DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano MUST BE FIRED!

[Foxxtrot]

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano MUST BE FIRED!

     And just so it's perfectly clear, we aren't talking about her resigning (either gracefully or in disgrace). And it's way too late for backhanded apologies, like the 'slap-in-the-face' she already gave the brave men and women who have wore a uniform and proudly served this country.

     Janet Napolitano must be FIRED... and it should have been done yesterday!

     You see, the problem is not just that Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) put together a so-called anti-terrorism security assessment that targets mainstream Americans as dangerous extremists.

     We're talking about millions of people who believe that our government is too large and taxes us too much, like those who participated in the TEA Parties on tax day. We are talking about everyday Americans who believe that the 2nd Amendment actually gives people the right to bear arms; people who are pro-life; the millions of people who believe that our nation's immigration laws should be strictly enforced.

     And the problem is not simply that this so-called security assessment targets patriotic Americans - and they are talking about YOU - as "right wing extremists," or, as Peter Kirsanow with the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights put it:

"That DHS report warning about all manner of 'right-wing extremists' could be considerably shortened if it simply alerted law-enforcement officials to be on the lookout for people from 'small towns (who are) bitter (and) cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.'"

     The problem is that this is the same Janet Napolitano who just recently told us that horrendous, unspeakable acts committed by actual terrorists, dead set on destroying our country and killing Americans, should be called "man-caused disasters."

     Specifically she told Der Spiegel:

"In my speech, although I did not use the word 'terrorism,' I referred to 'man-caused' disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

     So... when it comes to actual acts or threats of terrorism against mainstream Americans, we should move beyond the "politics of fear."

     But patriotic Americans like YOU -- who exercise your Constitutionally-protected First Amendment rights -- pose a threat to the government.

     Is it actually possible that Napolitano and Barack Obama and even some within the Obama Administration are so twisted as to believe that Islamic Terrorists are the good guys and that you are the bad guys?

     Syndicated columnist Michelle Malkin in Thursday's Washington Times wrote:

"What and who exactly are President Obama's homeland security officials afraid of these days? If you are a member of an active conservative group that opposes abortion, favors strict immigration enforcement, lobbies to protect Second Amendment rights, protests big government, advocates federalism, or represents veterans who believe in any of the above, the answer is: You."

     If what is contained in this leaked DHS security assessment does not bring you to the realization that it is time for all patriotic Americans who love freedom to stand up and shout that we're not going to take it anymore... it is quite possible that nothing will.

So, here's what we're going to do. We're going to make it very clear that we want drastic action. We're going to make it very clear that Janet Napolitano needs to go. We're going to make it very clear that we want her FIRED - PERIOD... no resignations will be allowed... no meaningless apologies will be accepted.

     We're going to bang this issue like a gong.

     Let's get to work.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to Barack Obama and each and every Member of the Leadership of the House and the Senate.

Tell them that the recently leaked DHS security assessment is so repulsive that rational, freedom-loving individuals are disgusted by it. Let Barack Obama know that there can be no middle ground. The only natural and acceptable reaction is to FIRE Janet Napolitano immediately.

Let Barack Obama and our elected officials know, in no uncertain terms, that ANY action other than the immediate termination of Janet Napolitano constitutes a clear admission that Obama, in fact, supports the chilling implications of this DHS monstrosity.

 


The DHS Report Targets All Of You Bitter People Out There Who Cling To Guns And Religion.

     Malkin is not alone. Syndicated radio talk-show host Michael Reagan went so far as to ask the following:

"Have we really come to this? Has Adolf Hitler's propaganda chief Joseph Goebbels been reborn and recruited by the Obama administration to scare the heck out of the American people with absurdities such as this whacked-out document?"

     Lance Fairchok writing for AmericanThinker.com hits the nail squarely on the head.

     Calling this so-called security assessment "a shot across the bow" he plainly states that DHS is NOT simply referring to individuals living on society's fringe.

     The assessment is, in fact, referring to YOU and patriotic Americans like you.

     Moreover, Fairchok believes this assessment was hastily and sloppily written in order to fit a sick and disgusting preconceived notion:

"This 'assessment' is not an analysis of a national trend or an examination of existing evidence or even recent radical literature; it is targeting those whose politics fall within the broad insinuations contained within its pages, namely mainstream conservatives."

     Judge Andrew Napolitano with FOX News essentially says the same thing:

"The summary contains few proper names, has no footnotes of any significance, lists very few sources, and is drafted with a prejudice against anyone who criticizes the role of the federal government in our lives today. It lumps together in its definition of 'rightwing extremism' hate groups, anti-government groups, and single issue groups 'such as opposition to abortion or immigration.'"

     Let's state it more plainly. As far as Janet Napolitano's DHS is concerned, if you are pro-life or believe in strict enforcement of our immigration laws, or if you attended one of those TEA parties, you're the same as a neo-Nazi, or a member of the KKK. You are dangerous and pose no less a threat than the real terrorists trying to destroy our great country. Is it possible that when Barack Obama spoke of bitter people from small towns who cling to God and their guns that he was not just simply being derisive?

     Is it possible that pointing out that Barack Obama sat in a Church for years listening to a lunatic pontificate, "Not God Bless America... God D___ America" WAS relevant after all?

     There's only one way to find out.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to Barack Obama and each and every Member of the Leadership of the House and the Senate.

Tell them that the recently leaked DHS security assessment is so repulsive that rational, freedom-loving individuals are disgusted by it. Let Barack Obama know that there can be no middle ground. The only natural and acceptable reaction is to FIRE Janet Napolitano immediately.

Let Barack Obama and our elected officials know, in no uncertain terms, that ANY action other than the immediate termination of Janet Napolitano constitutes a clear admission that Obama, in fact, supports the chilling implications of this DHS monstrosity.

 


You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet.

     What purpose can be served by a document that classifies mainstream Americans as "extremists" who pose a clear and present danger to our nation's security?

