Insults and weakening safeguards are Napolitano hallmarks

Like the energizer bunny, Homeland Insecurity chieftain, Janet Napolitano never stops. Insulting returning American military personnel and others who support the Constitution and honor life isn’t enough for her. When she tires of those targets, there are always the Canadians for her to hurl a few abusive invectives in their direction. And how about sounding off on repealing REAL ID, which thwarts terrorists?

Those remarks didn’t sit too well with Rep. James Sensenbrenner, (R-WI), a sponsor of the law, who said he was “angered” by Napolitano’s comments.

“The REAL ID Act was recommended by the 9/11 Commission as a necessary component to keeping America safe. As the Commission said in its report, ‘fraud in identification documents is no longer just a problem of theft.’ We learned in 2001, that the 9/11 plane hijackers each had multiple forms of ID from various states. In the hands of a terrorist, a U.S. driver’s license, or other form of valid ID, proves just as dangerous as a bomb,” Sensenbrenner said.

“We absolutely cannot just hand out state drivers’ licenses to anyone, whether they are here legally or illegally. Mandating proof of legally living in the U.S. for anyone seeking to obtain a driver’s license is a critical and necessary step to preserving the safety of our citizens and protecting our country from terrorists looking to exploit our system.”

Speaking out of both sides of her mouth makes it difficult for Napolitano to keep issues sorted. As of this posting, her department’s web site continues to espouse the law’s merits.

Read Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner statement issued in response to U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s remarks.

8 Responses to Insults and weakening safeguards are Napolitano hallmarks

  1. Scott says:

    When Napolitano was governor of Arizona, she was out of control and bullish. Her style of governance reeked of strong armed politics. When she wanted to stick it to the legislators not of her party, who were representing the vast majority of their district voters on issues, she would whip out her veto pen and slash through an entire session worth of effort — much of it bi-partisan.
    Her never removed string of pearls were her handlers attempt to soften her image, but none of us were fooled.

  2. Jim Osborn says:

    How about the renaming of Squaw Peak? She had her aide Mario Diaz threaten members of the commission to push through a name to endear her to yet another constituency. The tactics she used were unprecedented and unconscionable.

  3. Another LD11 PC says:

    Look, I’m no supporter of Napolitano, but Reagan opposed national ids. “Things have changed.” No they haven’t. Freedom isn’t free and comes with risk. I’d rather my kids grow up in the America I grew up with as a kid even if there is greater risk. The greatest risk of adverse interference in our lives comes from our own government anyway, not from terrorists. Conservatives believe in limited government, lower regulation and spending, and the constitution. There’s no authorization in the constitution for the federal government to require citizens to have national ids. Period. End of story.

  4. American Dad says:

    Another LD PC,
    While I agree with you in principle, I have fallen into the camp that believes it is preferable to have a handle on who is here and why. It’s not a perfect plan, I’ll give you that. But these are not perfect times and we are being overrun by non-citizens, many of whom mean us harm and others who will inflict harm for a price, either by doing the damage themselves or aiding and abetting those who sneak into the US to do the evil deeds themselves.

  5. Another LD11 PC says:

    Hi American Dad,

    I appreciate that that’s your sentiment. My sentiment is the constitution of the United States of America which protects me from the implementation of your (and others’) sentiments at a federal level unless explicitly authorized in the words of the constitution.

    The Revolutionary War days were also not perfect times. In fact, they faced more risk and danger to their lives and property then than we do now. So I don’t accept the “times have changed” argument unless you are arguing that Americans are becoming increasingly pus*ified and are, therefore, whining like babies to their government for protection from every risk.

    The path your approach leads us down empowers the “other side” (the lefties) to argue for their federal protective programs because your argument is to eliminate the line which can’t be crossed, which is the constitution of the US.

    Like I said before, as a courageous American, I would rather my kids grow up with more risk but the same freedoms I had, because I want them to grow up to be courageous Americans under a constitutional government, not a government of sentiments.

  6. Anerican Dad says:

    Although my wife tells me I am sometimes stubborn, I am listening and yes, even learning, from you. Thanks for taking the time to make your case. I agree with much of what you say. However, I do think the risks we face from terrorists are a great deal different than the men in red coats, carrying muskets and marching in unison into the line of fire accompanied by a drum roll. There are no rules of engagement today. We are dealing with Islamic fanatics who are happily looking forward to 90 virgins each in the great hereafter.

  7. Another LD11 PC says:

    Hi American Dad, our revolutionaries faced hanging and quartering if caught along with 100% expropriation of all of their property. Back then children and women could not own property. Which meant that they were orphaned either in the cold cities or adjacent to indian territory.

    They faced certain death. The chances of you facing certain death from terrorists is close to zero. The chances of facing adverse interference in your life from your own government is close to if not 100%.

    There is no authority in the constitution for national ids, terrorists or not. The constitution was written as it is by wiser men than you or me under (I believe) direct inspiration from God. So, my opinion of your opinion of something that is extraconstitutional is quite low in comparison to what they thought and wrote.

    Furthermore, conservatives have always opposed national ids until the last couple years.

    Furthermore, conservatives believe in limited government and the constitution (which provides no authority for national ids).

    I’d rather see you at the rifle range honing your skills than advancing extraconstitutional ideas because of your fears.

  8. American Dad says:

    Another LD PC:

    It’s late and I’m tired. You make strong arguments and I mostly concede, but still think these times call for increased vigilance. The REAL ID might not be the answer, but I will tell you I fear for my children in this age of great peril and with unprincipled, fanatically driven, brutal enemies.

    In the meantime. Let’s both stock up on non-perishable food, water and necessary supplies — as a prudent measure. FEMA recommends such emergency preparations..