However, unlike the mutually assured destruction within the nuclear analogy, there will be no threat of mutual application within the surveillance bomb.
There are going to be castes of people not subjected to the outcome of detonation; therein lies my biggest point against it.
Some are starting to awaken to this issue. I have recently seen commentator Laura Loomer begin questioning the motives of Thiel, Musk, Ellison, Ramaswamy, Sacks and crew. However, no one has yet noted the strategic insurance policy, JD Vance.
Lastly, I do not fault President Trump for this predictable outcome. Few people can fathom the scale and consequence of the big picture items that lay on the desk of President Trump.
What the technocratic team are doing in the supporting offices of the White House cannot be micromanaged by the same person who is trying to confront globalism, stop illicit trade schemes, provide national security, stop geopolitical unrest, unravel foreign wars and simultaneously prioritize the domestic dangers presented by the collapsed and borderless sovereign nation state of America.
Do you really believe President-elect Donald Trump is aware the person he announced as chief-of-staff for Pam Bondi is/was the same person used by Rod Rosenstein to construct the Robert Mueller targeting operation? Am I to believe that Chad Mizelle just had a lapse in momentary judgement, and Donald Trump knows the background of Mizelle at that critical moment in 2017. Just stop; we accept in brutally honest fashion, there are going to be a few aspects of non-winning amid the DC confrontation. President Trump cannot ‘know everything’ and simultaneously confront everything as a priority; at a certain point, even he has to trust their intents.
What I am warning about now, is something entirely predictable that is looming in the near future; like, within 18 months.
At a certain point, the financial interests of the technocratic team who helped win the 2024 election will no longer be in alignment with MAGA Americans. At that point, I have no doubt President Trump will align with our side in the just cause of liberty.
When the sh*t hits the fan and all of these connected interests’ surface, I am optimistic President Trump will support our position; I do not question that at all. However, we must accept the consequence of that non-alignment is going to make those same technocratic MAGA billionaires shift from united allies to lukewarm defenders.
Peaceniks don’t build bombs; and those who genuinely believe in liberty do not build nor support domestic surveillance networks that can be weaponized depending on who is in power.
Will that be before he starts WW3 or after? < /sarcasm >
I am not sure I agree with this. If anything, Trump will have surveillance on the Deep State. I believe that he wants to expose them.
Hey Bratch,
It isn’t big brother,
it is Democrats.
They are the threat!
Dept of Homeland Security - a present of George W. Bush, along with the misnamed “Patriot Act.”
So true, wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the Elons and Viveks of the world use some AI programs to audit thousands of fed employees and dozens of agencies. The MSM suggests that the dems/deep state will corral all the good guys when in fact it may be the other way around. The fed employees should be shaking in their boots - so much so it is fair to bet that many of them come forward to avoid prison time.
Oh won’t this be fun, Alcatraz has plenty of room.
But Inner Party members can turn off their telescreens.
Democrats = Big Brother.
That which we call a rose......
“The Pentagon and CIA intel agencies sweeping outside the U.S. and the DHS sweeping inside the U.S.”
Wrong... They are all three sweeping inside the states. The CIA and military are even sweeping inside the states from locations based in other countries.
Everything will grow, surveillance state, DOJ Jackboots, IRS, Mil-Ind Complex, ALL OF IT.
Trump will everything put in front of him especially Spending Bills, hell he told you by wanting the debt ceiling lifted.
With or without a false flag, everything deep state grows!!!
“Some are starting to awaken to this issue. I have recently seen commentator Laura Loomer begin questioning the motives of Thiel, Musk, Ellison, Ramaswamy, Sacks and crew. However, no one has yet noted the strategic insurance policy, JD Vance.”
Thiel is a long time mentor to Vance... Thiel is 100% CIA. They have surrounded Trump with deep state again.
I’m sure. Against actual terrorists, like ANTIFA and the ones not from here, other illegals and DS types.
The “Patriot Act” was where I lost complete and utter trust in our government.
This time they’ll get the filth that needs to be gotten?😎
Bkmk
We usually can only last about 20 seconds before we are both laughing too hard to continue.
Eff them.
There are many people on this forum who dislike Sundance. I am not one of them.
But I disagree with him on this. I believe he is correct to view the Department of Homeland Security as he does. I would agree it should be dissolved.
On a personal note, I did not object to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security at the time for two reasons: I believed we were at war (we had just had 3000 Americans murdered in cold blood only months before) and I believe that really being at war inherently means an infringement on Freedom of Speech. But the powers that it imparted on our fellow Americans with their hands on the levers of power regrettably showed just how wrong it was to accept that implied restriction that I did at the time.
While I understand fully that my views on the issue of wartime censorship are anethema to some Freepers, and I wholly understand their rationale, my views were not cooked up on the spot.