     Fairchok again:

"It is a manipulative information tool intended to paint the loyal opposition as reactionary kooks who are prone to violence and a danger to the country. ... This is part of a more widespread ongoing information campaign to plant and reinforce critical themes into the American official, and broader public psyche, a continuation of the 'clinging to guns and religion' message so frequently found in the rhetoric of President Obama and his acolytes."

     And Fairchok concludes by issuing a very somber warning.

"And we ain't seen nothin' yet."

     But what is even more disturbing is that DHS NEVER intended the public to see this so-called security assessment. It was a secret.

     Reagan again:

"Obviously recognizing that public knowledge of the nonsense alleged in this document is very undesirable, the weirdoes who prepared it did not want you to see it. ... They warn: 'No portion of the LES (Law Enforcement Sensitive) information should be released to the media, the general public, or over non-secure Internet servers.'"

     Judge Napolitano again:

"The document itself cautions the reader that the document is 'not to be released to the public, the media, or other personnel who do not have a valid need-to-know without prior approval' of the DHS. The document refers to itself as one of a series of intelligence assessments intended to 'deter, prevent, preempt, or respond to terrorist attacks against the United States.'"

     But there's even more.

     Are you ready for this?

     The portion of this so-called security assessment that was leaked is only a SUMMARY.

     The bulk of it remains CLASSIFIED. We have no idea what's in it.

     Judge Napolitano continues:

"The summary (unclassified) document is terrifying. One can only imagine what is contained in the classified version. This document runs directly counter to numerous U.S. Supreme decisions prohibiting the government from engaging in any activities that could serve to chill the exercise of expressive liberties. Liberties are chilled, in constitutional parlance, when people are afraid to express themselves for fear of government omnipresence, monitoring, or reprisals. The document also informs the reader that Big Brother is watching both public and private behavior."

     But whatever else is in there... it cannot be pretty.

     Judge Napolitano yet again:

"My guess is that the sentiments revealed in the report I read are the tip of an iceberg that the DHS would prefer to keep submerged until it needs to reveal it. This iceberg is the heavy-hand of government; a government with large and awful eyes, in whose heart there is no love for freedom, and on whose face there is no smile."

     There is no time to lose, we must act now.

Use the hyperlink below to send your urgent and personalized Blast Fax messages to Barack Obama and each and every Member of the Leadership of the House and the Senate.

Tell them that the recently leaked DHS security assessment is so repulsive that rational, freedom-loving individuals are disgusted by it. Let Barack Obama know that there can be no middle ground. The only natural and acceptable reaction is to FIRE Janet Napolitano immediately.

Let Barack Obama and our elected officials know, in no uncertain terms, that ANY action other than the immediate termination of Janet Napolitano constitutes a clear admission that Obama, in fact, supports the chilling implications of this DHS monstrosity.

 


Yours In Freedom,




Jeffrey Mazzella


Center for Individual Freedom
917-B King Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
703-535-5836
Fax:703-535-5838
 

CFIF is a 501(c)(4) not-for-profit constitutional advocacy organization with
the mission to protect and defend individual freedoms and individual rights.

Contributions to CFIF are
not deductible as charitable contributions for federal income tax purposes.
Contributions may be deductible as a business expense.

Powered by GrassTopsUSA

[nomosendero]

Sure, I think she should be fired and the whole department disbanded too. But it ain't going to happen...they will just replace her with one their guys. Besides all that info in her report must have been circulating around DHS for a few years now, because it is now just recently declassified, and likely most of all this info and opinion were collected and assembled under the last administration. Nothing new...very similar to the famous FBI profiling flyer that circulated around under Bush, and the INFAMOUS Missouri papers that were promulgated and pushed on Missouri by ADL and SPLC. Perhaps I'll post info on that little caper. Meanwhile, this stuff goes on all the time_ _ _they are just openly announcing it now.

..TM7

"openly announcing it now" indicates an escalation.  You crack me up TM. Yes, this info MAY have been floating around in the last admin., it COULD have been & I would not put it past them, but you don't know & I don't either. Why not blame the ones that announce it as opposed to those that "could" have but somehow did not.    It cracks me up because you look for every chance to complain about Bush (there is alot to complain about), but you sure don't want to bash the great one, the extent that you suck up to Obama is unbelievable!! 

[Badnews Bob]

I pretty much don't trust anyone who claims to be a lawyer or politician, A few lawyers I know personally or corispond with excepted and just because they have proven themselves to me.

[nomosendero]

Sure, I think she should be fired and the whole department disbanded too. But it ain't going to happen...they will just replace her with one their guys. Besides all that info in her report must have been circulating around DHS for a few years now, because it is now just recently declassified, and likely most of all this info and opinion were collected and assembled under the last administration. Nothing new...very similar to the famous FBI profiling flyer that circulated around under Bush, and the INFAMOUS Missouri papers that were promulgated and pushed on Missouri by ADL and SPLC. Perhaps I'll post info on that little caper. Meanwhile, this stuff goes on all the time_ _ _they are just openly announcing it now.

..TM7

"openly announcing it now" indicates an escalation.  You crack me up TM. Yes, this info MAY have been floating around in the last admin., it COULD have been & I would not put it past them, but you don't know & I don't either. Why not blame the ones that announce it as opposed to those that "could" have but somehow did not.    It cracks me up because you look for every chance to complain about Bush (there is alot to complain about), but you sure don't want to bash the great one, the extent that you suck up to Obama is unbelievable!! 

.
What cracks me up NS is your suspension of logic and inability to connect the dots... Then again I assume you prefer 'unannounced' and secretive government over open and transparent government... ; exactly why you still advocate for the Bush-Cheney regime I suppose, ever faithful you are to the end. I guess out of site out of mind, huh!? Now who was it that said, "Democracy ends where secrecy begins." But of course that statement would have no appeal to your 'higher' centers I reckon.

