DHS Mission Statement changed....

a reply to: FamCore

I would believe it would take an executive order and not just a mission statement to change the focus of DHS. That makes sense. But it looks like a bunch of language was recently updated to be more direct while the mission statement itself got broader. My take on reading this stuff is DHS is firmly (re)establishing itself as the nerve center to security operations. Over and above the FBI, NSA, CIA and others. It's making clear it runs security in the US... all of it.

Three key concepts form the foundation of our national homeland security strategy designed to achieve this vision: Security, Resilience, and Customs and Exchange.

In turn, these key concepts drive broad areas of activity that the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) process defines as homeland security missions. These missions are enterprise-wide, and not limited to the Department of Homeland Security. These missions and their associated goals and objectives tell us in detail what it means to prevent, to protect, to respond, and to recover, as well as to build in security, to ensure resilience, and to facilitate customs and exchange.

Hundreds of thousands of people from across the federal government, state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, the private sector, and other nongovernmental organizations are responsible for executing these missions. These are the people who regularly interact with the public, who are responsible for public safety and security, who own and operate our nation’s critical infrastructures and services, who perform research and develop technology, and who keep watch, prepare for, and respond to emerging threats and disasters.

These homeland security professionals must have a clear sense of what it takes to achieve the overarching vision articulated above.

Not sourcing it, sorry. Please Google it if needed.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: MrSpad

How does changing that particular Mission Statement build morale? Really.

If a group of employees are disgruntled, do you think that they really get hyped up and newly stoked about this particular wording change: “With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.”

It makes them feel like they have some input. Those words kept showing up when they surveyed employees so when they see them they will feel like somebody listened to them. Granted to means nothing, it just a statement but, it also costs nothing to do so nothing ventured nothing gained.

a reply to: MrSpad

I buy that as it was sold to the employees and the government team that approved the statement. It's good slidedeck material, a quick summation of buzzwords. Still - it goes less exact in its meaning, and for a powerful government agency that doesn't feel right.

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: xuenchen
The "change" is part of the Obama Administration's effort to get Hillary elected.

Probably part of it. Labeling the federal election system as part of national infrastructure puts it all in one big basket of control. What could possibly go wrong there.....Just "safeguarding our (whoever THAT is) values".

By labeling it part of the national infrastructure all it does is give them access to advice, reaction plans if hacked and some programs to monitor for hackers. That is it. And they have to ask for it. Sony was declared a part of the national infrastructure so they could have access to the DHS hacker software. DHS does not run or moniter Sony or any of the other industries or companies they have declared part of the national infrastructure. In fact most of them complain that other than the title DHS does nothing but, send them the occasional report.

originally posted by: MrSpad

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: MrSpad

How does changing that particular Mission Statement build morale? Really.

If a group of employees are disgruntled, do you think that they really get hyped up and newly stoked about this particular wording change: “With honor and integrity, we will safeguard the American people, our homeland, and our values.”

It makes them feel like they have some input. Those words kept showing up when they surveyed employees so when they see them they will feel like somebody listened to them. Granted to means nothing, it just a statement but, it also costs nothing to do so nothing ventured nothing gained.

Uh? "Oh, lookie...there's my word. I told them we should have 'integrity', and LOOK!! They used it in the Mission Statement. Wow! I'm really stoked!"

a reply to: queenofswords

You're not wrong. It's "plausible deniability", otherwise known as covering their asses should they accidentally get caught doing something that falls outside the scope of their legal jurisdiction.

Didn't I just read Jeh state that DHS is considering throwing the election/poll process under it's umbrella? Trump has is right the "FIX IS IN"

And who gets to define these values?

That's a bit nebulous and could easily end up making whole segments of the American citizenry enemies of the state and Homeland security.

For example, do they let Southern Poverty Law Center define those values and which people don't uphold those values?

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Didn't I just read Jeh state that DHS is considering throwing the election/poll process under it's umbrella? Trump has is right the "FIX IS IN"

Well, you know ... Russians ... but we would otherwise know them as Clinton Foundation under the pay of most of the corrupt globalist states of the world, some of them using Middle Eastern oil money, and there might indeed be some Russian kleptocrat money in there, too.

We all talked about Obama as the Manchurian candidate, but I am wondering what term there is for Clinton? What do you call the candidate owned by anyone with the appropriate amount of cash to buy her favor?

a reply to: queenofswords

You jest...but there are actually people out there who fall for that particular marketing tactic. That is why they use it. In case you couldn't tell by the ongoing circus production in progress, there are an inordinate number of gullible, intellectually lazy people out there in our fair country who are only just now beginning to see that they made a grave error in judgement. And a whole lot more who are still in denial, too. They will believe anything. I mean Any. Thing.

a reply to: ketsuko

What do you call the candidate owned by anyone with the appropriate amount of cash to buy her favor?

The Great Whore? Just guessing.

Disband them.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Didn't I just read Jeh state that DHS is considering throwing the election/poll process under it's umbrella? Trump has is right the "FIX IS IN"

Of course he's right. He should know...after all, he's their "Trump card". He's having a lot of fun with this. He's the star of the show, the plot twist, and the surprise ending...all in one loud, orange package.

originally posted by: queenofswords
a reply to: ketsuko

What do you call the candidate owned by anyone with the appropriate amount of cash to buy her favor?

The Great Whore? Just guessing.

Mystery Babylon the Great.

And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5 And upon her forehead was a name written, Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth.

Rev. 17: 1-5

I wish that didn't make as much sense as it does.

a reply to: ketsuko

The Muslim in charge.

counterjihadreport.com...

originally posted by: Jason88
a reply to: MrSpad

I buy that as it was sold to the employees and the government team that approved the statement. It's good slidedeck material, a quick summation of buzzwords. Still - it goes less exact in its meaning, and for a powerful government agency that doesn't feel right.

Oh they have their mission in detail on their webpage, The little blurb they use is just that, a blurb. DHS our mission

There are five homeland security missions: Prevent terrorism and enhancing security; Secure and manage our borders; Enforce and administer our immigration laws; Safeguard and secure cyberspace; Ensure resilience to disasters;

And then they break all those down.

No election security is mentioned ...hmmmmmmm.

originally posted by: sirlancelot
Didn't I just read Jeh state that DHS is considering throwing the election/poll process under it's umbrella? Trump has is right the "FIX IS IN"

DHS has considered declaring the election process a vital part of national infrastructure. All that does is allow them to provide advice, reports and anti hacking software if the states request it. Companies like Sony have the same designation. Currently the FBI and the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) have this mission, DHS just wants to ad its name to the list. No federal agency can take control of the election from the states. All they can do assist and advise if asked.

a reply to: queenofswords

Might this tie into the law enforcement force Soros leaked
email speak of? Seems like it points in that direction....

a reply to: queenofswords

Like anything else...things like this need updating throughout the years.

MS
1st Responder
Advanced Disaster Life Support
FEMA/Department of Homeland Security