Ever since the inception of government espionage, there have always been concerns about what these agents and government employees are spying on. More specifically, though, are they spying on the innocent, for no other reason than to violate their privacy? But this is not the only concern with such a government program. As with anything dealing with the government, there is the question of the efficiency and proper use of their funds. For, after all, government agencies are funded via involuntary taxation of the citizenry.

In the United States, the Department of Homeland Security is a leviathan and a fiscally inefficient one as well. The agency originally conceived to protect our nation from terrorism, spies on innocent people with regularity. The technological age we live in allows this to be put into place with greater ease and simplicity than previously possible. These claims may seem far-fetched, but they are based in ample facts.

Consider the most recent findings of the Senate, in regards to the Department of Homeland Security. The results of these investigations showed that the Department of Homeland Security wasted massive amounts of money. A key part of this waste was the creation of “fusion centers”— facilities intended to bring about better cooperation between local and state governments with the Federal branch. Though a seemingly good idea, these fusion centers were highlights of waste in the Senate’s findings. But, as with many things of this nature, there is much more to be said of the Department of Homeland Security’s failings.

The same Federal department created in the worry of post-9/11 America has not only been a financial disaster, but also has gathered more information on innocent citizens than terrorists. As TheBlaze notes:

“[in regards to the previously discussed fusion centers] When fusion centers did address terrorism, they sometimes did so in ways that infringed on civil liberties. The centers have made headlines for circulating information about Ron Paul supporters, the ACLU, activists on both sides of the abortion debate, war protesters and advocates of gun rights.”

Clearly, these are not terrorists, and any rational, thinking person should be able to differentiate between these innocent citizens and terrorists.

On a note of simple decency and professionalism, the Department of Homeland Security has been allegedly run in the style of a “woman’s ‘frat house,’” by the hand of its leader Janet Napolitano. This leads to all the features of angry feminists taking out their erroneous frustrations against the bringers of all evil in the world— males. These behaviors included harassment, stupid pranks like moving several offices (belonging to men) to restrooms, and other ridiculous situations that waste time.

When reviewing many of the actions taken by Homeland Security, including in these those of the TSA, one must ask what their true motives are. Janet Napolitano acknowledges that terrorists enter the United States via the Southern border, yet the agency does not appear to be taking steps to prevent this, or urging other Federal agencies to do so. But we must keep in mind a piece of news from several years ago that many may have forgotten.

In 2009, Homeland Security warned of the growing danger of “right-wing extremists.” This, I believe, is the true aim of Homeland Security— to feed the populace a false fear of right-wing extremists, in order that the Federal government (including the Department of Homeland Security) be given more power. When one ponders it, it is utterly sensible. Islamic terror, though a concern, carries with it a sense of foreign danger. There is a war being fought on the other side of the world against Islamic terrorism. Many identify terrorism as something originating in a cave in the mountains of the Hindu Kush, amongst bearded men wearing robes and holding Kalashnikovs.

Now, contrast this image of Islamic terror to “right-wing extremism.” “Right-wing extremism” alone is vague. How do we define this? From the Washington Times article on the story in 2009, the ideology of “right-wing extremism” is defined by racism, hatred, “dedication to a single issue,” or rejection of “federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” Using such broad parameters as these, excluding the first two, mammoth segments of the American people could be considered “extremists.” Also, one must ask another question. If, say for example, a person rejects Federal authority and believes in the state or county, yet this person is completely peaceful and non-violent, is there still reason to view him as a “threat” (thus warranting surveillance and possible detainment)?

The sinister designs of Homeland Security are apparent. Their true goal is not security and protecting our nation from terror, but increasing the power of the Federal government. This is the problem, but what is the solution? I admit that solving the problem, especially since it deals with morbidly overgrown Federal programs, will be difficult, but it must be done.

At the very least, the Department of Homeland of Security should be forced to be accountable, to Congress, for their actions. This accountability is not the tell-all completely transparency of Julian Assange and company, but an actual sense of responsibility, restraint, and morality.

Ideally, the Department of Homeland Security would be completely overhauled. One alternative might involve contracting free-market firms to do the proper tasks of homeland security (i.e. collecting intelligence on actual terrorists, and not innocents). This would ensure both accountability and quality in many ways. As these are private sector employees, they are not granted the job security of government employees. This lack of security ensures that the employees would refrain from doing unethical acts or committing wrongful espionage—as they would need to maintain a proper reputation.

We stand upon the precipice of despotism being unleashed upon our nation. The Department of Homeland Security is only a single piece of this problem, but it is nonetheless vital. For, if we are being watched, monitored, and recorded in so many areas of our lives, then how shall there ever be a chance of resurrecting freedom and liberty? Omnipotent government, enabled by paranoid pretenses of faux security threats, relies heavily upon spying on its citizens—just as every totalitarian government has. Just as we must oppose tyranny in all areas, so must we fearlessly voice opposition to the practices of the Department of Homeland Security.

Christian Lopac | Wabash College | @CLopac