A lot of conservatives are freaking out over Janet Napolitano being the head of Homeland Security. The House Republicans are calling for her to resign, and the blogosphere is still reeling from her revealing that she plans on persecuting conservative activists.
At the risk of being pelted with rotten produce, I for one can only look at this and say "we told you so."
Some of us on the right joined with lefties in saying the PATRIOT Act went a little too far and Homeland Security had few built-in firewalls to prevent abuse. As many of my friends on here know, I happen to be aware of exactly how much leeway DHS is given.
My biggest concern at the time was what would happen should that much power be put in the hands of Clintonistas. I tried to tell people, be prepared for the next Democrat administration to take advantage of it.
At this point, the common argument is that we have to do something to stop Al Qaeda so Homeland Security is essential. What really makes you think the Democrats will apply it for that purpose? They pile on gun laws to persecute the NRA while failing to stop illegal purchases that lead to Columbine shootings - and then respond by blaming illegal purchases on the NRA. If we had the PATRIOT Act during the Clinton years, do you really think he would have made more of an effort to detain the USS Cole bombers? Do you honestly think Napolitano and Holder will use DHS to infiltrate radical mosques or crack down on illegal immigration to catch more terrorists living under the radar? Napolitano just got done blaming Canada for housing the 9/11 guys.
My point is this. Obama's administration will be slow to spy on radical Muslims but quick to spy on radical Christians. They will intervene on Muslim plots when they must, but carefully explain to the media that they were radicals who appeared out of thin air. On the flip side, they will target conservative activists for even looking suspicious, accuse them of manipulating veterans, and give us a whole backstory of what church they belong to and who they hang out with.
How many of you know about Sarah Palin's ties to "radical" Pentecostal churches? Now think about the 9/11 hijackers - do you know anything about which mosques they attended, which denom of Islam they believed, how involved they were with Muslim social groups in America? Have you ever heard the DHS warn that radical clerics might manipulate unemployed Muslims? You haven't? Interesting.
I realize Bush protected us for 7 years after 9/11, and for that I am thankful. But I fear Homeland Security was thrown together in a hurry without enough firewalls to prevent abuse.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
*prepares for pile on*
April 24, 2009 - 10:47 ET by candanceSo what do you guys think?
GERONIMO!
April 24, 2009 - 10:50 ET by Cool ArrowNo, candance, I have to agree with you.
And I don't remember any of us believing all that power would be rolled back after a Dem was elected, either.
Obama - A whole new dementian
I'm a little confused Cool
April 24, 2009 - 10:57 ET by candanceSo you're saying Republicans accepted the fate of letting Clintonistas inherit this because they felt like it was still the better choice?
→ Kind of
April 24, 2009 - 11:07 ET by Cool ArrowI liken it to the Line-Item Veto that the Gingrich Congress handed to Clinton.
Sure, there was opportunity misuse, but it was the right thing to do. It's something Giuliani should not have taken to SCOTUS.
Obama - A whole new dementian
I think that's an understatement
April 24, 2009 - 11:19 ET by candanceEverything has an opportunity for abuse, but still you can try to minimize that during construction.
As far as line item veto goes, Giuliani was right in challenging it if it was not constitutional. Lefties always pass unconstitutional laws because it's for the "common good" and then as soon as that firewall is removed, there is no stopping them from expanding it. Just like what we have seen with gun control.
I don't think we should excuse unconstitutional laws bcause we believe it is justified.
cd darlin'
April 24, 2009 - 10:59 ET by R D HelmI don't think you are going to find too many here that are going to give you a hard time over this.
I have never been comfortable with the creation of the DHS, no matter which party was in the White House.
Bush really blew it on that one.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
candance
April 24, 2009 - 10:55 ET by BlondeYou make some very good points...with one exception. The Obama administration won't investigate radical mosques....at all. Enforce the borders? No.
I think what will happen is that the outrages will continue, day by day, until even the idiot left wakes up. The latest, revealing the CIA means, sources, and results...is just the beginning. Nanny wants her "troof panel".....what I hope for is that these idiots will so badly overplay their hands that it will all blow up in their faces.
We're headed for another Reagan revolution....either that or a bloody mess.
I hope he fails, too.
well Blonde
April 24, 2009 - 11:07 ET by candanceThe 9/11 troof mess is kinda what scares me the most. Instead of blaming radical Muslims, the troofers blame Bush. Instead of researching how these guys moved around in America, they obsess over ways to prove Bush knew about it. And the Speaker of the House is encouraging them!!
Lefties already run around NB spreading lies about Tim McVeigh being a conservative. Just the other day, we caught one of them comparing tea party attendants to the Branch Davidians.
You say the moderate left will eventually wise up. I just don't think they will.
