User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 17

Thread: Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department

  1. #1
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,678
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 761 Times in 625 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Arrow Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department

    Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/09/i...curity-defund/

    Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Friday called for the Department of Homeland Security to be completely defunded.

    In a Friday evening tweet, the Somalia-born Minnesota lawmaker also called President Trump “Individual 1” and his proposed border barrier “hateful.”
    “When Democrats stood our ground last month, we proved that Individual 1 does not have the public support to ram his hateful wall through Congress,” Omar tweeted. “Let’s stand firm: #Not1Dollar for DHS.”

  2. #2
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,678
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 761 Times in 625 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Wow. The Muslim Fascist who the idiot Democrats sent to Congress wants to eliminate our defenses. What a shocker.

  3. #3
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    23,796
    Thanks
    3,345
    Thanked 8,304 Times in 6,174 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147763
    can we send her back to somalia?

  4. #4
    Gold level Subscriber drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,584
    Thanks
    562
    Thanked 3,105 Times in 1,964 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    604101
    Quote Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
    Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department
    https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/09/i...curity-defund/

    Democratic Congresswoman Ilhan Omar on Friday called for the Department of Homeland Security to be completely defunded.

    In a Friday evening tweet, the Somalia-born Minnesota lawmaker also called President Trump “Individual 1” and his proposed border barrier “hateful.”
    “When Democrats stood our ground last month, we proved that Individual 1 does not have the public support to ram his hateful wall through Congress,” Omar tweeted. “Let’s stand firm: #Not1Dollar for DHS.”
    George LBJ Bush
    By Ron Paul
    November 26, 2002

    Homeland Security Is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
    by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

    The administration and Congress put the finishing touches on the monstrous Homeland Security bill last week, creating the first new federal department since the Department of Defense at the end of World War II. Laughably, the new department has been characterized as merely a "reorganization" of existing agencies, even though I notice no department was abolished to make up for it! One thing we can be sure of in this world is that federal agencies grow. The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal.

    The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents.

    Ironically, many in Congress who usually champion limited government were enthusiastic supporters of the largest federal expansion in 50 years. Twenty years ago President Reagan revitalized conservatives across the country by appealing to their Goldwater roots, promising to slash the size of government and eliminate whole departments. Yet the promise of a smaller government went unfulfilled, and today Congress passes budgets even larger that those of the Clinton years.

    Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

    The lesson learned from the rush to create a Homeland Security department is that the size and scope of government grows regardless of which party is in power. The federal government now devours a whopping 40% of the nation’s GDP, the highest level since World War II — and a massive new department can only make things worse. The Homeland Security bill provides a vivid example of the uncontrolled spending culture in Washington, a culture that views the true source of political power — your tax dollars — as unlimited.
    Even in the very best of situations, voting is still an unmitigated failure. The fact that any simple majority of individuals (mob) can determine an outcome that adversely affects the minority (mob rule) is against all natural rights. In the United State today, all who vote harm others so that they might benefit. By voting, they are also sanctioning theft of private property at the point of a gun, and the redistribution of that property to those who did not earn it.

  5. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to drbrumley For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 11th, 2019),Rusha (February 11th, 2019),WizardofOz (February 11th, 2019)

  6. #5
    Gold level Subscriber drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,584
    Thanks
    562
    Thanked 3,105 Times in 1,964 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    604101
    Security = Despotism
    At least as the state defines security, says Lew Rockwell.

    Now we have the Department of Homeland Security, a gargantuan agency that administers foreign and domestic spying, sends hither swarms of agents to harass us at airports, conduct drills in the event that the government decides that martial law is the only option, and generally suppress any and all signs of insurrection wherever they might appear. Here too the term security means submission, control, compliance, obedience, and stability for the state.

    Who is this security trying to secure? We are told it is for our own benefit. It is government that makes us secure from terrible threats. And yet, if we look closely, we can see that the main beneficiary of security is the state itself. We all understand this intuitively. Let’s say you know that someone is after you — an ex-spouse, for example — and threatens your very life. Would you call the Department of Homeland Security and expect a response? No, the DHS is there to protect the state, as evidenced by the comparatively energetic response that a threat to the president’s life would elicit.

    Of course, there is a need and demand for authentic security. We all seek it. We lock our doors, deter criminals with alarms, arm ourselves in case the alarms don’t do it, prepare for the worst in the case of natural disaster, save for the future, and construct our professional lives in ways that minimize the chance of disadvantageous turns of events. This is what security means to us in the real world.

    It is not unexpected that the state would seek the same thing: security for itself and its employees. The state has a special reason to desire security: its agents are always a minority of the population, funded by eating out their substance, and its rule is always vulnerable. The more control it seeks over a population, the more its agents have to watch their backs.


    In the world of ideas, a vigorous debate is taking place about the extent to which private enterprise is capable of providing security, not only as a supplement but as a full replacement for state-provided security.

