Or should we do, what Rand Paul wants, and 100% dismantle all government?

Janet Napolitano is doing a great job. But she is only one person.

as they are the ones with the power to instantly defund it.

it's not like anyone else has that power.

the congress is the only one.

not just the repubs.
But I forgot, you are for more and more govt. control, carry on.

saying what was in the past,well

why did people vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980?

why did people let LBJ not run in 1968?

That is why I am for an 80-20.
Just make the extremists the 20 and render them obsolete.

I am not for Chaos and anarchy.

did Dems also fund these programs or not?
The only chaos and anarchy lately is coming from the Federal Govt.

Ask Ralph why he threw the 2000 election and would do so again

You do realize 95% of the core President Obama voters strongly back him, and his agenda, do you not?

and there is NO chaos or anarchy from the Obama administration.

But Rand Paul works for Jeb Bush Karl Rove and the republican party who want to win the 2 special elections.
So go ask them to defund it.

they're about as worthless as t*ts on a boar hog. Also, drastically reduce the Defense Dept., NSA, CIA, ATF, DEA, budgets, and revamp the FBI, and while we're at it, a wholesale shake up at the DoJ.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

but JFK considered doing that and look where it got him.

ain't workin'.

Our party pushed for DHS's creation over Bush's ambivalence. That was a mistake, and the administrative redundancy it has created is a nightmare, but doing another massive reorganization might cause more harm than good, unfortunately. At any rate, neither agency that just got caught with their hands in the cookie jar was part of DHS, and just speaking frankly DHS has turned into the department where you shove a program that you want to go away.

-Laelth

Big Brother must be allowed to practice his immense love!

If we can become more ignorant and docile, then his plan will be fulfilled for our greater and mutual benefit.

I love Big Brother!

Remember: 2+2=5 if he says so.

It's also time to do away with injustice, pollution, and corruption.

Well, glad that's settled. Now let's ask "How?"

The people that "represent" us are not too eager to comply. I bet most of them don't listen to Thom Hartmann, nor if they did, would they care to take his advice. Stating the obvious isn't enough. So again, I ask: "How?"

and working together. Just like the last time. Then we'd soon have another homeland security, though it would probably have a less orwellian name than bush and cheney gave it.

When you propose a big change, it helps if you look at the history and see why something exists or is done the way it is done in the first place. Usually there is a good reason. All you have to do is look at the Boston bombing - much of the criticism of the failures that led to that involved failures in the integration of intelligence agencies, which HS was supposed to overcome. The impetus is for more, not less, and another incident would push things along farther.

I'm not saying its good or bad either way, but often "reality" dictates outcomes, not ideology.

attack on the WTC should have been handled by various police agencies also.

I don't think the cops would have let Bush give a free plane ride home to his Saudi pals in the only plane allowed to fly on that particular day.

but realistically, "the cops" didn't have a lot of pull in Afghanistan, or Saudi Arabia, or much experience with international terrorism.

and these organizations, particularly the latter, have the international experience and network to be effective. They deserved first shot at solving the attack and capturing the ones responsible including those who planned it.

One other thing: Police actions often bring media scrutiny which is usually a good thing. I remember the ongoing stories about trying to catch the anthrax murderer(s). That public scrutiny was lost when Bush said it was a military affair.

...and also its integration with other anti-terrorist agencies within Homeland Security. If you take it back apart, then you have the same reasons to put it together again if there is another attack or intelligence failure.

the FBI was brought into investigate the 2000, USS Cole bombing in Yemen. They were met with hostile forces. They investigated U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in August 1998, 4 men convicted and 13 more were on the wanted list. I think 9/11 finally jelled the thinking that it had to be a coordinated collection of intelligence and investigation to become proactive rather than reactive in anti-terrorist activities. They have evolved, like it or not HLS made the agencies share info and work together w/o competition between them. It also allowed for further cooperation between local law enforcement and justice in intelligence and investigative activities.

but it remains an enforcement agency with a head confirmed by the Senate and the Congress has access to him/her via the subpoena as well as informal contacts. The FBIs budgetis published unlike many, or most, of the intelligence agencies.
I'd rather take my Constitutional chances with the FBI than the CIA or NSA.

NSA has been using programs and hardware provided by private Israeli security companies and that Israeli intelligence may have access to the same information as NSA. If true, that would be further cause for concern.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/how-was-israel-involved-in-collecting-u-s-communications-intel-for-nsa-1.528529

It never gave us what it was sold to us as (Bush's False Advertising). It was/is very expensive (publish full disclosure on all material suppliers, consultants, advisers, and contractors. Who, where, why, etc). It has/had limited if any effect on security within the borders of the United States (Prove It, Show/tell the American public in fine detail what you did to justify the continued existence of HS). and it damaged the core values of the homeland (subverted the constitution, bypassed laws, bestowed powers, concentrated power with the unelected, etc).

We can do a better job consolidating our security apparatuses. Even more so now, with the fetid example of Bush's nazi themed "Homeland Security".

Nothing else even comes close

I remember old polls by Gallup, or a similar respected polling outfit, and the poller read the Bill of Rights to randomly selected Americans and a high percentage said it was either communist or communist influenced.
Civil rights and liberties have never been popular with many Americans based on the results of polls like this.

was the most feared man in Washington and kept himself in power for 47 years by knowing where all the bodies were buried and where the skeletons closeted. Homeland Security knows orders of magnitude more about such things than Hoover could have ever imagined. It ain't going anywhere anytime soon.

stay in some form. I would bet most whose family was harmed in some way by violence would like to have law enforcement agencies which could pull phone records in proving a case against the one who harmed our family member. The phone records are not available from providers in forever, they only retain a short period of time. Since 9 11 2001 we will have to give up some "freedoms" in order to have the freedom to move around our nation with freedom. If this freedom is not important then refraining from using services provided with this information and there will not be an "invasion of your privacy", this is your freedom, participate or not, it is your choice.

I've never liked the nazi-smelling rename.

That said, disbanding it will not solve our surveillance issues.

While that would make the folks in Iowa happy, the rest of the country would have wondered why the response to buildings falling in NY would be guarding wheat.

been enough to scare citizens of any free country.

And what happened to that whole Homeland Security scandal that began to break involving 'members of Congress, top Military personnel, prostitutes etc? I remember reading that it was big enough it 'could topple the government'. I do recall the madam 'committed suicide' and only one or two members of Congress actually were charged, one airc. That entire Homeland Security scandal just disappeared along with what many believed was the Madam.

What happened?

The Attorneys General involved with it were fired or hired. Personally, I think that many of the AG who were fired were involved in some aspect of this case.

The Madam conveniently showed up hanged in her Mom's (IIRC) garage. Apparently, all copies of her black book were recovered or are held by persons using it for purposes other than busting wrong-doers, as W liked to say.

that's it

that's all that was missing

Homeland? Oh and hey while we're at it let's repeal the Patriot Act and start resembling America.

Which is fine if you liked the scene in "Fritz the Cat" where they bomb Harlem.

Or under Nixon

away from the already functioning FBI.

It's also time to do away with the NSA. Once the Cold War ended, their mission was over and it should have had a sunset clause. Unfortunately, it didn't, and lacking Soviets to spy on, they turned on us.

that it should be created in the first place.
But it was what "everybody" wanted.
dc