Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • 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
    Wow. The Muslim Fascist who the idiot Democrats sent to Congress wants to eliminate our defenses. What a shocker.

    Comment


    • #3
      can we send her back to somalia?

      Comment


      • #4
        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.
        The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

        Comment


        • #5
          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.
          The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

          Comment


          • #6
            think back to your life before 911

            do you feel more secure now?

            Comment


            • #7
              Are We Secure Yet? Redefining What It Means to Be Secure Against Cybersecurity Threats

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

              Comment


              • #8
                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!!!!
                The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      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

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        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

                        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.
                        The state — whatever its particular forms — always expresses itself as a collective form of property ownership. All political systems are socialistic, in that they are premised upon the subservience of individual interests to collective authority. Communism, fascism, lesser forms of state socialism, and welfarism, are all premised upon the state’s usurpation of privately-owned property. Whether one chooses to be aligned with the political "Left," "Right," or "Middle," comes down to nothing more than a preference for a particular franchise of state socialism.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          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

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            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

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X