House Conservatives Demand Napolitano Resign

[BloodEclipse]

Newsmax.com

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 10:56 PM


Still angered by a controversial report that targeted conservatives — and military veterans — as potential terrorists, House Republicans called on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano to resign or be fired, according to Politico.

The move came as Napolitano continued to defend the report despite a lack of documented terror incidents from even right-wing fringe groups. It was only the latest setback for Napolitano, who also sparked controversies this week with comments saying that illegal immigration is not a crime, and that the 9/11 terrorists had entered the country from Canada.

[Editor's Note: Read “DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime” - Go Here Now]

Conservative members of the Republican Study Committee called on party leaders to raise the issue with President Barack Obama during a White House meeting on Thursday.

“Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela," Texas Rep. John Carter told Politico. He organized an hour of floor speeches Wednesday night to call for Napolitano's ouster.

“The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime.”

The DHS report, issued earlier this month to law enforcement agencies, warned that the slumping economy "could create a fertile recruiting environment for right-wing extremists and even result in confrontations between such groups and government authorities similar to those in the past."

Conservative bloggers and talk radio hosts called it a clear effort by the Obama administration to marginalize its critics on the right. Veterans groups were insulted that the report singled out war veterans as potential threats, saying they could emerge as “lone-wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

[Editor's Note: Read “Napolitano Riles Canada With Terrorism Remarks” - Go Here Now]

“Singling out political opponents for working against the ruling party is precisely the tactic of every tyrannical government from Red China to Venezuela," Texas Rep. John Carter told Politico. He organized an hour of floor speeches Wednesday night to call for Napolitano's ouster.

“The first step in the process is creating unfounded public suspicion of political opponents, followed by arresting and jailing any who continue speaking against the regime.”

Now now, we know you just don't understand. That is why we will be sending you to reeducation camps.... right this way, we have a train car waiting for you.......

 

[AFA1CY]

Have you noticed how much this is looking llike the Clinton administration?

Janet Napolitano = Joycelyn elders

Can we say Vince Foster? FOXNews.com - Freddie Mac Acting CFO Found Dead in Apparent Suicide - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

 

[Turtle]

1st off I'm not a sexist. But IMO Hillary is a big city commie bitch. Obama is all kinds of anti American. With his life long anti-American mentor (Rev wright) Biden is an evil puppet. They are all crooks robbing the crooks and when they got all the banks and auto, airlines, ect. Just like cookie monster they will soon gobble everything up and the try to look innocent. And say it was 4 our own good (barf)

 

[dross]

Have you noticed how much this is looking llike the Clinton administration?

Janet Napolitano = Joycelyn elders

Can we say Vince Foster? FOXNews.com - Freddie Mac Acting CFO Found Dead in Apparent Suicide - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News

Actually, these guys are making me long for the Clinton administration. I thought Obama was just playing to his base. Now I'm starting to think he really believes the stuff he's saying, and the things his people are doing.

 

[dburkhead]

Back before the election, I described the calls for "investigations" of the Bush administration--to be performed after he left office--as an attempt to criminalize policy differences which would be disastrous for the Republic.

Well, apparently they've backed off on the investigations (at least they haven't made any overt moves in that direction), but there certainly seems to be a concerted effort in the direction of criminalizing policy differences. Napolitano's list of what makes someone a potential terrorist very much comes down to "opposition to the Liberal agenda."

This is very scary indeed. Unfortunately, I don't see getting enough support in Congress (House or Senate) to stop it. And thus, I worry. I worry a lot.

 

[jrogers]

It is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that some elements of the far right may engage in acts of domestic terrorism. Soiling ones pants over the fact that a federal report mentioned this obvious fact is childish.

Here's a helpful hint: If you feel the need to preface your statement with some permutation of the disclaimer "I'm not prejudiced against <group>, but..." it's a safe bet that you are. And be sure to send me a PM when the US becomes a socialist dictatorship.

Back before the election, I described the calls for "investigations" of the Bush administration--to be performed after he left office--as an attempt to criminalize policy differences which would be disastrous for the Republic.