Prove here and now how I suck up to Obama; when my above post says that Naplitano should be fired and her Dept disbanned; and especially when I said she would only be replaced by one of their guys anyway. Let me connect some dots for you at this point since you appear to be dot connection impaired having little sense of continuity.
a]...much of the research for the report was done by the last administration
b]...this administration is announcing this research in a recently declassified report
c]...the last admin had issued profile publications to the FBI and LE outfits around the country essentially profiling the same types and groups of people; i.e. extremist rightest flag wavering religous folk like yourself.
d]...the last administration (with the ADL and SPLC making up the  specifics) were responsible for the Missouri crackdown, profiling and literature circulation in that state principlely all about rightest extremists like yourself.
e]...ERGO...there is not a heck of difference between OBama regime and the Bush regime as I see it, all being actors having a specific role in a long shadow play to control you and me in every sense. Obama's role at this point is to take up where Bush leaves the stage; and YES, announce that Big Brother has arrived...resistance will be futile.  The difference is you facilitate them, and I fight them every inch of the way. Have a nice day...

...TM7
.

No, I blame the only one that can be blamed, period. If you prove that this particular matter started under Bush then I
will join with you in that exercise.

[Cabin4]

No, I blame the only one that can be blamed, period. If you prove that this particular matter started under Bush then I
will join with you in that exercise.

.
Umm, if you recall it was Bush that created the Dept of HS...remember?

..TM7

Thats weak TM7.

Obama selected Napolitano and collectively, they own the charter and mission of the HS department. If they have decided to convert HS into a political organization who's charter is to help spearhead the cutting edge of lies for the political ambitions of the president, that is all blame for this administration.

Both Napolitano and Obama have anti gun ambitions and back grounds. They are manipulating information and planting seeds all over the place to grease the skids for gun control by lying to the American people now. Calling domestic terrorists Right Wingers is nothing more than another one of these political moves by HS to taint the phyci of the American people by trying to make the term “Right Wing” and terrorist seem as one.

[curtism1234]

I don't think the attacks on Napolitano are exactly fair.

I'm probably the most liberal person on this board. I say that because I read posts differently than most here. I try to stay out of the political talk but once in a while I chime in when I think I can add something of value.



Look back on months of posts on this site and most every gun related website. You'll find countless numbers of quotes along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing)

"Prepare for a revolution"
"Stock up on guns and ammo; we'll need them"
"If you try to take our guns away we'll shoot you as you come through our front doors"
"Obama won't last 4 years"

Couple that with Glenn Beck's willingess to talk about a revolution and Gov Perry saying Texas might leave the United States.

There's very radical (and illegal) talk dicussed publically on the internet. I think most of it is just people mouthing off because they're on the internet. Nonetheless though, it's all over the place.

Yeah, that makes the DHS concerned - and rightfully so.

[Cabin4]

I don't think the attacks on Napolitano are exactly fair.

I'm probably the most liberal person on this board. I say that because I read posts differently than most here. I try to stay out of the political talk but once in a while I chime in when I think I can add something of value.



Look back on months of posts on this site and most every gun related website. You'll find countless numbers of quotes along the lines of (and I'm paraphrasing)

"Prepare for a revolution"
"Stock up on guns and ammo; we'll need them"
"If you try to take our guns away we'll shoot you as you come through our front doors"
"Obama won't last 4 years"

Couple that with Glenn Beck's willingess to talk about a revolution and Gov Perry saying Texas might leave the United States.

There's very radical (and illegal) talk dicussed publically on the internet. I think most of it is just people mouthing off because they're on the internet. Nonetheless though, it's all over the place.

Yeah, that makes the DHS concerned - and rightfully so.

There are terrorist threats internal and external. All terrorist threats are based in extreme ideology (left, right or religious). For this administration to politicize it by calling it "Right Wing" is nothing more than a political ploy. If they were truly concerned as you say, they would have released a report for public consumption on ALL domestic terror threats. The leftist (Eco, Anti War, ect) terrorist have been bombing places in this country since the 60's and still today. How come a report release to the public is only on Right Wing?

Napolitano knowingly had this report released to prove her loyalty to the administration and rally the main stream media behind her cause to paint the right wing as extremists.

There is nothing illegal with people wanting and or talking about preparing to take arms against our oppressive government. That’s why we have a 1st and 2nd amendment. Planning an attack or carrying out an attack is an entirely different issue, that is illegal and should not be confused with being prepared to respond as guaranteed by our constitution. Our governments actions are illegal and unconstitutional. People have a right to point these out and exercise their rights. This is our government, as defined by the constitution. Not obama or his appointees government to change because they don’t like it.

[Cabin4]

No, I blame the only one that can be blamed, period. If you prove that this particular matter started under Bush then I
will join with you in that exercise.

.
Umm, if you recall it was Bush that created the Dept of HS...remember?

..TM7

Thats weak TM7.

Obama selected Napolitano and collectively, they own the charter and mission of the HS department. If they have decided to convert HS into a political organization who's charter is to help spearhead the cutting edge of lies for the political ambitions of the president, that is all blame for this administration.

Both Napolitano and Obama have anti gun ambitions and back grounds. They are manipulating information and planting seeds all over the place to grease the skids for gun control by lying to the American people now. Calling domestic terrorists Right Wingers is nothing more than another one of these political moves by HS to taint the phyci of the American people by trying to make the term “Right Wing” and terrorist seem as one.

Hardly,, Bush created and gave birth to DHS with the 2 Pariot Acts, the Military Commisions Act,,,even put a Draconian anti-constitutionalist dual citizen in charge of it. Set up the damn whole thing,,,and you were complicit with all of that crap. I on the other hand constantly warned against this secret anti-constituional police force and supporting documents and crazy reason for it. Now all of a sudden you're Mr. Constituition.. . Now the chickens have come home to roost just as I and others predicted, and you're crying in your beer still unable to grasp reality and continuity, and still being played by the duopoly.

