Diary

Napolitano Must Go

Many Republicans are calling for the resignation of the director of the Department of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. The former Democrat Arizona governor has been involved in several incidents recently that bode poorly for her continued presence at the helm of DHS, a sensitive post in the age of terrorism.

 

First, she allowed a report to be released that suggested that military veterans returning from Iraq and other deployments may be susceptible to recruitment in acts of domestic terror. Then, amazingly, she said to a Canadian interviewer that the 9/11 hijackers had infiltrated into the UnitedState from Canada! It is common knowledge that this is false.

 

Napolitano must go. After refusing to even use the word “terrorism” but instead calling it the bizarre and politically-correct concoction “man-caused disasters”, we should have been skeptical. Now we know. In a Monday press conference over the swine flu outbreak Napolitano she said that people coming from Mexico who appear sick might have to be put into isolation rooms “but I don’t want to use the word ‘quarantine’”.

 

Why not? What is this female afraid of? Why is she so terrified of certain words?

 

Where was Napolitano to excoriate White House bureaucrats for overflying New York City for a photo-op with Air Force One at a low altitude, scaring the daylights out of thousands of people who thought it was 9/11 all over?

 

Below are excerpts from two previous editorials from this website, the first questioning the integrity of Napolitano and the other looking more closely at the DHS report on “rightwing extremists” and going beyond the charges against our military.

 

The upshot is that Napolitano is incompetent and must go!

 

Editorial excerpt questioning the integrity of Napolitano:

 

Napolitano’s past is not encouraging. While making feints to stem the illegal alien tide, she has not really done so at all. In July 2007 she signed a sanctions law on employers that hire illegal aliens. While some applauded, skeptics saw this as just another way for liberals to punish business while the same liberals do nothing to stop the flow at the border.

Meanwhile Napolitano also vetoed a bill that would have put restrictions on day laborers, many of whom are illegals. So in being “tough” on illegals, she offered sanctions for business but not on illegals themselves.

When Arizona House bill 2345 was passed requiring a driver’s license or two forms of ID in order to vote on election days, Napolitano vetoed the bill while supporting legislation to grant driver’s licenses to illegals. It is important to note that all of the 9/11 hijackers had one or more state driver’s licenses, which enabled them not only to board the planes but also to live and travel easily around the US.

Napolitano also supported the US senate legislation that would have, over time, offered amnesty to illegals.

Also in 2007, Napolitano sent Arizona National Guard troops to the Mexican border, as did Democrat New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. Critics claim, however, that these actions were merely grandstanding on illegal immigration in an attempt to embarass president Bush.

Meanwhile Arizona Republican state representative John Kavanagh said that Napolitano has been very weak on “internal enforcement”, having vetoed an Arizona law that would have required local police to enforce federal immigration laws. This veto is seen as de facto protection for illegals.

Mark Krikorian, the executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, says that “she is probably the least bad person that an Obama administration could have picked.”

Is this the time to pick the least of all bad candidates?

Or a time to pick someone who will enforce the laws?

With the Terrorism Commission warning about an attack by 2013, this is no time to guess about our national security. Napolitano is a bad choice. And our nation will pay the price if she is confirmed.

 

Editorial parsing the DHS report. It includes comments beyond the report’s reprehensible charges against our military. 

 

The Deparment of Homeland Security recently released an ‘assessment’ called Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment

This study essentially profiles certain caucasian Americans as a threat to national security, much like the recent report in Missouri that said that police should be suspicious about people (meaning white people) with pro-life bumper stickers or stickers for third-party political candidates like Ron Paul or Bob Barr. So the same liberals who refuse to say “Muslim extremists” or “terrorism” now are claiming that certain Americans who think a certain way are a threat to security and peace. This is racial and political profiling from Obama, and a frontal attack on American conservatives by our own government.

Here are some excerpts from the DHS report, with comments:

 

Report says: The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific information that domestic rightwing terrorists are currently planning acts of violence, but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment. Comment: “No specific information… may be gaining recruits”… This is how tyrants talk; they act out of suspicion and paranoia. How about left-wing 1970s bomber William Ayers who we know for certain committed acts of violence and who is a close friend of Obama? He’s a highly-paid college professor now. Is he included in the list of suspects? He could strike again according to his past behavior and his unrepentant nature.

 

 Report says: The current economic and political climate has some similarities to the 1990s when rightwing extremism experienced a resurgence fueled largely by an economic recession, criticism about the outsourcing of jobs, and the perceived threat to U.S. power and sovereignty by other foreign powers. Comment: How about the ‘perceived’ threat of 9/11, which happened because Clinton neglected our national security for 8 years, handing Bush an empty CIA briefing book on Islamic extremists? Conservatives warned that this would happen.

