Watch LIVE

Do Terror Threats Serve to Indoctrinate Americans?


Was the heightened security this past Fourth of July really necessary or was it done to ensure further control over Americans' liberties?

The "See Something, Say Something" poster that has appeared for more than a decade throughout the New York City Subway system. (Photo Credit: NYC MTA)

In the days leading up to the Fourth of July, the 239th birthday of America’s freedom from tyranny and the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, Americans were repeatedly told that law enforcement and the military were on high alert due to threats from the Islamic State.

The FBI and Department of Homeland Security issued a joint bulletin warning of the possible attacks.

Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson encouraged law enforcement “to be vigilant and prepared” for what could possibly happen in the United States following the attacks that occurred in France, Tunisia and Kuwait, prior to the July 4 holiday.

Johnson called upon people to “remain vigilant” and to report any suspicious activity, while urging people to still enjoy Independence Day events.

The "See Something, Say Something" poster that has appeared for more than a decade throughout the New York City Subway system. (Photo Credit: NYC MTA) The "See Something, Say Something" poster that has appeared for more than a decade throughout the New York City Subway system. (Photo Credit: NYC MTA)

As a result of the FBI and DHS bulletin, Johnson indicated that the U.S. authorities would make adjustments to security measures, including those unseen by the public, as necessary.

While the DHS issued their warning of a potential attack from Islamic State terrorists, one official reported that there was no “specific, credible intelligence” about an attack. The official, however, allegedly reported that only the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria had called for attacks “against members of the military, law enforcement, the U.S. government and the American public.”

The official’s statement revealed that more government agencies could be at risk and also included a potential risk to the American public, which Johnson’s statement omitted.

Were these reports from governmental agencies issued because of valid concerns or are Americans being indoctrinated into believing that a heightened sense of security and an increased police presence is a necessary evil?

We know that the police presence continues to grow in America because we are witnessing it.

It was also reported this Fourth of July that special Transportation Security Administration teams had been added to large airline hubs and that investigators were watching potential suspects.

On July 2, Americans witnessed an extensive police presence following rumors that shots were fired at the Washington Navy Yard and in the same building, where a man had killed 12 people during a shooting rampage two years earlier.

Mainstream media reported that there were large numbers of police and fire department personnel that could be seen blocks away from the Navy Yard following the report.

Additionally, roads were immediately blocked and helicopters hovered overhead.

One report indicated that “hundreds of officers from upwards of a dozen local and federal agencies descended on the area.”

Fortunately, no shooter was found at the Navy Yard and no one was injured.

While many may argue that the heightened police presence is necessary given the state of affairs around the world concerning the Islamic State, should Americans accept that an increased police presence is for their own good?

I recently interviewed the founder of the Rutherford Institute, John W. Whitehead, attorney and author of a new book, “Battlefield America: The War on the American People,” on my weekly show, Stand For Truth Radio.

I asked Whitehead about his thoughts on America’s willingness to accept the government’s message that we need a larger police presence to protect us from the threat of the Islamic State terrorists and other dangers.

Whitehead said “you are 78 times more likely to be killed by a policeman in America than a terrorist.”

He also indicated that he had spoken with National Security Agency officials who told him that there were virtually no foreign terrorists in this country.

Whitehead went on to say that “FBI statistics from 2014 showed that we had a 40 year low in violent crime in America, 2013 had the lowest murder rate in a century, and the incidences of police getting killed in the line of duty is at a 50 year low.”

Whitehead indicates that the “indoctrination of freedom-loving individuals to march in lock step with a police state” begins by “convincing them that they’re in danger, and only the government can protect them.”

According to Whitehead, behaviorists and psychologists work with the federal government to teach them how to “shape a population” into believing that they need increased surveillance technology and police presence.

Whitehead stated that a population can be persuaded that additional security and police presence are needed for protection by convincing them that there is reason to be afraid.

Have we as Americans been swayed into believing that there are reasons to be fearful?

Was there a legitimate reason to fear a terrorist attack this past holiday which necessitated increased police personnel and surveillance measures? Or was the larger police presence the reason a threat was averted?

In July 2013, airport security in the U.S. was increased due to a “new terrorism threat.”

Likewise, in July 2014, DHS Secretary Johnson increased security measures at some international airports that had flights into the U.S. because of worldwide terror threats, even though no specific threat was given.

Are these genuine threats that we’re being warned of year after year or are we just being lulled into believing that we need an expansive police presence and increased surveillance technologies to fulfill a government agenda?

Hear the full interview of my guest and more of what he had to say on this topic and whether he believes our liberties are being threatened.

TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.

Most recent
All Articles