Immediately below are links to the famous profile FBI flyer circulated to LEO under the former administration to profile and identify 'domestic terrorists'. Are you one of these terrorists?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg


The Napolitano DHS document, recently declassified — produced in coordination with the FBI from pervious works — begins by stating it is “one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch  of DHS to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization (i.e.domestic terrorism...there's that term again Bush likes) in the United States” (it is interesting to note the phrase “violent radicalization” is the same one used in H.R. 1955, entitled the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007...It should be noted that only 3 Dems and 3 repubs voted nay for this bill which further decribed domestic terrorisim,,a term bush was fond of. And this is the root source of the Napolitano document coming from Bush authorization, and more secret reports are to be generated so as to expand on resistance to Obama's policies to be construed as racism and hate, gun owner frenzy pending morefirearm strictures, and religious and hate fanaticism, etc. All this crap was hatched by Bush and now its the present actors role to expand and tell you how it is going to be....one reason Obama was chosen to be the leader...his silver tongue.
.
Here is a link to the Missouri MIAC report wherein the term domestic terrorist is further elaborated in terms of supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. This MIAC work was supported and developed by Bush administsration initiated in 2004 onward AND with the definitions, lists, and provocations of the ADL and the SPLC for some really strange reason....

http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/

.....TM7

Your confusing me with someone else. My only point was simple. It seemed like you were giving this administration a free pass with that comment. Just because Bush created HS is no reason to let this one abuse it more.

I'm not Mr. Constitution now, I've always been. You just don't know who I am. Just because I never bought into your 9-11 conspiracy theories does not mean I don't believe in the constitution....Let’s stay on subject TM7.

[jimster]

"There is nothing illegal with people wanting and or talking about preparing to take arms against our oppressive government."

Agreed.  The documents of this country was written and signed by people who were called radicals, were said to be illegal criminals, and were marked for death by an oppressive government.  If it's illegal to talk about preparing for what it takes to not be oppressed, you already oppressed.  And yes, the DHS is concerned,  they better be and let's keep them that way. 

If the federal government makes me a criminal,  I'm in good company.   

[nomosendero]

No, I blame the only one that can be blamed, period. If you prove that this particular matter started under Bush then I
will join with you in that exercise.

.
Umm, if you recall it was Bush that created the Dept of HS...remember?

..TM7

Thats weak TM7.

Obama selected Napolitano and collectively, they own the charter and mission of the HS department. If they have decided to convert HS into a political organization who's charter is to help spearhead the cutting edge of lies for the political ambitions of the president, that is all blame for this administration.

Both Napolitano and Obama have anti gun ambitions and back grounds. They are manipulating information and planting seeds all over the place to grease the skids for gun control by lying to the American people now. Calling domestic terrorists Right Wingers is nothing more than another one of these political moves by HS to taint the phyci of the American people by trying to make the term “Right Wing” and terrorist seem as one.

Hardly,, Bush created and gave birth to DHS with the 2 Pariot Acts, the Military Commisions Act,,,even put a Draconian anti-constitutionalist dual citizen in charge of it. Set up the damn whole thing,,,and you were complicit with all of that crap. I on the other hand constantly warned against this secret anti-constituional police force and supporting documents and crazy reason for it. Now all of a sudden you're Mr. Constituition.. . Now the chickens have come home to roost just as I and others predicted, and you're crying in your beer still unable to grasp reality and continuity, and still being played by the duopoly.

Immediately below are links to the famous profile FBI flyer circulated to LEO under the former administration to profile and identify 'domestic terrorists'. Are you one of these terrorists?

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Front.jpg
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/images/FBI-MCSOTerroristFlyer-Back.jpg


The Napolitano DHS document, recently declassified — produced in coordination with the FBI from pervious works — begins by stating it is “one of a series of intelligence assessments published by the Extremism and Radicalization Branch  of DHS to facilitate a greater understanding of the phenomenon of violent radicalization (i.e.domestic terrorism...there's that term again Bush likes) in the United States” (it is interesting to note the phrase “violent radicalization” is the same one used in H.R. 1955, entitled the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007...It should be noted that only 3 Dems and 3 repubs voted nay for this bill which further decribed domestic terrorisim,,a term bush was fond of. And this is the root source of the Napolitano document coming from Bush authorization, and more secret reports are to be generated so as to expand on resistance to Obama's policies to be construed as racism and hate, gun owner frenzy pending morefirearm strictures, and religious and hate fanaticism, etc. All this crap was hatched by Bush and now its the present actors role to expand and tell you how it is going to be....one reason Obama was chosen to be the leader...his silver tongue.
.
Here is a link to the Missouri MIAC report wherein the term domestic terrorist is further elaborated in terms of supporters of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin. This MIAC work was supported and developed by Bush administsration initiated in 2004 onward AND with the definitions, lists, and provocations of the ADL and the SPLC for some really strange reason....

http://www.infowars.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists/

.....TM7

Your confusing me with someone else. My only point was simple. It seemed like you were giving this administration a free pass with that comment. Just because Bush created HS is no reason to let this one abuse it more.

I'm not Mr. Constitution now, I've always been. You just don't know who I am. Just because I never bought into your 9-11 conspiracy theories does not mean I don't believe in the constitution....Let’s stay on subject TM7.

Again, I see no problem with bashing Bush, but not for these Napolitano statements under the Obama Admin., that's looney tunes for sure. Don't know that Bush ever knew this goofy midget female, but Mr. O hired her, or did Bush want to hire her but Didn't, so now it's really his fault.

From C4 "my only point was simple. It seemed like you were giving this adminstration a free pass with that comment"
If you look back, I was making that point too.

[Cabin4]

TM7,

Your trying to crack to many nuts all at one time and your offering way too much speculation on my thoughts and opinions. If you want to know what my opinion is on a particular subject, all you have to do is ask me and I'll tell you. No need for you to speculate.

But I must say, you do seem to be giving this administration a free pass on this. Blaming Bush in whole or in part for what report was released by this administration sounds too much like, well, this administration. We always get everything prefaced from Obama that its Bush's fault. Napolitano made a decision to release this report, not the Bush administration. She did not have to release the report to the public just because it may have started under Bush. If you want to blame Bush for creating HS to begin with, that’s fair criticism. But you have to blame this administration for its mistakes. Otherwise, every time one of these morons blunders, you can certainly always find a way to blame a prior administration. Way too easy. Either Obama and his picks to run these departments are up to the task or they are not. Napolitano appears to be on a crusade to use the HS department as a political weapon in order to buttress Obama’s political agenda on gun control and the continued free flow of illegal immigration.

