By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Secretary Kristi Noem is facing accusations of fabricating an emergency to justify demolishing 17 historic buildings on the St. Elizabeths Campus West, a designated National Historic Landmark being transformed into DHS headquarters. DHS claims the vacant buildings pose a security risk, potentially offering “tactical advantage” to a “malicious insider.” Preservationists, however, strongly object, arguing that the alleged security concerns stem from failures to secure the site and not the buildings themselves. They assert the emergency declaration bypasses proper procedures, with many buildings still lacking the necessary reviews.
Read the original article here
ICE Barbie Accused of Inventing an Emergency to Tear Down Historic Buildings
The situation unfolding, where Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem is accused of fabricating an emergency to demolish historic buildings, truly highlights a concerning trend. It seems like there’s a recurring pattern of invoking urgent circumstances to circumvent legal processes and push through desired actions. The speed with which this administration operates, often outpacing the checks and balances of the courts, Congress, and even law enforcement, is alarming. It’s a mentality that appears to disregard any constraints, raising the question of just how far this power will be wielded.
The list of manufactured “emergencies” is extensive, ranging from border issues to fabricated threats, and this situation, with historic buildings facing demolition, adds another layer to this pattern. The irony is, these fabricated crises seem to serve a specific agenda, often benefiting certain parties or ideologies. In this case, the accusation centers on the planned demolition of a collection of historic buildings, once part of a mental health facility for military personnel, now slated to become the new headquarters for the Department of Homeland Security. The swift decision, announced just before Christmas, to demolish these buildings due to a supposed “risk to life and property” warrants close scrutiny.
The actions taken are also being called out in the media and online, like the reference to motion detectors used in other countries to protect historic buildings, offering an alternative approach compared to this seemingly self-inflicted damage. It is being viewed as an intentional act, a kind of internal attack, and the speed at which it has been proposed is being cited as an attempt to get it done quickly. Of course, the use of nicknames such as “ICE Barbie” to refer to the person responsible feels like a trivialization of the situation, and the focus on the name, Kristi Noem, should be what is used in reports, not the derogatory moniker that is applied.
The details of the situation are also being highlighted. The buildings in question are on a secure 176-acre site, a campus, that’s supposed to be ready for the DHS headquarters. The emergency declared by Noem suggests the buildings pose a threat, but it’s not clear what this actual threat is. There is a sense of disbelief that it’s being used as a justification for demolition.
Some of the comments point to potential ulterior motives, such as the possibility of using the land for other purposes. It’s a reminder of the need to be vigilant and question the official narrative, especially when it comes to sensitive topics like historical preservation and national security. The potential for no-bid contracts and preferential treatment for certain businesses also raises concerns about corruption and abuse of power.
The reactions range from disbelief and anger to calls for accountability and even direct action. There’s a strong sentiment that those involved in these demolitions should be held personally responsible. There is an expectation of legal consequences. The feeling that the entire situation should be exposed to public scrutiny is clear.
One concern raised is the potential for an active shooter scenario, but the counter-argument is that if someone could gain access to the buildings, it’s a failure of the security measures, not an inherent threat posed by the buildings themselves. There is a strong feeling that this isn’t about safety but rather about an effort to remove historic properties to do with as they please. The references to Trump’s actions and the use of manufactured emergencies are important to understanding the bigger picture.
It’s clear that there’s a strong feeling that the current administration is willing to manipulate situations and exploit emergencies to achieve its goals. There’s a strong desire for the next administration to establish set rules and regulations that cannot be readily changed. This is a story that requires constant attention, and the public’s awareness is important to avoid this administration’s efforts to get whatever they want, done. It’s time to keep a close eye on this situation and demand accountability.