THE REVEALED BIDEN DOMESTIC TERROR STRATEGY.
- lhpgop
- Apr 18
- 5 min read
THE DOCTRINE THAT GENERATED THROUGH MULTIPLE ADMINISTRATIONS FINALLY WAS SET TO BURST ONTO THE SCENE IN A CLASSIC DISPLAY OF INTELLIGENCE MANAGED VIOLENCE AND OUTRAGE. WE HYPOTHESIZE WHO DUNNIT
The nation should be suitably shocked as the newly released but, possibly edited, DECLASSIFIED STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR COUNTERING DOMESTIC TERRORISM FROM THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION (dni.gov)
It is a frightening bit of paper and one that the average citizen should take to heart when they wish to continue to vote for the party that put this fetid rag together. However, we did take some time to hypothesize as to some of the "Whos" "Whats" and "Whens" and have tied it up into the document below.
We will continue our research and if we get any nearer to naming names, well then..I'm sure you will see us in the Obits.
Enjoy
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction: The Dual-Use Problem in National Security
Phase I: The Birth of DHS and the War on Terror (2001–2008)
Phase II: Foreign Testing Ground – The Arab Spring & CVE (2008–2015)
Phase III: The Domestic Pivot Begins (2016–2020)
Phase IV: The Trigger – January 6 as the Domestic 9/11 (2021)
5.1 The Biden Administration’s Declassified Strategic Implementation Plan
The Structural Continuity Behind the Curtain
Organizational Architecture & Command Flow
Legal and Constitutional Implications
Conclusions and Recommendations
Appendices
References
Executive Summary
This white paper explores how national security structures—especially those created in the wake of 9/11—were originally designed for foreign counterterrorism but were later repurposed for domestic control. It outlines how agencies like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FBI, and CIA evolved through foreign influence operations and shifted their operational doctrine to encompass domestic targets, culminating in a full pivot following the January 6, 2021 Capitol breach. The paper argues that the architecture of modern national security contains dual-use features that make it adaptable for regime protection, dissent suppression, and information control.
1. Introduction: The Dual-Use Problem in National Security
"Dual-use" refers to systems, policies, or technologies that serve both a declared (public) purpose and a concealed or expandable one. In the post-9/11 world, counterterrorism efforts—rooted in urgent threats from jihadist networks—justified the rapid construction of surveillance, intelligence, and operational infrastructure. However, once constructed, this system was malleable enough to adapt to new internal definitions of "threat."
2. Phase I: The Birth of DHS and the War on Terror (2001–2008)
2001: Patriot Act passed; massive expansion of surveillance powers
2002: DHS created by merging 22 agencies; charged with internal threat coordination
Fusion Centers: Inter-agency data sharing hubs created for state and local integration
These systems were intended for foreign threats but lacked internal safeguards to prevent domestic mission creep.
3. Phase II: Foreign Testing Ground – The Arab Spring & CVE (2008–2015)
U.S. agencies (CIA, State Department) began training and funding activist networks abroad
Techniques such as narrative warfare, micro-targeting, and digital coordination were pioneered
Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) programs expanded to monitor behavioral indicators
These methods were seen as successful tools of soft power but later found utility at home.
4. Phase III: The Domestic Pivot Begins (2016–2020)
Rise of populism reframed domestic political dissent as a potential insurgency
Tech partnerships with government formed to combat "disinformation"
Internal government memos and think tanks began warning about "homegrown radicals"
This period laid the foundation for formal narrative and platform control in the domestic sphere.
5. Phase IV: The Trigger – January 6 as the Domestic 9/11 (2021)
Capitol breach served as pretext for defining ideological opponents as domestic threats
DHS and DOJ launched new strategic frameworks prioritizing "domestic terrorism"
Speech, association, and lawful protest began being scrutinized through security lenses
5.1 The Biden Administration’s Declassified Strategic Implementation Plan
In June 2021, the Biden administration released the Declassified Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism, which codified the shift in focus from foreign to domestic threats. The plan outlined four key pillars:
Enhancing information sharing across federal, state, and local law enforcement.
Preventing recruitment and mobilization by targeting online radicalization and misinformation.
Disrupting and deterring activity through legal prosecution and preemptive intervention.
Addressing long-term contributors to terrorism, such as racism, economic inequality, and gun access.
“Domestic terrorism—driven by hate, bigotry, and other forms of extremism—is a stain on the soul of America,” President Biden stated in the document’s foreword. “It goes against everything our country strives for, and it poses a direct challenge to our national security, democracy, and unity.”
While the plan acknowledged the need to uphold civil liberties, its emphasis on ideology-based threat detection, especially surrounding “white supremacy” and “anti-government sentiment,” marked a significant expansion of surveillance and enforcement into the realm of protected political thought.
Critics—including civil liberties organizations and former intelligence professionals—have raised constitutional concerns:
First Amendment: The plan risks equating lawful dissent and association with pre-terrorist behavior.
Fourth Amendment: Enhanced data collection and social media monitoring could constitute unreasonable surveillance.
Due Process: The blending of behavioral profiling with law enforcement raises pre-crime red flags.
The ACLU stated: “The focus on ideology is especially dangerous. We’ve seen how government agencies have historically used these types of authorities to target minority communities and political activists.”
In effect, the Strategic Implementation Plan became the operational doctrine that allowed previously foreign-focused national security tools to be applied domestically—with no additional congressional authorization and little public debate.
6. The Structural Continuity Behind the Curtain
Personnel, doctrine, and operational tools showed clear lineage from earlier foreign engagements. Key figures from Arab Spring-era diplomacy reappeared in domestic security roles. Think tanks, civil society groups, and social media platforms formed partnerships with federal agencies.
7. Organizational Architecture & Command Flow
(Graphic: Flowchart of DHS-centered splinter operation showing connections to CIA, FBI, NSA, ODNI, State Department, and private tech platforms)
DHS: Lead operational node
FBI/DOJ: Legal infrastructure and prosecution
CIA/NSA: Data and behavioral modeling
Tech platforms: Dissemination and enforcement
8. Legal and Constitutional Implications
1st Amendment: Suppression of protected speech via indirect censorship
4th Amendment: Dragnet surveillance regimes like XKeyscore and PRISM
Due Process: Pre-crime modeling and guilt by association challenges core legal principles
9. Conclusions and Recommendations
Congressional oversight of DHS, CISA, and Fusion Centers
Legislative sunset clauses on emergency powers
Legal barriers to prevent foreign influence tools from being used on U.S. citizens
Transparency mandates for government-platform coordination
10. Appendices
Timeline: From 2001 to 2023 (Includes major shifts in DHS focus)
Graphics:
Timeline chart of DHS evolution
Flowchart of interagency command structure
11. References
USA PATRIOT Act (2001)
National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)
DHS Strategic Implementation Plan for Countering Domestic Terrorism (2021)
Brennan Center for Justice Reports on Domestic Surveillance
ACLU Statement on Domestic Terrorism Strategy
FBI Memos on Homegrown Violent Extremism
CISA advisories on Mis/Disinformation
Comments