My views prior to the creation of The Department of Homeland Security were based on historical events which dated back to 1942 after the Battle of Midway. After the victory at Midway, the Chicago Tribune had a reporter who had been on the USS Lexington during the Battle of Coral Sea and while there, found out that the Japanese Imperial Navy code had been cracked, and that we were reading their mail. After Midway, the Chicago Tribune was going to publish an article from that reporter stating that we had advance knowledge of the Japanese attack.
The government was rightly angry that someone was going to tell the Japanese that we cracked their code to the degree we did, and was going to prosecute the paper and reporter under the Espionage Act, even though there were people who said it would just draw more attention to it. In the end, the government dropped its charges, the article was published, and either the Japanese didn’t see it or didn’t reach the obvious conclusion that the advance notice came from their compromised encryption. They didn’t change their code immediately, and it was that same advantage that allowed us to determine that Admiral Yamamoto was going to be flying out to Bougainville at a given date and time, so we ambushed and killed him.
So, in that case, all’s well that ended well.
However, with respect to First Amendment rights, I do believe it would apply today in certain military contexts. So that is why I believe that in wartime, there are inherent restrictions. I am willing to discuss this with anyone, as it is a worthy subject.
That case described above turned out well, but it was due to the Japanese never picking up on the story which was happenstance. If they had, and changed their code, Yamamoto would never have been taken out, not to mention other things that we were using the broken communications for. It wasn’t because it was right to allow that Chicago Tribune reporter to publish that story. It just turned out that way because the Japanese couldn’t read every newspaper all the time and never acted on it.
And that is just an example of why I believe there ARE and SHOULD BE restrictions on our rights during a time of war (at least with respect to the First Amendment) and I believed we were at war in late 2001. I fully admit I didn’t foresee that America somehow WOULDN’T be considered to be at war after 3000 of our fellow citizens were murdered (and that is what it came to in a short period of time) and that was an error on my part.
Also, having never lived through an attack on our nation that killed 3000 Americans, I thought the Department of Homeland Security creation was par for the course. Of course, I was wrong about the scope and breadth of what it was to start out and what it became in the hands of malignant actors. I fully believe that kind of power over a set of humans cannot be entrusted to humans of any kind no matter how well intentioned, because we, as humans, are eminently corruptible. Lord Acton described it best in his famous quote: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely”.
No question. And that is what we saw with the Department of Homeland Security. It is one thing to say rightly, knowing the quote of Lord Acton, that it never should have been created in the first place.
However, it is quite another thing altogether (in impact alone) to consider how the inherent corruption of that power to corrupt was put on steroids during the Obama and Biden Administrations who leveraged it for political purposes, proving Lord Acton was pointedly prescient.
And I believe Sundance is correct to rightly consider that WE (on the Conservative side) can be just as bad actors as those on the Left have proven they are.
But his saying that its power and scope will be expanded under Trump, and therefore worse, is wrong and unfounded IMO. He bases this on the history and comments of the members of the Trump Administration who will have a bearing on that department and how it will be run.
He makes the fair criticism of the well-meaning of “good people” who will run the system with the underlying premise not that the whole system is bad, but that it was being run by bad people.
He also says that it will create a tiered system of surveillance as an unavoidable side effect of maintaining the system, but goes further to say that people like Elon Musk,Peter Thiel (Palantir), Elon Musk (xAI, SpaceX), Larry Ellison (Oracle), David Sacks (among others) stand to benefit financially from a technologically efficient Surveillance State because their companies and their AI software products are the targeting tools within the DHS surveillance system itself. That is a fair criticism.
Where I differ with Sundance on this is that he believes people like Devin Nunes, Kash Patel, and others like that will simply pick up where the Left stopped, and carry the ball further. I don’t believe that, knowing what I know about Trump, Patel, and others like him.
I also didn’t like his comment: “Even when given the opportunity to join or align with the elite group, I decline. I am an American, of no greater or lesser value than any other American. Unfortunately, my internal compass viewpoint is not carried by those who are currently building or will operate the system.”
It is one thing to have zero responsibility for the life and death of others and piously make that statement. It is quite another to be responsible for the lives of American citizens, and be expected to have that point of view. They don’t have that luxury, because the tools to do that are not only available, but are expected to be employed to protect us.
There are two famous Americans who have been quoted that we see often: Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” and John Adams who said: “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
I am inclined to view Adam’s quote as the most fully accurate of the two, because when reduced to its foundational premise, it is true, and has been shown to be true in government today. Franklin’s quote is also true, but is not foundationally true when boiled down, as the First Amendment rights in a time of war are an example in my opinion where Franklin’s quote is not absolute.
I understand fully this puts me at odds with some Freepers who view Franklin’s quote as absolute. I agree with it, but do not see it as absolute. I am willing to debate this in a civil fashion.
We have already reached that point, with the horrific appointment of Indian-supremacist and advocate for unlimited Indian H1-B immigration, Sriram Krishnan as Senior Policy Advisor for AI at the Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Trump never pretended to be a libertarian. He never was and never will be. If you can’t deal with that, you’ll be griping for the next four years.
BKMRK.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.