 

Report says: A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a Jewish-controlled “one world government.” Comment: They are picking on one single incident simply because it makes their case. They ignore thousands of incidents that don’t. How about the mob in Oakland, California recently protesting in support of the thug who killed four cops? They seem like dangerous lawbreakers. Should we include them in this report?

 

Report says: Rightwing extremists are harnessing this historical election as a recruitment tool. Many rightwing extremists are antagonistic toward the new presidential administration and its perceived stance on a range of issues, including immigration and citizenship, the expansion of social programs to minorities, and restrictions on firearms and leverage them as drivers for recruitment. From the 2008 election timeframe to the present, rightwing extremists have capitalized on related racial and political prejudices in expanded propaganda campaigns, thereby reaching out to a wider audience of potential sympathizers. Comment: “From the 2008 election timeframe to the present”? Wow, a whole 6 months! They sure must have studied this long-term phenomenon awful hard. And how about all the left-wing extremists who operated in the open over the last 8 years calling Bush “Hitler”, rioting in the streets over the WTO, committing eco-terrorism, or burning Sarah Palin’s church – an arson that has not been solved or explained but is wholly suspicious?

 

Report says: Most statements by rightwing extremists have been rhetorical, expressing concerns about the election of the first African American president, but stopping short of calls for violent action. In two instances in the run-up to the election, extremists appeared to be in the early planning stages of some threatening activity targeting the Democratic nominee, but law enforcement interceded. Comment: Yeah, right, how about all the plays, books, films and internet chatter from the leftists and the “arts community” about assassinating Bush? How many people were prosecuted for plotting against Bush? We don’t even know but rest assured they were prompted by the media and ginned-up hatred from the internet. Just go to one of their nut-job websites and see for yourself.

 

Report says: Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico. Comment: “Perception” that illegal immigrants are taking jobs at lower wages? What about reality? And the people most opposed to free trade are leftists including union activists and other Democrat protectionists.

 

Report says: Many rightwing extremist groups perceive recent gun control legislation as a threat to their right to bear arms and in response have increased weapons and ammunition stockpiling, as well as renewed participation in paramilitary training exercises. Such activity, combined with a heightened level of extremist paranoia, has the potential to facilitate criminal activity and violence. Comment: How about all those Muslim camps where they are training for violence? How about the illegal-immigrant crime wave that the media and liberals are covering up? And where has one single right-wing militia camp been shown to be training paramilitary groups? Name one, Mr. President!

 

Report says: … rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to exploit their skills and knowledge derived from military training and combat… The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from the psychological effects of war is being replicated today… After Operation Desert Shield/Storm in 1990-1991, some returning military veterans—including Timothy McVeigh—joined or associated with rightwing extremist groups….A prominent civil rights organization reported in 2006 that “large numbers of potentially violent neo-Nazis, skinheads, and other white supremacists are now learning the art of warfare in the [U.S.] armed forces.” Comment: Again, liberals impugning our military. And McVeigh was reacting directly in revenge to the government killing of 76 Christians at the Branch Davidian compound in WacoTexas under Bill Clinton, which obviously is no excuse for his actions. But the media never mention Waco, only McVeigh. Because Waco shows a government assaulting its own people, as this report is suggesting certain citizens might be watched as suspicious. 

 

Report says: The dissolution of Communist countries in Eastern Europe and the end of the Soviet Union in the 1990s led some rightwing extremists to believe that a “New World Order” would bring about a world government that would usurp the sovereignty of the United States and its Constitution, thus infringing upon their liberty. Comment: How about the liberal justices of the Supreme Court of the United States talking openly about looking to international law for guidance in forming their opinions? This is a genuine threat to our liberty. Our Constitution makes us the freest people in the world. Why should we consult ideas from people and nations that are less free?

 

Report says: Similarly, recent state and municipal law enforcement reporting has warned of the dangers of rightwing extremists embracing the tactics of “leaderless resistance” and of lone wolves carrying out acts of violence. Comment: Kind of like the “leaderless” tactics of Muslim terrorists whom liberals do not want to admit exist.

 

Report says: Historically, domestic rightwing extremists have feared, predicted, and anticipated a cataclysmic economic collapse in the United States… Conspiracy theories involving declarations of martial law, impending civil strife or racial conflict, suspension of the U.S. Constitution, and the creation of citizen detention camps often incorporate aspects of a failed economy. Antigovernment conspiracy theories and “end times” prophecies could motivate extremist individuals and groups to stockpile food, ammunition, and weapons. These teachings also have been linked with the radicalization of domestic extremist individuals and groups in the past, such as violent Christian Identity organizations and extremist members of the militia movement. Comment: Well, they had to get the word ‘Christian’ in there somewhere. This is yet another attack on Christianity. And how about “creation of citizen detention camps”? You mean like Democrat president FDR did to the Japanese in World War II?

 

Napolitano must go!

 

Please visit my website at www.nikitas3.com for more. You can print out for free my book, Right Is Right, which explains why only conservatism can maintain our freedom and prosperity.