Homeland insecurity: DHS drops proposal to screen chemical plant employees over industry complaints
By Madison Ruppert
Editor of End the Lie
If you needed any more evidence that the entire so-called “war on terror” has become a complete farce, this should do it.
With normal bodily movements and just about everything imaginable supposedly being indications of terrorism and with illegal immigrants and alleged child molesting ex-priests working at airports, I honestly didn’t think it could get any more obvious.
When the massive Department of Homeland Security (DHS) ditched their proposal to screen employees working at chemical plants after major industry players complained, I realized that indeed the naked falsehood behind the war on terror could actually become more evident.
What is this falsehood, you ask? To put it simply, it is the completely manufactured threat of terrorism. In reality, there is no terrorist threat anywhere near the megalithic one presented by the government.
I believe this latest instance is one of the strongest cases showing that the government, in fact, knows very well that the threat of terrorism is nowhere near as large as many believe it to be or claim it is.
Indeed, while there are over 300 major chemical plants so close to large population centers that a chemical release at any one would cause at least 50,000 deaths, apparently the DHS doesn’t consider it all that important.
If there were actually powerful terrorist cells itching to wipe out huge swaths of the people of the United States and the DHS was tasked with protecting us from them, surely they would want to be certain that there aren’t any individuals with links to terrorism working in chemical plants, right?
The answer to that question is obviously yes seeing as there are actually around 15,000 chemical plants in the United States in total which produce, process, use or store dangerous chemicals while 300 so close to major population centers that a single chemical release in one plant would be over 16 times more devastating than September 11, 2001 in terms of the loss of human life.
Furthermore, according to Homeland Security News Wire, “Security experts agree that short of a nuclear attack on a U.S. city, the most casualty-heavy disaster would occur as a result of an accident in, or a terrorist attack on, a chemical plant which would release a cloud of toxic fumes.”
I see no reason why the DHS would ever, under any circumstances, back down on their plan to require screening of employees and individuals who regularly enter the plants on business unless they knew that there wasn’t really a threat.
One might now be wondering just how rigorous this procedure would be in order to justify the claims from the industry that it would be too expensive to implement.
In reality, it seems to put little to no stress on the chemical companies seeing as all that is required is the name, date and place of birth, passport and visa information about “facility personnel and, as appropriate, unescorted visitors with access to restricted areas or critical assets.”
It is not as though the companies themselves had to run the background checks as the DHS would then take that information in order to run it through the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Terrorist Screening Database.
Yet, according to Government Executive, “Homeland Security estimates put the total operational and maintenance cost of the proposed requirement at $29 million and say it would likely affect about 1.3 million individuals, according to a June 2011 notice in the Federal Register.”
It is unclear if this cost would, as Homeland Security News Wire claims, fall on the industry itself or if it would be paid by the DHS. The quote from Government Executive wasn’t quite clear, although one might assume it would be put on the industry since the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Chemistry Council, and the American Petroleum Institute and others objected to the proposal.
The plan was originally introduced in June 2011 and remained in the White House Office of Management and Budget with no progress being made.
Unsurprisingly, Suzanne Spaulding, deputy undersecretary for the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate, did not explain why they had withdrawn the plan.
Furthermore, Spaulding did not say if or how the proposal would be replaced and the DHS declined to comment on the decision after the recent hearing of the House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee.
While Spaulding claimed that the plan was pulled before the hearing in order to allow her to talk with panel members about the issue, the hearing ended abruptly with no resolution.
I would ask those who are still convinced that there is some behemoth, deadly terrorist group out there waiting to mercilessly kill countless Americans, “How can you justify these actions, especially coming from the same government agency supposedly protecting you from these terrorists?”
Did I forget anything or miss any errors? Would you like to make me aware of a story or subject to cover? Or perhaps you want to bring your writing to a wider audience? Feel free to contact me at [email protected] with your concerns, tips, questions, original writings, insults or just about anything that may strike your fancy.