[curtism1234]

 
There is nothing illegal with people wanting and or talking about preparing to take arms against our oppressive government.

Here's the problem though : the government is not oppressive.

Take a poll of the entire US adult population and ask "Is the US government oppressive?".
You're going to get less than 5% that say it is...because it isn't.

You may disagree with policy. You may not like certain laws.
That doesn't mean the US government needs to be overthrown !
I don't doubt people "feel" oppressed, but they "aren't" oppressed.

A very small percentage of radical people yelling loud enough is enough to cause a revolution that shouldn't have to take place.

If you look back to the founding of our own country
The British citizens in the US were treated very well by the British. They were happy with their lives (as happy as anyone is going to be working for a living) and they were actually better off than people living in England. That's why the Crown honestly could not figure out why the war broke out. GB was right --- they didn't do anything wrong !
The war broke out because bootleggers and pirates like the Hancocks and Adams wanted to operate their business underground.
Of course you had liberal thinkers like Jefferson and Payne wanting to make a name for themselves too (albiet their intentions were better).

The American Revolution was all about the arrogance, greed, the wants of very few, and their ability to manipulate the unsuspecting citizens.
And now it's happening again and it is happening in the extreme right wing of the US population.

[Cabin4]

I'm confused. People came here to get away from the British crown and rule. To say that they were happy with British rule seems extremely off base.

People living here fought the red coats. If they were happy with British rule, it would seems to me that the colonies would have lost the revolution.

In any case, this is really all a mute point. The fact is, there was a declaration of independence and we have a constitution that is supposed to be what provide guidance to the creation of new laws in this land and the basis for our judicial process. Oppression for me is measured based on this standard. If we have moved away from these principals, we are oppressed. Just because the Liberals could care less that our 2nd amendment is being infringed and that we work 3 to 4 months out of the year to pay taxes, does not mean we are not oppressed. We are oppressed by these facts alone.

[curtism1234]

 
Just because the Liberals could care less that [...] we work 3 to 4 months out of the year to pay taxes, does not mean we are not oppressed. We are oppressed by these facts alone.

That's the same arguement from the first revolution and it turned out to be totally false. It was (and is) propaganda. If not propaganda, it's at the very least nieve.

"No taxation with out representation"
Let's just talk about the tax aspect of it (because even if there was representation in England [which time and money wouldn't make it practical in the first place to have people run back and forth across the ocean to keep updated] people would still complain about taxes)

Taxes were cheaper right before the war than after the war !!!

Going back to present/future day, I refuse to believe for one second that a brand new government would be any less of a financial burden to people than the old (present) government.

I don't know about others but I like paved roads, running water, the military/police, firefighters, good schools, keeping the disabled and dying under a roof, etc.
Sure, there's a lot of waste - I'm not saying there's not.
But we need taxes; there's no way around it.

[splicer]

Hey curtism, why dont you move to England. You seem to hate this country with all our greed and arrogance. My best friend is from England,he came over 12 years ago.Its a socialist welfare OPPRESSIVE GOVT.you have to be a farmer to even own a shotgun,cameras everywhere.
  England sucks, we are the most free society in the world,I for one would like to keep it that way.Obama is bent on turning our country into a european society and Doing his best to take our sdecond amendment rights away.Give him a year or two and he will try.
   England is taxed to death so they can support all of their welfare programs.If you even care about your rights as a free american you wouldnt support the Obama NWO help the poor illegal immigrant society he is building.Obama is a big sheepherder and I for one refuse to be part of his flock.

[Cabin4]

You cannot argue the math with me or anyone else. I work the first 3 to 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes. That is a hard fact. Math does not lie.

Taxation without representation is not the same issue as paying too much tax. The government can represent or justify taxation to solve this aspect of the tax debate. What they can't argue is that we are not paying too much tax. If representation is the only measure used to justify taxation, then that means the government could in theory create a justified/represented tax base of 100% of our income. You have to separate the issue of representation with the issue of paying too much tax.

If we focus on simply paying too much tax, then the debate becomes the role of government. Should the government pave roads, answer yes. Should the government provide health care, answer NO. Should the government be bailing out companies and allowing politicians to pick winners and losers in business, ANSWER NO. In any case when it comes to bail outs, where is the legislation? How is the people money being appropriated? Who is making these decisions? Congress is not appropriating these dollars via spending legislation, the Treasury is doing it in a vacuum. So this is clearly misappropriation.

The President represented/justified an $850 billion dollar so called stimulus spending bill that passed in both houses so it’s not unconstitutional at that level. Is it the right thing to do with the tax payers money, ANSWER NO. Since when should the people’s money go to left wing politically centric groups like ACORN or to secretly bail out Union teachers pension funds using the appropriations process? Is this the role of government to allegedly stimulate the economy by selecting who get’s stimulus and who does not? ANSWER NO!! The government should lower taxes across the board and that will provide level stimulus for ALL, not just those selected by the party in power. Don’t you see what is morally and ethically WRONG with this process? What if tomorrow there is a far right wing conservative party in power making these same decisions for their political base? I bet every penny I own you liberals will be right here complaining the same issues. So don’t paint yourself into a corner. Fairness is suppose to be the hallmark or keystone to our government. Appropriating tax payers dollars for political payback is unethical, immoral and not constitutionally based.

Open your eyes. The government is raping us as means to pay off political debts to its electoral base with our tax dollars. Is this the role of government, ANSWER NO.

[Oldshooter]

Sure, there's a lot of waste - I'm not saying there's not.

That's what people are complaining about Pard, not the roads and the infrastructure that you talk about!

The waste, like the trillions of dollars the government is printing up to throw at the recession. Its been proven that it DONT WORK, so more wont work any better. Do you have any clue how much money a trillion dollars is? If you did then you would not call it a little waste and some roads. Your feeble argument only confirms what I already think about folk that voted for obama!