All I can say, can....
April 24, 2009 - 11:17 ET by BlondeIs to quote Sgt. Harvath to Capt. Miller (at the end of Saving Private Ryan)....as they're crossing the bridge..."Clearly, Sir, we've entered the realm of the surreal".
The only silver lining I see is that there is a huge potential for this withc hunt to blow up in their faces, either having these lying democrats hauled up under oath (riiiiight....Nanny never knew about waterboarding)....or there will be another terrorist hit, and it will be proved that the release of our methods & means contributed to it. It should go without saying that I truly hope it is the former, that we never suffer another terrorist attack. But I believe that it is far more likely with the irresponsible leftists in charge of National Security (even typing that is a joke).
I hope he fails, too.
irresponsible leftists indeed
April 24, 2009 - 11:27 ET by candanceObama is acting like the high school class president who uses their popularity to annoy their rivals. It's all a big game to them; getting revenge on Republicans is more important than anything else.
**candance
April 24, 2009 - 11:24 ET by pelicanmarshNicely written. Yours is the second post here that I have copied to show my friends. (Tom in NC was the first one, on a seperate thread a few days ago. It was just as good as yours.)
How refreshing to read clear and concise verbage without any fear of "reprisal".
Good for you. And thanks for writing!
Freedom of Speech is a Constitutional privilege; it is not a license to parade yourself as a wanna-be intellectual jackass.
thanks pelican
April 24, 2009 - 11:34 ET by candanceI've hated the PATRIOT Act for a while now, but even I can't believe how fast it took for lefties to jump on it. Napolitano was in there for less than six months before attacking right wing activists. Amazing. We have another four years of this coming, and I suspect it will only get worse.
hi candance
April 24, 2009 - 11:29 ET by katainkentmy husband and I have always been big believers in the "never put anything into place you don't want to have done for the rest of eternity by the other guy" so what you're saying here makes perfect sense to us.
I love to help the helpless but I'm not gonna help the clueless ~Dennis Miller
My Promised Response
May 4, 2009 - 14:04 ET by rexdraconimI saw this while sneaking a peek during my recent sabbatical and I promised myself a response. I agree with Candance, that this we brought on ourselves. We are now facing what happens when you have an administration which feels no loyalty to the Citizens, the Founders or the Nation.
Much of my response will be echoing other sentiments here.
This is a good topic, a good Forum and worthy of notice. It is a key subject, one which the "close your eyes and wish it goes away" brand of pusillanimous "conservative" (HA!) refuses to face.
Frankly, while I despise the Leftists and their plans for my country, I am beyond irritated at the career Republicans posing as "conservative" for helping the Leftists so completely. Stupid is a capital crime and out Nation faces the sentence for the RINO's stupidity.
The best summation response that I can offer is that this a perfect example of the necessity of limited government. Such was the intent of the Founders and such should be our goal. Without such diligence in monitoring and managing our government, we end up with what has happened here.
Power corrupts, power can be corrupted, power is corruption. The perspective of the danger of power is well known, from many approaches. Too many politicians become enamored of their job, they become institutionalized and they end up pandering to the peasants who have conveniently programmed by the Leftists.
No government can be responsible. Responsibility is a concept and trait held by individuals only, never groups. All things, all decisions, come down to a single person making a choice, right or wrong, law or not. The situation, with Leftist control of education and communication, is that when we hold a RINO responsible, we get something worse. We have to fight against the Leftist's propaganda machines.
We must work to return a true understanding of our Nation's history to it Citizens, or the Leftists will continue to close the deal and drive the nails into Lady Liberty's coffin.
So, the PATRIOT thing, while possible to be handled responsibly and justly, is even more likely to be mis-used. It all comes down to who holds the decision. The Citizens need to remember that it is they who hold the decision and thus need to make the correct decision, not the emotional, knee-jerk one.
Power relinquished by the Citizen, is power lost by the citizen; the government is not known for giving it back.
When was the last time the government reduced its authority significantly?
We have to remember that the Founding Documents were not about what the Citizen was allowed to do, but more specifically what the government was forbidden to do, with very specific allowances for limited things which the government was allowed to do.
So, like was said above by folks wiser than I, do not embrace anything which could be used against you. Good intentions pave the road to hell.
Lyrics come to mind:
"You can't trust Freedom when its not in your hands, when everybody's fighting for the Promised Land..."--Rose
For our Nation to be great again, the power must be in the hands of the individual, not the government. The individual is responsible, the Citizen committed and more knowledgeable as to what the right thing to do is, more than the government can or will ever be.
"You can have Peace or you can have Freedom; just don't count on having both at the same time." - R.A.H
"I'll take the harsh reality of liberty over the illusion of security...every time!" -me