by Don Hank
Today I sent out the following link to a report showing how one American ranch and its occupants (one of many) were physically threatened by dangerous criminals due to inaction on the part of the Obama government – inaction that, if it occurred on a local level, would immediately be seen as criminal. The fact that it is criminal on any level will not be missed by rational, thinking people. (BTW, there is a pattern here: The DOJ has recently been shown to refuse to prosecute perpetrators on the basis of their race).
I sent the link with this message:
The below-linked report was written by an Iraq war returnee. It contains foul language, but is so full of truth it can’t be ignored.
We need to get control of our border.
To do that, we need to get control of our treacherous government.
Failing that, armed volunteers need to go to these ranches en masse and help protect what is ours.
Shortly thereafter, I received the following message from a friend whose work I am familiar with. This man, by the way, does not publish and should not be confused with anyone who has recently been published either in this forum or elsewhere.
Quote from that message:
“So, when our representatives say that ANYONE can have access to this nation, to its people, property, and information, what does that say about their opinion of us?
And my friend, doing nothing to stop it is doing nothing to protect us, which is the same thing as actively allowing it.”
My I offer some thoughts in this regard?
As you know, I have been in the “protection” field for over a quarter century and am professionally educated and credentialed in that field.
At its most basic, things that are to be protected, assets for want of a better term, fall into 3 categories: people, property, and information. These can range from a single person or a dignitary to an entire population; from a single item of property to a building or a nation, etc.
Now here is the rule: 90% of protecting anything, no matter what, is access control, making sure that only the right people have access to the valued asset and likewise, making sure that the wrong people don’t.
There is ALWAYS a security-convenience trade off. That is the cost of it and these are opposite ends of a continuum. As one moves along that continuum toward one, there is motion away from the other. If one wants more security, less convenience is the cost, and vice versa.
Further, effective protection is in layers, or progressively more stringent “rings of protection,” actual physical, psychological, or procedural barriers that a person must negotiate before they gain access. And these rings have objectives.
The basic strategy for designing a protective system is to include 4 basic goals—the 4 D’s: deter, detect, delay, defend / deny.
In other words, any system wants to DETER the “wrong” person from even attempting access in the first place by raising the chances that they will get caught and pay a price for it. While we cannot change the value of the asset they are trying to gain access to, we can do much to change the cost of attempting access, and the likelihood of having to pay it. Deterrence is THE first step, and a major one.
We also want out system to be able to immediately DETECT an attempted or accomplished breech in our protection (i.e. deterrence did not work) at the outermost perimeter ring (i.e. property, border, wall, etc). We then want to DELAY the person with other barriers of some kind, until a human response can be mustered to the breech site, and finally, we must DEFEND the asset-i.e. DENY access to it in a physical confrontation if need be.
This is NOT rocket science. But, no matter what anyone says, until the basic decision to control access is made, and the cost of it paid, there IS NO, AND CAN BE NO, SECURITY FOR THAT ASSET, period. OPEN ACCESS MEANS NO SECURITY!
Personally, there is also an inescapable corollary implied in access control:
How we define “the right person” to be granted access is based on the value of the asset to the owner. The greater the value, the greater the inconvenience that will be tolerated in countermeasures, and the greater the required trustworthiness for persons to be granted access. It is based on value, not cost, but value in the mind of the owner.
So, when our representatives say that ANYONE can have access to this nation, to its people, property, and information, what does that say about their opinion of us?
And my friend, doing nothing to stop it is doing nothing to protect us, which is the same thing as actively allowing it.