Of course taxes were more after the war! WARS cost more than lives! But I'm sure that most people were glad to be free. But maybe some were not, and you may be from their loins. Pity is that so many have died in the past so you have the privilege to be so naive.

Stop peeing down our necks and telling us its raining!

Look up somewhere how much more this president has spent than all the presidents have spent since this country was started! yea thats right all of them! and what will we get for our tax dollars? Well we get to share what we make with folk that dont earn their share and pay their mortgages! Now you may think that is a good idea! but most dont including myself! It aint the way this country became a world power with the greatness it once had. It is the way The soviet union was taken apart! Socilaism does not work, not my opinion it is a proven fact. If you dont think we are headed to socialism, then look the word up! What obama is up to is socialism, I dont care what he says it is!

And I guess you support the claim that homeland security makes about the veterans being terrorist risks!  Have you drank that much of the koolaide yet?

[curtism1234]

Hey curtism, why dont you move to England. You seem to hate this country with all our greed and arrogance.

Because I disagree with the right wing on most issues, I hate the United States...right...

I, like you, have a difference of opinion on what direction we should be taking.
When things don't our way, we become frustrated because we're not getting what we want/need. That's human nature.

That doesn't mean either "hate" America because we disagree.

The line can be drawn and stepped over though --- the purpose for my original post here on this thread.
You can not threaten to kill presidents or organize for the purposes of breaking the law.
THAT GOES FOR BOTH SIDES

The DHS knows extreme left wing liberals are not talking about killing the president and taking over the government (the concern was there earlier this decade); certain factions of the extreme right are.


As to vets
She said that we have to watch out for all vets because they're dangerous and a threat...
She didn't say that; that's only want certain people want to hear.
She said that some of the citizens threatening the US are former vets and it's important to note that they have training and experience in the military. And that's true --- vets are professionally trained in warfare (both the tactical and mental aspect of it).
People take one fragment of statement and twist it around into something that it's not.
THAT GOES FOR BOTH SIDES TOO

[Oldshooter]

I dont think you hate America, I think you are missguided! Could you be getting your political views from the union newsletter, or Hall!

How can you justify your position and own firearms, and like to hunt! I assume that is why you are here!

News Flash! We aint right wing extremist, we are conservative Americans who do not want our childrens economic future in the crapper! Check TommyT's signature line, and when the debt started to go outa control! We also do not want our right to bear arms infringed upon!

This administration does not even call foriegn ragheads terrorist, how do you justify them calling veterans possible terrorist. When they disagree with you, you will be designated a terrorist!

The DHS knows extreme left wing liberals are not talking about killing the president and taking over the government (the concern was there earlier this decade); certain factions of the extreme right are.

No of course not they helped him get his campaign started(look up bill ayres sometime).

 Look my grandfather and his father were democrats! they voted straight down party lines. but your party has left you pardner, if you are a hard working ,tax paying citizen, they only want your support and money! oh and your right to bear arms! I forgot

[Cabin4]

You cannot argue the math with me or anyone else. I work the first 3 to 4 months out of the year just to pay taxes. That is a hard fact. Math does not lie.

Taxation without representation is not the same issue as paying too much tax. The government can represent or justify taxation to solve this aspect of the tax debate. What they can't argue is that we are not paying too much tax. If representation is the only measure used to justify taxation, then that means the government could in theory create a justified/represented tax base of 100% of our income. You have to separate the issue of representation with the issue of paying too much tax.

If we focus on simply paying too much tax, then the debate becomes the role of government. Should the government pave roads, answer yes. Should the government provide health care, answer NO. Should the government be bailing out companies and allowing politicians to pick winners and losers in business, ANSWER NO. In any case when it comes to bail outs, where is the legislation? How is the people money being appropriated? Who is making these decisions? Congress is not appropriating these dollars via spending legislation, the Treasury is doing it in a vacuum. So this is clearly misappropriation.

The President represented/justified an $850 billion dollar so called stimulus spending bill that passed in both houses so it’s not unconstitutional at that level. Is it the right thing to do with the tax payers money, ANSWER NO. Since when should the people’s money go to left wing politically centric groups like ACORN or to secretly bail out Union teachers pension funds using the appropriations process? Is this the role of government to allegedly stimulate the economy by selecting who get’s stimulus and who does not? ANSWER NO!! The government should lower taxes across the board and that will provide level stimulus for ALL, not just those selected by the party in power. Don’t you see what is morally and ethically WRONG with this process? What if tomorrow there is a far right wing conservative party in power making these same decisions for their political base? I bet every penny I own you liberals will be right here complaining the same issues. So don’t paint yourself into a corner. Fairness is suppose to be the hallmark or keystone to our government. Appropriating tax payers dollars for political payback is unethical, immoral and not constitutionally based.

Open your eyes. The government is raping us as means to pay off political debts to its electoral base with our tax dollars. Is this the role of government, ANSWER NO.

curtisam123,

I put this out here as a response to your post. Would like to know your response.

C4

[curtism1234]

Oldshooter
The left thinks the right is misguided. The right thinks the left is misguided.
We all like to think we're on the correct side 
That's the nature of partisan politics - I think the republican party represents big business and I will not vote for big business.
There's a lot of room for agreement though. Liberals and conservatives can agree on things.

As to being a liberal gunowner/hunter
To half of the gunowners, guns are the means and symbolism of freedom and defense.
To the other half, they own guns because they hunt. It's an interest in pursuiting game that's important, not the gun itself. If they didn't hunt, they probably wouldn't own a gun.
I fall into the second half. That's a rarity to see that large section of gunowners on hunting forums simply because they're just not that into it. They shoot 1-2 times a year and hunt maybe 3 days a year. Me, I shoot only enough to confirm the gun's zero and hunt just about every weekend (we have a summer squirrel season here in missouri).
That's all I'm going to say about that topic --- I'm done with that.

The terms like "enemy combatants" come about because of the legal ramifiations of international law in regards to war because we are in their countries fighting an organized enemy. We are in a war and Geneva should apply in my opinion.
The present admin do call terrorists terrorists. Again, certain statements are so twisted to make the left (and right) look stupid when that accusation is simply not true...