Relax. In an America that enjoys 24 and considers Jack Bauer a hero the responsible members of the Bush administration will never be forced to face prosecution for their crimes. It's awfully sweet of you to use the euphemism, "policy differences."

 

[BloodEclipse]

Relax. In an America that enjoys 24 and considers Jack Bauer a hero the responsible members of the Bush administration will never be forced to face prosecution for their crimes. It's awfully sweet of you to use the euphemism, "policy differences."

Welcome back troll, haven't seen you in awhile.
So you already have them convicted huh? What crimes would you be referring to?

 

[INRanger]

OK! Now I'm pissed! How in the hell is Jack Bower not a hero?

 

[jrogers]

Welcome back troll, haven't seen you in awhile.

Hey there yourself, slugger. I've been working quite a bit and haven't had time to waste online.

OK! Now I'm pissed! How in the hell is Jack Bower not a hero?

I could be off the mark there, since I could only force myself to sit through a few episodes of the program. Let me put it this way: Any person who believes that the ends justify the means is a person with a broken moral compass.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Hey there yourself, slugger. I've been working quite a bit and haven't had time to waste online.



I could be off the mark there, since I could only force myself to sit through a few episodes of the program. Let me put it this way: Any person who believes that the ends justify the means is a person with a broken moral compass.

And you would still say that if it was your life that was saved as a result of that line of thinking?

 

[INRanger]

jrogers - You must have serious trouble getting a proper cheek to stock weld with the helmet your parents made you wear to school. Some times you have to do terrible things to terrible people. Don't get your panties in a bunch other people will carry that weight while you wrestle with your own self righteousness. The real world is a dark and scary place where everything comes comes in a delightful shade of grey. Oh and I was kidding Jack Bower is a nancy. Chuck on the other hand...

 

[Flintlock]

GOP mum on Napolitano at W.H. - Patrick O'Connor - POLITICO.com

 

[jrogers]

Some times you have to do terrible things to terrible people.

There remains a vast ethical gulf between putting a few rounds into a mugger's chest and institutionalized torture.

Failure to see a difference between the two may be an indication of sociopathy.

 

[BloodEclipse]

There remains a vast ethical gulf between putting a few rounds into a mugger's chest and institutionalized torture.

Failure to see a difference between the two may be an indication of sociopathy.

My guess is your idea of torture and mine will be extremely different. I have seen pranks and hazings more extreme than what some call torture. Would tasing a terrorist be considered torture?

 

[dburkhead]

It is entirely reasonable to consider the possibility that some elements of the far right may engage in acts of domestic terrorism. Soiling ones pants over the fact that a federal report mentioned this obvious fact is childish.

Look at what is considered "the far right" in that report. Pretty much everyone who doesn't march lockstep with the left.

Here's a helpful hint: If you feel the need to preface your statement with some permutation of the disclaimer "I'm not prejudiced against <group>, but..." it's a safe bet that you are. And be sure to send me a PM when the US becomes a socialist dictatorship.

Here's a helpful hint: If folk on the left constantly play the "prejudice" card, it's going to drive people to make statements like "I'm not prejudiced against <group>, but..." in a usually futile attempt to keep the discussion on track with the actual issue and not get sidetracked into playing the "<group>ist" card. Usually futile, however, because the Left pretty much never met an issue they wouldn't attempt to shout down with with calls of "<group>ism".

Relax. In an America that enjoys 24 and considers Jack Bauer a hero the responsible members of the Bush administration will never be forced to face prosecution for their crimes. It's awfully sweet of you to use the euphemism, "policy differences."

Relax. With a Left in power that puts their far left fanatics into positions of power such as Speaker of the House, President, and most of his Cabinet, there is no chance whatsoever of fair trials that might actually return acquittals based on the actual law. You'll get your show trials.

BTW, if waterboarding is "torture" what do you think about: sleep deprivation using loud noises, the recorded sounds of animals being tortured played at high volume, bright lights, repeated use of irritant chemicals, deprivation of over the course of nearly two months? Would that not also qualify as "torture" and should it not also be prosecuted by this Administration?