    Advocates of fully privatized security point out that in the real world, most of the security we enjoy is purchased in the private sector. Vast networks of food distribution protect against starvation, private agents guard our homes, insurance companies provide compensation in the event of unexpected misfortune, and the locks and guns and gated communities provided by private enterprise do the bulk of work for our security in the real world.

    In our community, we spent days preparing for what was expected to be the terrible hurricane Ivan. It didn’t do much damage here, but in all the preparations, this much is clear: no one counted on the government to do anything to protect us. And no one counts on the government to do any reconstruction either. We depend entirely on our own efforts, while post-disaster clean up would have been done entirely by private contract.

    The message of this school of thought is that liberty and security (real security) are not opposites such that one must choose between them. They go together. Liberty is the essence of the free enterprise system that provides for all our material needs, that helps us overcome the uncertainties and contingencies of life.

    As for the public agencies, how do they act in a crisis? They are reduced to sending out warnings to “stay alert” and otherwise blowing big alarms as if no one can look outside their windows, listen to the radio, or check the web. This is pretty much all Homeland Security does with its laughable system of color-coded alerts. They also order us to leave our homes, search us, and threaten us with arrest if we protest.
    The truth is that government has less ability to protect us in an emergency than we have to protect ourselves. And despite all the propaganda you hear about brave public workers, the same was true during 9-11. The bottom line is that it represented the greatest failure of state security in a generation. That is the real lesson from that day.
    Even in the very best of situations, voting is still an unmitigated failure. The fact that any simple majority of individuals (mob) can determine an outcome that adversely affects the minority (mob rule) is against all natural rights. In the United State today, all who vote harm others so that they might benefit. By voting, they are also sanctioning theft of private property at the point of a gun, and the redistribution of that property to those who did not earn it.

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to drbrumley For Your Post:

    WizardofOz (February 11th, 2019)

  8. #6
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    23,796
    Thanks
    3,345
    Thanked 8,304 Times in 6,174 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147763
    think back to your life before 911

    do you feel more secure now?

  9. #7
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    23,796
    Thanks
    3,345
    Thanked 8,304 Times in 6,174 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147763
    Are We Secure Yet? Redefining What It Means to Be Secure Against Cybersecurity Threats

    https://www.aitegroup.com/blogs/alis...-cybersecurity

  10. #8
    Gold level Subscriber drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,584
    Thanks
    562
    Thanked 3,105 Times in 1,964 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    604101
    Quote Originally Posted by ok doser View Post
    think back to your life before 911

    do you feel more secure now?
    An unqualified NO. NADA. ZILCH!!!!
    Even in the very best of situations, voting is still an unmitigated failure. The fact that any simple majority of individuals (mob) can determine an outcome that adversely affects the minority (mob rule) is against all natural rights. In the United State today, all who vote harm others so that they might benefit. By voting, they are also sanctioning theft of private property at the point of a gun, and the redistribution of that property to those who did not earn it.

  11. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to drbrumley For Your Post:

    Rusha (February 11th, 2019),WizardofOz (February 11th, 2019)

  12. #9
    TOL Legend
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    23,796
    Thanks
    3,345
    Thanked 8,304 Times in 6,174 Posts

    Mentioned
    36 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2147763
    like any living organism, a government program's primary focus is self-preservation and propagation (growth)

    this is why i hated to see the "war on terror" - no reason to think it was going to be any different from the "war on drugs" or the "war on poverty"

    and now the left is proposing an all-encompassing "war on climate change"

    take note that none of these "wars" have either exit strategies or means of measuring success

  13. #10
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,678
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 761 Times in 625 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    That's a great point. Once a bureaucracy has been established none of those people ever want to lose their jobs and they will always find a way to justify their continued existence and even growth

  14. #11
    Over 5000 post club WizardofOz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,318
    Thanks
    2,105
    Thanked 2,529 Times in 1,418 Posts

    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    1360866
    Quote Originally Posted by drbrumley View Post
    George LBJ Bush
    By Ron Paul
    November 26, 2002

    Homeland Security Is the Largest Federal Expansion in 50 Years
    by Rep. Ron Paul, MD

    The administration and Congress put the finishing touches on the monstrous Homeland Security bill last week, creating the first new federal department since the Department of Defense at the end of World War II. Laughably, the new department has been characterized as merely a "reorganization" of existing agencies, even though I notice no department was abolished to make up for it! One thing we can be sure of in this world is that federal agencies grow. The Homeland Security department, like all federal agencies, will increase in size exponentially over the coming decades. Its budget, number of employees, and the scope of its mission will EXPAND. Congress has no idea what it will have created twenty or fifty years hence, when less popular presidents have the full power of a domestic spying agency at their disposal.

    The frightening details of the Homeland Security bill, which authorizes an unprecedented level of warrantless spying on American citizens, are still emerging. Those who still care about the Bill of Rights, particularly the 4th amendment, have every reason to be alarmed. But the process by which Congress created the bill is every bit as reprehensible as its contents.

