Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Little

Hey Janet Napolitano!

Rate this topic

5 posts in this topic


Hey you big paranoid, skunk haired closet bull dyke!  Your mother was a hamster, and your father smelled of eldeberries!!



(Note to General Dynamics subcontractor that "finds" this website.  Uk-fay OO-yay!  Show some decency, buy a couple plugs and get lost)



 



 



Well isn't this administration just a big gold star on the history of the USA?  ONE admin change and the Department of Homeland Security becomes everything that right thinking patriotic men said it would become.



 



The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a watchdog outfit, has been filing Foia paper for a while now and they have the proof.  Janet Napolitano is a twitching, paranoid yahoo on the level of J Edgar Hoover.  She has hired General Dynamics and paid them over 11 million dollars to comb the internet for criticism of her organization.



Between that and her boss trying to plant guns in Mexico for political purposes, we have REAL serious problems here.  Remember this insane woman's idea to have NYC hot dog vendors trained to rat out their fellow citizens?  Obama's "truth lines", where you can call and report your neighbor for being critical?  Member that? 



 



Is this "fundamentally transforming America"?  You leftists must be SO proud.  Tell you what, just for laughs, tell me again how people like Ron Paul are crazy, fringe bla bla bla, and Janet Napolitano is okee dokee.  I never tire of that giggle.



This is beyond the pale.  Take a look, this one is in black and white:



http://www.allgov.com/ViewNews/Homeland_Security_Dept_Pays_General_Dynamics_to_Scour_Internet_for_Criticism_of_its_Policies_120227



 



http://epic.org/


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've maintained from Day One, that the 'Patriot' Act & Homeland 'Security' were always meant to monitor the People, and not the terrorists, as we've been force fed & led to believe. I believe that all this apparatus will eventually be used to enforce the New Police State, which the Feds will have after they declare martial law, after some real or contrived 'terrorist' incident. :kook:

 

Napolitano is merely a functionaire apparatchik of Homeland 'Security'. She's no better or worse, than any other Gov't lackey, disposable as used toilet paper in the New Marxist State. :squid:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Much as I agree about overmonitoring, at least Congress voted for the Patriot Act, even if incorrectly. Has anyone been following the whole NYPD investigation of groups that they think might be subversive? Who appointed them security agents for New Jersey? Now I don't for a second think that the NYPD and the country are wrong to have a human gut reaction to 9-11, but still. . .

 

The moral is, if you think government should "keep us safe" and you hire JN or the NYPD to do that, you cannot get mad at her when she tries to do that. [Would it not be ironic if the only government agency to actually work is the agency taking away our privacy?] The flaw is in having the Act in the first place.

 

 

 

So I'm with you in spirit here, but let's not "cry wolf" unnecessarily when there are real packs of greys out there.

Now to address the actual hearings, in spite of the headline of the article, the summary of all the testimony is a little more benign. For example, if you want to know whether airport screeners annoy people then social media would be one way to find that out (and yes that is "monitoring criticism of HoSec"). When MO or AL has a tornado, hundreds of tweets with the words "OMG tornado" might get through faster than waiting for the sheriff to call the state police to call the National Weather Service to call FEMA to call JN. A couple of years ago, there was a live-fire (well, actually blanks) security drill on the Potomac river while on an unrelated matter the president was visiting Arlington NS, leading to panic as CNN/FOX were reporting "shots fired near the president." Social media can contribute to unnecessary panics, which are also matters for HoSec to wade through.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 



Quote:


t I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;



First, it seems the military has us covered. 



 



 



Quote:


Social media can contribute to unnecessary panics, which are also matters for HoSec to wade through.



Really?  The Department of Unnecessary Panics?  Should Napolitano post agents outside every Nike shoe sale?



 



 



Quote:


The moral is, if you think government should "keep us safe"



Well as a Patriot, I do not.  See above, they are there to (say it together, the oath that everyone from Obama to the guy in the mail room take) support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;



 



 



Janet Napolitano does not need to data mine the internet to know that her and her Department is damn near universally despised by good Americans.   Thats baloney.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

t I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

First, it seems the military has us covered. 

 

 

Social media can contribute to unnecessary panics, which are also matters for HoSec to wade through.

Really?  The Department of Unnecessary Panics?  Should Napolitano post agents outside every Nike shoe sale?

 

 

The moral is, if you think government should "keep us safe"

Well as a Patriot, I do not.  See above, they are there to (say it together, the oath that everyone from Obama to the guy in the mail room take) support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

 

 

Janet Napolitano does not need to data mine the internet to know that her and her Department is damn near universally despised by good Americans.   Thats baloney.

 

I hate that I seem to end up arguing with you when I wrote in support of your position, but don't try to make me say something I did not and don't make me seem to be supporting big government on privacy issues by selective quotation.

 

1. This quotation from the Constitution did not come from my post like the other two. If you support the original intent of the Constitution, you cannot possibly agree with deploying a standing army on U.S. soil for domestic security. You can clearly see in the Federalist Papers that what the founders feared was the power of the standing army. For that reason it makes no sense to propose the military as a solution to domestic security and claim to support limited government. The military defends us from foreign enemies; law enforcement defends us from domestic enemies. This response makes no sense because it contradicts your fundamental goal of less government coercion. Would you REALLY be more happy with a standing army deployed in the U.S. to provide domestic security than with HoSec? Really? I would not. That is a separate question from what limits should be on law enforcement including HoSec.

 

2. You object to HoSec being alert to potential violence situations, like an internet panic. I cannot possibly imagine why that would not be the business of law enforcement. Local law enforcement handles local shoe store riots, but how well did they do after Katrina, and how well did HoSec and FEMA do after Katrina, waiting for requests for aid through regular channels that no longer existed? Again, do you seriously want to wait after the first 9-11 report before the government steps into action -- the very essence of the report on 9-11 was that something which appeared to be a local accident was part of a larger issue, and local panic was a critical symptom? The inability of local law enforcement (inherent in being "local" in jurisdiction) to confront transjusdictional issues is claimed to be a myth made up by J.Edgar Hoover to enhance the power of the FBI (at least according to the recent movie), but things like an internet attack by the hackers Anonymous, or the Chinese, or the Iranians will only manifest itself to someone with a big picture.

 

3. The grammatical construction "If you think . . ." denotes that I do not subscribe to this theory. The give-away sentence to my position should have been the next one from me: "The flaw is in having the (Patriot) Act in the first place." Ironically, in a thread in which you amply demonstrate that calling something a "Patriot Act" may in fact be neither patriotic nor good for the country, your response is to contrast yourself "as a Patriot" to whatever it is that you think I said. Saying you support the Constitution is great; saying that you think this law violates it is your right; getting it changed is the right thing to do and I would work with you on that. Implying that anyone who disagrees with any part of how you define what the Constitution means is somehow not a patriot, or looking for enemies among people who agree with you because they have anything good to say about government, no matter how trivial, is not the constitutional republic that Washington or Jefferson or Adams wanted for us.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.