Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Janet Napolitano Oh Good Grief

It would appear that the Obama Administration needs someone in HR to actually make sure appointees are somewhat qualified to hold the position for which they are nominated. In particular the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano, seems to think the 9-11 Terrorists came into the US through Canada. The border for dummies takes Ms. Napolitano to task for her statements to that effect in a Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC) interview.
In an interview broadcast Monday on the CBC, Ms. Napolitano attempted to justify her call for stricter border security on the premise that "suspected or known terrorists" have entered the U. S. across the Canadian border, including the perpetrators of the 9/11 attack. [Emphasis Mine]
Certainly the Current Secretary of Homeland Security should know that all the 9-11 Terrorists entered the US directly from overseas.
Informed of her error, Ms. Napolitano blustered: "I can't talk to that. I can talk about the future. And here's the future. The future is we have borders."
So she can't talk about her Knowledge of something which should have been clear and definitive knowledge (and therefore a prerequisite for intelligent interviews) as the Secretary of Homeland Security. Instead Ms. Napolitano says something which makes no sense at all. "The future is we have borders."

In previous statements, Ms. Napolitano has equated the Canadian and Mexican borders to the extant that they should both be given the same treatment. Yet the facts show that last year 5,000+ deaths related to drugs occurred along the Mexican US Border while ...
In Canada, on the other hand, the main problem is congestion resulting from cross-border trade. Not quite the same thing, is it?
More drug related deaths along the Mexican Border Last Year than since the 2003 Iraq War Began.

In addition, a week ago the Department of Homeland Security which Ms. Napolitano heads, released a memo concerning the Terroristic Dangers of the conservative right to the American Public. This included all returning Veterans, Catholics and just about anyone else who doesn't agree with the Obama Administration as Terrorist Risks. Napolitano stands by controversial report clearly defines Ms. Napolitano's beliefs.
In her statement Wednesday, Ms. Napolitano defended the report, which says "rightwing extremism" may include groups opposed to abortion and immigration...
Beliefs which are so confounding that even Democrats are dumbfounded.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Wednesday that she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the report, which lists returning veterans among terrorist risks to the U.S.

But the top House Democrat with oversight of the Department of Homeland Security said in a letter to Ms. Napolitano that he was "dumbfounded" that such a report would be issued.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS) is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, and the "dumbfounded" House Democrat. He probably is not the only one.

Oh wait there's more. DHS Chief Napolitano: Illegal Immigration Is Not a Crime quotes Ms. Napolitano as not recognizing a crime.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano stunned many listeners during an appearance on CNN when she asserted that illegal immigration is really not a crime.
A crime which the Secretary of Homeland Security should take seriously. Ms. Napolitano made this statement last week on CNN. Madam Secertary wants to go after employers rather than the illegals who cross the border. Why not go after both the illegals and the employers who hire them?
The statute reads: “Any alien who enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers . . . shall, for the first commission of any such offense, be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than 6 months, or both.”
As the person responsible for Homeland Security, which includes Border Enforcement, shouldn't she know what the statute really says? Since when are we allowed to pick and choose which laws we wish to enforce?

No comments: