The Terrorist Identities Protection Act
Time was when it was commonly held that "loose lips sink ships". Now a days, vigilant lips can get you sued - and the Democrats damn well want to keep it that way (via Heading Right):
Y'know, no matter which way I look at this I can't avoid coming to the same, straight-forwardly logical conclusion: the Democrats want to protect Islamist terrorists so they can carry out fresh, massive attacks against their fellow countrymen (hopefully all conservative Republicans). The Dems can then blame the attacks on "Bush's" war in Iraq and run up an even bigger score in November 2008.
Paranoid? Well, there's certainly no logic to Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson's nonsensical objection that the King-Pearce amendment would constitute "racial profiling," which, as the Admiral points out, is police scrutiny of members of a given group in the absence of any probable cause. The "flying imams" incident that gave rise to this amendment wasn't triggered by US Airways passengers noticing that there were "young Middle Eastern men" on the plane, but that they were acting in a manner conspicuously like the 9/11 hijackers did. I think the passengers and the airline can be forgiven for not wanting to take any chances. Indeed, there might be thousands of Queens residents alive today because a convenience store clerk noticed something odd about a "young Middle Eastern man" seeking to have a pro-jihadi video burned onto a DVD. Should that clerk and his employer be left to be sued into ruin because he endeavored to be patriotically public-spirited?
It's difficult not to notice the pattern of dhimmism that dominates the contemporary Democrat Party. We "can't beat" the terrorists in Iraq, who aren't really terrorists but actually "freedom fighters," so we must withdraw immediately. We can't seal our borders to try and keep them from infiltrating the homeland. We can't tap their communications, overseas or at home. We can't capture them, interrogate them, intern them as illegal combatants, or even as POWs, but must feed them into the civilian criminal justice system with full constitutional rights. And then we musn't throw the book at them, or even fail to turn a blind eye when they reconnoiter airline flights or airports or soft infrastructure targets, less they be treated "unfairly" and become "offended." Any subsequent attacks in that circumstance would have been "provoked" by American "bigotry" and the mass casualties would be entirely deserved, because we "had it coming."
I said it this morning, and I'll say it again here: Democrats/libs are collaborators. They want the enemy to defeat us so that they can blame it on Bush and the Republicans and reap the political benefits. It is vile. It is despicable. It is treason most foul.
But it is also the majority opinion of the American people. Which goes to show the old adage that in a democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve - and end results to match.
Except for those of us who didn't vote Democrat last November. We're pretty much screwed.
UPDATE: The Dems hand the terrorists another victory.
Democrats are trying to pull a provision from a homeland security bill that will protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leadership aides.
The legislation, which moves to a House and Senate conference committee this afternoon, will implement final recommendations from the 9/11 Commission.
Representative Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Representative Steve Pearce, New Mexico Republican, sponsored the bill after a group of Muslim imams filed a lawsuit against U.S. Airways and unknown or “John Doe” passengers after they were removed for suspicious behavior aboard Flight 300 from Minneapolis to Phoenix on November 20 before their removal. …
Republicans aides say they will put up a fight with Democrats when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but that public pressure is also needed.
Y'know, no matter which way I look at this I can't avoid coming to the same, straight-forwardly logical conclusion: the Democrats want to protect Islamist terrorists so they can carry out fresh, massive attacks against their fellow countrymen (hopefully all conservative Republicans). The Dems can then blame the attacks on "Bush's" war in Iraq and run up an even bigger score in November 2008.
Paranoid? Well, there's certainly no logic to Homeland Security Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson's nonsensical objection that the King-Pearce amendment would constitute "racial profiling," which, as the Admiral points out, is police scrutiny of members of a given group in the absence of any probable cause. The "flying imams" incident that gave rise to this amendment wasn't triggered by US Airways passengers noticing that there were "young Middle Eastern men" on the plane, but that they were acting in a manner conspicuously like the 9/11 hijackers did. I think the passengers and the airline can be forgiven for not wanting to take any chances. Indeed, there might be thousands of Queens residents alive today because a convenience store clerk noticed something odd about a "young Middle Eastern man" seeking to have a pro-jihadi video burned onto a DVD. Should that clerk and his employer be left to be sued into ruin because he endeavored to be patriotically public-spirited?
It's difficult not to notice the pattern of dhimmism that dominates the contemporary Democrat Party. We "can't beat" the terrorists in Iraq, who aren't really terrorists but actually "freedom fighters," so we must withdraw immediately. We can't seal our borders to try and keep them from infiltrating the homeland. We can't tap their communications, overseas or at home. We can't capture them, interrogate them, intern them as illegal combatants, or even as POWs, but must feed them into the civilian criminal justice system with full constitutional rights. And then we musn't throw the book at them, or even fail to turn a blind eye when they reconnoiter airline flights or airports or soft infrastructure targets, less they be treated "unfairly" and become "offended." Any subsequent attacks in that circumstance would have been "provoked" by American "bigotry" and the mass casualties would be entirely deserved, because we "had it coming."
I said it this morning, and I'll say it again here: Democrats/libs are collaborators. They want the enemy to defeat us so that they can blame it on Bush and the Republicans and reap the political benefits. It is vile. It is despicable. It is treason most foul.
But it is also the majority opinion of the American people. Which goes to show the old adage that in a democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve - and end results to match.
Except for those of us who didn't vote Democrat last November. We're pretty much screwed.
UPDATE: The Dems hand the terrorists another victory.
posted by JASmius at 4:42 PM
<<< Home