Cabin4

No, I don't argue the math at all.
I don't think we're paying too much tax though. Middle income earners are paying about the right amount and those in certain situations have plenty of chances at deductions and credits. Would I like to lower them - yes. We can start with getting rid of the tax breaks for the rich and reverse it. Going back to oldshooter, that's the difference between the two parties. One wants tax breaks for the rich, one wants tax breaks for the middle class.
Compared to the rest of the world, we aren't paying too much taxes though. One could argue the world as a whole pays too much taxes, fair enough.

I agree the role of government is the primary debate we're having.
Should the government control heathcare - yes because the private section has raped patients for far too long (beyond the premium upfront prices). Will this involve raising taxes, probably, but not anymore than what most are paying in premiums now.
Should we have social security despite most companies offering some type of retirement plan - yes
Should we have unemployment benefits - yes and we should hope we never have to use it (I'll agree there's much reform needed in this system)

Should the government bail out struggling companies - in general, no.
I think the stimulas bills were needed despite the waste by both sides (obvouisly we both wish wastefull spending isn't happening).
In general, if a company does something stupid they should just go out of business. In the case of banks and the auto industry in 2008-2009, I think the bail out was needed. If certain industries fail, the destruction caused will be too much to overcome. We were very close to that and I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet.
But no, as a general practice we should not be bailing out companies.


As I have said several times, both parties enjoy pissing away money on pork and pet projects. I'm in favor of publically funding elections - when it comes right down to it, it should cut pork spending tremendously because I don't owe you any favors because you donated X dollars to my campaign.
There is much reform needed here; I think you'll agree with that.

Finally, the federal deficit has to be brought down. Hopefully the bulk of the bailouts are over; I think they are. As I said, I think they were needed and may still be needed. When the storm is over, we should begin the long step to balance the deficit.

[nomosendero]

Oldshooter
The left thinks the right is misguided. The right thinks the left is misguided.
We all like to think we're on the correct side 
That's the nature of partisan politics - I think the republican party represents big business and I will not vote for big business.
There's a lot of room for agreement though. Liberals and conservatives can agree on things.

As to being a liberal gunowner/hunter
To half of the gunowners, guns are the means and symbolism of freedom and defense.
To the other half, they own guns because they hunt. It's an interest in pursuiting game that's important, not the gun itself. If they didn't hunt, they probably wouldn't own a gun.
I fall into the second half. That's a rarity to see that large section of gunowners on hunting forums simply because they're just not that into it. They shoot 1-2 times a year and hunt maybe 3 days a year. Me, I shoot only enough to confirm the gun's zero and hunt just about every weekend (we have a summer squirrel season here in missouri).
That's all I'm going to say about that topic --- I'm done with that.

The terms like "enemy combatants" come about because of the legal ramifiations of international law in regards to war because we are in their countries fighting an organized enemy. We are in a war and Geneva should apply in my opinion.
The present admin do call terrorists terrorists. Again, certain statements are so twisted to make the left (and right) look stupid when that accusation is simply not true...




Cabin4

No, I don't argue the math at all.
I don't think we're paying too much tax though. Middle income earners are paying about the right amount and those in certain situations have plenty of chances at deductions and credits. Would I like to lower them - yes. We can start with getting rid of the tax breaks for the rich and reverse it. Going back to oldshooter, that's the difference between the two parties. One wants tax breaks for the rich, one wants tax breaks for the middle class.
Compared to the rest of the world, we aren't paying too much taxes though. One could argue the world as a whole pays too much taxes, fair enough.

I agree the role of government is the primary debate we're having.
Should the government control heathcare - yes because the private section has raped patients for far too long (beyond the premium upfront prices). Will this involve raising taxes, probably, but not anymore than what most are paying in premiums now.
Should we have social security despite most companies offering some type of retirement plan - yes
Should we have unemployment benefits - yes and we should hope we never have to use it (I'll agree there's much reform needed in this system)

Should the government bail out struggling companies - in general, no.
I think the stimulas bills were needed despite the waste by both sides (obvouisly we both wish wastefull spending isn't happening).
In general, if a company does something stupid they should just go out of business. In the case of banks and the auto industry in 2008-2009, I think the bail out was needed. If certain industries fail, the destruction caused will be too much to overcome. We were very close to that and I'm not sure we're out of the woods yet.
But no, as a general practice we should not be bailing out companies.


As I have said several times, both parties enjoy pissing away money on pork and pet projects. I'm in favor of publically funding elections - when it comes right down to it, it should cut pork spending tremendously because I don't owe you any favors because you donated X dollars to my campaign.
There is much reform needed here; I think you'll agree with that.

Finally, the federal deficit has to be brought down. Hopefully the bulk of the bailouts are over; I think they are. As I said, I think they were needed and may still be needed. When the storm is over, we should begin the long step to balance the deficit.

In your attempted response to Cabin4 you stated "I don't think we're paying too much tax though" & then you state
"Would I like to lower them-yes"  Why would you want to if we aren't paying too much?
It's easy for me & I am not all over the board on this, I pay too much.
Also, who do you consider to be rich?

[Oldshooter]

We can start with getting rid of the tax breaks for the rich and reverse it. Going back to oldshooter, that's the difference between the two parties. One wants tax breaks for the rich, one wants tax breaks for the middle class.

No, oh unionized one! Just because you and obama say it, dont make it true. That is right out of obamas and your union handbook! You have drank of the kool aid oh unionized one!

We all want tax breaks for the middle class, hell I am middle class, or was up until the stock market turned my 401 k into a 201 k. Your handlers have told you that "we" want tax breaks for the wealthy, but they also tell everyone that the wealthy are folk that make over  250 thousand, then 150 thousand, what will it be next 75 thousand ?

Did ya ever see a breakdown on who pays taxes and how much, check that out some time. Those wealthy people are US!