 

[citizenvain]

There remains a vast ethical gulf between putting a few rounds into a mugger's chest and institutionalized torture.

Failure to see a difference between the two may be an indication of sociopathy.

I disagree. I see it as if there was someone I had in my custody, someone who had critical knowledge of a devious plot to detonate some kind of dirty bomb or fly another plane into a building, in my city, killing people I know and possibly my family members, not just a few, SEVERAL...then by all means, I'm going to want to extract that information. I'm talking about someone who is in allegiance with a group of people who have already attacked and killed thousands of citizens and not only boasts about it, but it is their well known objective to cause us much death and suffering to us because we are Americans.

I hope and pray that these CIA operatives did not enjoy what you consider "torture" (because as far as torture is concern, everything that has been documented so far is pretty tame). But I'm glad they extracted information in order to protect US citizens.

We are at war with terrorists, not a country, not against soldiers in uniforms (Geneva conventions). These are people that are willing to sacrifice/blow up their women, children, and themselves to kill us. You can not fight an enemy with love and good intentions who is willing to off themselves in order to inflict death upon you.

So how will the President and the bleeding heart liberals react in the next few years lets say, when LA is leveled to the ground or New York is attacked once again, and all the while we had terrorists in our custody that we chose not to extract information from by any means? How should the President and the Democrats respond to the family survivors? "Ooops"?

It won't happen. Because I believe this is just a witch hunt as Obama continues to show his hate for this country and throw the previous administration under the buss (which no other attack happend under its watch). Obama is not an idiot, they will continue to use harsh tactics (maybe not waterboarding, but something equally effective) to get critical information out of terrorists we have in our control. He will not let the above scenario happen on his watch, he can't afford to.

So am I a sociopath?

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

Back before the election, I described the calls for "investigations" of the Bush administration--to be performed after he left office--as an attempt to criminalize policy differences which would be disastrous for the Republic.

Well, apparently they've backed off on the investigations (at least they haven't made any overt moves in that direction), but there certainly seems to be a concerted effort in the direction of criminalizing policy differences.

"O" may have not thought this through but he may get bitten in the butt by his own policy once he leaves office. The next President may investigate "O" and find that the current policies meet the definition of criminal and "O" may find himself being prosecuted sometime after 2012.

 

[dburkhead]

"O" may have not thought this through but he may get bitten in the butt by his own policy once he leaves office. The next President may investigate "O" and find that the current policies meet the definition of criminal and "O" may find himself being prosecuted sometime after 2012.

You see, that's why it's a problem. If "O" hasn't thought about this, you can be bloody sure that someone in his Administration has.

The "solution" is simple: "O", or at least the Democrats, can never leave office.

 

[Blue Tile Spook]

The "solution" is simple: "O", or at least the Democrats, can never leave office.

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Sorry about that sound you heard.

 

[INRanger]

There remains a vast ethical gulf between putting a few rounds into a mugger's chest and institutionalized torture.

Failure to see a difference between the two may be an indication of sociopathy.

I disagree. I can kill someone who intends me harm but I'm a monster if I hurt someone who intends you harm. That simply makes no sense. When you kill someone a line has been crossed, you cannot take it back - no fixies. Life is ended, families destroyed. How is it somehow morally superior to destroy life but not make it uncomfortable? I am a graduate of SERE( I suspect you'll need to look that up) so I feel qualified to say the techniques out lined in the released CIA memo are just that, uncomfortable. It sucks unbelievably when it happens but you are no worse for wear when it's over. No permanent damage is done unless you count ego. These techniqes have been used for a very long time on all special operations personel and pilots. Do you have any moral quandry with our SOF personel undergoing this sort of training? If you do you should read In the company of heros by Mike Durant it may change your mind. He credits the training he recieved at SERE with his survival. So its OK to subject those who stand-to to protect you, but it's morally reprehisible to subject those who wish to kill you. You need to wake up and rub some of the fairy dust out of your eyes.