Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/09/ilhan-omar-homeland-security-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.”
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
Rep. Omar Wants to Defund Homeland Security Department
https://dailycaller.com/2019/02/09/ilhan-omar-homeland-security-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.
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
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.
 

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
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" :dizzy:

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

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
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
 

WizardofOz

New member
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.

:thumb:

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 :think:

Where are the fiscal conservatives?
 

drbrumley

Well-known member
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

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

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
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
 

genuineoriginal

New member
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.
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
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?
 

Catholic Crusader

Kyrie Eleison
Banned
Who is the dim-witted imbecile who added a tag to this thread that says, liberal Catholic crusader? Me, a liberal? Somebody has been smoking crack
 
Top