It is a pity you dont care about your firearms, but when they take em you will change your mind. But I think you dont think that will really happen. Do a little more research on your messiah, and see where he stands on that!  I'm happy to let the future educate you!

I'm just praying that there are more like me than like you in the future! for the future!

[curtism1234]

In your attempted response to Cabin4 you stated "I don't think we're paying too much tax though" & then you state
"Would I like to lower them-yes"  Why would you want to if we aren't paying too much?
It's easy for me & I am not all over the board on this, I pay too much.
Also, who do you consider to be rich?

Let me expand on that because admittedly it wasn't thorough or clear enough. I'm trying to reply to a bunch of different topics in a limited amount of time that I have.


Taxes are not what is bringing down the middle and working class. As a percentage of their income, the taxes they pay are fair. If it was possible to lower them while still giving the goverment the same income, then I'd lower them. I'll explain more below

Where the middle and working class gets in trouble is with the inability to correctly handle their net income. A family that should be in a 150,000 dollar house buys a 250,000 dollar house just because they qualify for the loan. On top of that, they want to buy the 4 wheel drive suv that costs 5000 dollars more because they use it once a year. Then they have to buy designer clothes, cell phones for every family member including their dog, high dollar dog food for their dog, eat out every day, etc.
There's a lot of wastefull spending in the United States. The average family can save several hundred dollars every month more than what they currently are saving (which for many is negative).
Part of it is not being educated on the subject, part is the materialistic culture which we live in.
 

I already stated "We can start with getting rid of the tax breaks for the rich and reverse it".
If the goverment takes X dollars to run, they need X dollars in taxes. When it's deemed the goverment is going to issue tax cuts, I think they should go to the middle class.

Who do I consider to be rich? That's a trick question because whatever I say is obvouisly going to be wrong so i'm not even going there. Specifically in the area of debt to income, it gets tricky because we don't know what type of income (legal or loopholed) they have and what type of debt (good debt or bad debt --- there's only 3 things you should finance 1.house 2.car 3.education ) they have.

I am certainly a believer in an aggressive bracketed income tax system and the closing of loopholes in deductions. If you truely qualify for deductions and credits because of your children, school, etc --- that's fine and that's very helpfull. If you're dodging taxes through capital gains, that's very unethical.
I would like to tax capital gains as ordinary income to avoid higher-ups from getting 200,000 in income and 1 million in options. Obvouisly if you do that, the middle class would have to pay more tax as a result because they have money in the stock market --- but to offset that we should lower the middle and working class tax rates. The middle class pays the same as they did or lower; the upper class pays what they should be paying.
Perhaps the first X number of dollars could still be clasified as capital gains but that number would have to be low.

Again I'll state taxes are not what is killing the middle class. But I would be in favor of playing on a more level field with a more aggressive bracket and the closing of loopholes.

The tax brackets could easily read more like
0-20000                5%
20001-50000         10%
50001-75000         15%
75001-150000        20%
150001-250000      25%
250001-500,000     30%
500001+               50%

Obvouisly people with far more financial knowledge than any of us have needs to do the math to see if it will work (that's true of any budget). I suspect it would be close though.

[Cabin4]

Federal income tax is not the only tax people pay. What about:

SS tax
Medicade tax
State income tax
Property Tax
sales and use taxes
Cap gains tax

If you add all this up, most American work between 3 - 4 months just for the government.

This is not what this country is suppose to be about.

[curtism1234]

Federal income tax is not the only tax people pay. What about:

SS tax
Medicade tax
State income tax
Property Tax
sales and use taxes
Cap gains tax

If you add all this up, most American work between 3 - 4 months just for the government.

I don't dispute that at all

Keep in mind though regarding the other taxes (Social security, Medicare, and property) are either
1. something you're going to pay in private anyway (school)
2. something you're going to benefit from (medicare)
3. something you're going to get back (social security)
 
People may not like social security and medicare now; but when they grow old, most are very very thankfull for it. People that have a good financial cushion right now younger in life can get hurt, can go bankrupt, etc and lose everything in the blink of an eye - that includes what they would have saved by not putting money into these tax funds.

Let's not assume your tax money just disapears (and I'm not saying you said that...I just want to point that out). It's set aside for you for a time in which you'll need it.
It promises you that you won't be left homeless and dying in the streets when you can no longer work anymore
That's what this country IS about, and it's a wonderfull thing

hope everyone has a good weekend

[nomosendero]

curtism1234
Why do you feel you have a right to bracket people's income? Looks like the old "to each according to their need, from each according to their ability".

I have the privilege to know a few good people who grew up poor, but through very hard work, planning & business savvy they are now wealthy. So they spent most of their years without money, but you would want them to get socked good in the few years they are wealthy. And with your thinking no doubt they should get hit hard with property & all other taxes, they should do more with charity, they should pay their employees more, they should do all of these things because they CAN. Would it be OK with you if they could keep 5% of their money which they EARNED. Progressive tax is very "progressive" after all.

Karl would be proud.

Yes, have a nice weekend also.

[Oldshooter]

"to each according to their need, from each according to their ability".

Yes that has a hint of iron curtain, comrade! But....... then it would mean that no one had to work hard to get ahead anymore, They could just take it easy and get what they needed from those that had! yea thats the ticket! Yes, take the money from the rich they are corrupt and after all its "patriotic" to share.

Uhhh one question, what happens when there are not any more rich people? will the wealthy politicians make up the difference.

[mirage1988]

some of you old-timers might remember the line from a song- "tax the rich, till there are no rich no more..."  I can't remember who sang it, but the attitude is even stronger now.

Istead of TEA parties, next year we should all take four months off work, since that is what we work to pay our fed taxes.

I thought I was paying fed taxes to have a strong military. and have good interstate highways. We are getting neither for 787 billion. For 787 billion we could pave the ENTIRE united states.

[beerbelly]

                              curtism1234 you talk about how people spend (waste) their money. It is their money!!! The dam government shouldn't be taking it away from them and spending it for them. The government did not earn one red cent of that money, so why should have to give it to them, to give to some SOB that won't work and make his own way?
                                Beerbelly