    Ironically, many in Congress who usually champion limited government were enthusiastic supporters of the largest federal expansion in 50 years. Twenty years ago President Reagan revitalized conservatives across the country by appealing to their Goldwater roots, promising to slash the size of government and eliminate whole departments. Yet the promise of a smaller government went unfulfilled, and today Congress passes budgets even larger that those of the Clinton years.

    Of course the Homeland Security bill did receive some opposition from the President’s critics. Yet did they attack the legislation because it threatens to debase the 4th amendment and create an Orwellian surveillance society? Did they attack it because it will chill political dissent or expand the drug war? No, they attacked it on the grounds that it failed to secure enough high-paying federal union jobs, thus angering one of Washington’s most powerful special interest groups. Ultimately, however, even the most prominent critics voted for the bill.

    The lesson learned from the rush to create a Homeland Security department is that the size and scope of government grows regardless of which party is in power. The federal government now devours a whopping 40% of the nation’s GDP, the highest level since World War II — and a massive new department can only make things worse. The Homeland Security bill provides a vivid example of the uncontrolled spending culture in Washington, a culture that views the true source of political power — your tax dollars — as unlimited.


    What a biazarro world this is when Republicans only want big brother to grow and Dems are trying to cut the bloat. The GOP has become quite liberal in their desire to spend

    Where are the fiscal conservatives?
    “To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”

    ― Theodore Roosevelt

    Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem

  15. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to WizardofOz For Your Post:

    genuineoriginal (February 11th, 2019),Kit the Coyote (February 11th, 2019),Rusha (February 11th, 2019),SabathMoon (February 13th, 2019)

  16. #12
    Gold level Subscriber drbrumley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    9,584
    Thanks
    562
    Thanked 3,105 Times in 1,964 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    604101
    Quote Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
    That's a great point. Once a bureaucracy has been established none of those people ever want to lose their jobs and they will always find a way to justify their continued existence and even growth
    I couldn't agree with you more.....just I am trying to square this quote to this one...not trying to pick a fight

    Quote Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
    Wow. The Muslim Fascist who the idiot Democrats sent to Congress wants to eliminate our defenses. What a shocker.
    Even in the very best of situations, voting is still an unmitigated failure. The fact that any simple majority of individuals (mob) can determine an outcome that adversely affects the minority (mob rule) is against all natural rights. In the United State today, all who vote harm others so that they might benefit. By voting, they are also sanctioning theft of private property at the point of a gun, and the redistribution of that property to those who did not earn it.

  17. #13
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,678
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 761 Times in 625 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    As a general principle, we want smaller government and we want to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracies and departments. That is a general overarching principle. But when it comes to specifics there are specific functions and Departments of government that we want more funding for and those have to do with defense and National security. Hence the seeming disparity between my two comments.

    I would also add that when a Muslim anti-semite and Democrat wants to defund a National Security Department my radar immediately begin to flash and twitch

  18. #14
    TOL Legend genuineoriginal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    On a sea of glass mixed with fire in front of a throne.
    Posts
    10,162
    Thanks
    1,746
    Thanked 1,751 Times in 1,283 Posts

    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    523678
    Quote Originally Posted by CatholicCrusader View Post
    As a general principle, we want smaller government and we want to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracies and departments. That is a general overarching principle. But when it comes to specifics there are specific functions and Departments of government that we want more funding for and those have to do with defense and National security. Hence the seeming disparity between my two comments.

    I would also add that when a Muslim anti-semite and Democrat wants to defund a National Security Department my radar immediately begin to flash and twitch
    I want to defund the Fascist Homeland Security Department because its operation is in violation of the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    I am a neither a Muslim nor an anti-semite.
    I am a constitutional conservative that believes in
    • limited government
    • individual liberty
    • free individual enterprise (as opposed to corporate capitalism)
    • advancing freedom, opposing tyranny
    • defending family, neighborhood, community and faith.
    Learn to read what is written.

    _____
    The people who are supposed to be experts and who claim to understand the science are precisely the people who are blind to the evidence.
    ~ Dr Freeman Dyson

  19. #15
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    US of A
    Posts
    5,678
    Thanks
    512
    Thanked 761 Times in 625 Posts

    Blog Entries
    1
    Mentioned
    13 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by genuineoriginal View Post
    I want to defund the Fascist Homeland Security Department because its operation is in violation of the principles of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
    I am a neither a Muslim nor an anti-semite.
    I am a constitutional conservative that believes in
    • limited government
    • individual liberty
    • free individual enterprise (as opposed to corporate capitalism)
    • advancing freedom, opposing tyranny
    • defending family, neighborhood, community and faith.
    So how is Homeland Security fascist? I am asking. And if it is fascist, does that mean that the CIA, FBI and NSA are also fascist?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us