Michelle Malkin » Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment Update: House Dems kill John Doe amendment…fight moves to the Senate Update: 8:55pm Senate Dems kill John Doe amendment…roll added

Don’t let the Dems kill the John Doe amendment Update: House Dems kill John Doe amendment…fight moves to the Senate Update: 8:55pm Senate Dems kill John Doe amendment…roll added

By Michelle Malkin • July 19, 2007 06:59 PM

7/20 1:25pm update. Video of Rep. Pete King ripping the Dems over their opposition to the John Doe amendment.

7/20 9:30am update. Read Debra Burlingame: “We disarm ourselves when we succumb to political correctness - which encourages us to second guess our common sense and look the other way. It is an outrage that Pelosi and Reid would allow individuals to be punished when they come forward to protect us all.”

If you see something, say something:

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965
Reid’s office: 202-224-3542

7/20 7:40am update: Andrew McCarthy assails the Death Wish Caucus–the cowardly, reckless, feckless Democrats who want John Doe citizen whistleblowers to shut up or be sued.

Photoshop via Justin Higgins at Right on the Right

9:20pm Eastern update. Here’s the roll on the Senate John Doe protection amendment, which missed the 60-vote threshold by 3 votes. Interesting facts: No Republican voted against it. GOP presidential candidate Sam “Switchback” Brownback didn’t bother to vote. Hillary voted for it. Obama sat it out:

Reader S.M. looks at some of the at-risk ‘08 Dems who voted for the bill (Hillary, Baucus, Landrieu) versus the supposed “maverick” freshmen (who don’t face re-election until 2012) who voted no (Webb, Tester, McCaskill, etc.): “Transparent politics. Kill the measure, but do it in a way that protects the vulnerable incumbents from attack ads.”

Yep.

8:55pm Eastern update. Well, the Senate Dems have spoken. Susan Collins got a vote, but it just failed. Audrey Hudson’s latest update: “The measure failed in a late-night 57-39 vote after some last minute arm-twisting by Democrats, three votes shy of the required (super majority) 60 votes because it was not directly related (germane) to the underlying educational funding bill.”

Bottom line: The Dems believe that if you see something, you should just shut up.

This fight is not over. There still is a final conference report to be hashed out. Keep your phones lit. The Senate Dems need to hear from you.

Stand by for the roll on Collins’ John Doe protection amendment, SA 2340…

6:58 pm Eastern update and bumped. Audrey Hudson reports the Dems have successfully stripped out the John Doe amendment:

Congressional Democrats today failed to include a provision in homeland security legislation that would protect the public from being sued for reporting suspicious behavior that may lead to a terrorist attack, according to House Republican leaders.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” said Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Who is responsible? Bryan Preston observes:

[The Dems] scuttled this amendment in committee in a way that makes them difficult to track down individually. That’s sneaky but it’s how Washington often works. Rep. Bennie Thompson is the most likely culprit, but it’s unlikely that he’s flying solo here.

The fight’s not over, as Audrey Hudson notes:

While the conference is not likely to meet again, Mr. King noted the conference report has not been written and says he will continue discussions with Sen. Joe Lieberman, Connecticut independent and chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, to insert the “John Doe” language.

Sen. Susan Collins, Maine Republican and ranking member of the committee, announced afterward she will attempt to attach a similar bill to an education measure currently under debate on the Senate floor.

Keep calling Nancy Pelosi’s office to protest.

And start hounding your Senators.

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965

Who is John Doe? I am John Doe. You are John Doe:

2:56pm Eastern update. Audrey Hudson reports…

A Senate Republican aide says they scored one victory when the chamber’s parliamentarian ruled this morning that the “John Doe” protections are within the scope of the legislation and can be included by amendment.

“Combine that with the public outcry and Democrats may be forced to cave,” the aide said.

However, Democrats plan to limit the number of amendments to only three or four and there is no word yet on which amendments will be allowed.

Keep the pressure on.

***

Andy McCarthy and Audrey Hudson report that Democrats are attempting to water down the “John Doe” amendment–the legislation sponsored by Rep. Peter King that would protect citizen whistleblowers who act to protect our national security and who are threatened by lawsuits from CAIR and their grievance-mongering ilk. Time is short. You need to make your voice heard in Congress now.

Hudson writes:

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 911 Commission.

Rep. Pete King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, and Rep. 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 Nov. 20 before their removal.

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,” Mr. King said in an interview last night.

“This is a slap in the face of good citizens who do their patriotic duty and come forward, and it caves in to radical Islamists,” Mr. King said.

“I don’t see how you can have a homeland security bill without protecting people who come forward to report suspicious activity,” Mr. King said.

McCarthy sums up why this is so critical: “As Pete King’s office notes, in a post-9/11 reality, passenger vigilance is essential to our security. Given the variety of threats we face and terrorists’ history of targeting mass transit systems, encouraging passengers to report strange behavior to authorities is really just common sense. Failing to report suspicious behavior could end up costing thousands of lives — and while the “flying imams” don’t seem to understand this, the American people do. We must make certain that brave citizens who stand up and say something are given the protections they deserve. The King amendment does exactly that, and Democrats musn’t be allowed to strip it from the 9/11 conference report on a technicality.”

Republicans aides will put up a fight when the conference committee begins at 1 p.m., to reinsert the language, but the public needs to weigh in. We are always told to be vigilant. To “say something” when we “see something.” I see Democrats carrying water for CAIR and endangering national security.

Say something!

Congress switchboard: 202-224-3121
Nancy Pelosi’s office: 202-225-4965

***

Frank Gaffney e-mails:

Fresh from their all-night effort to force surrender on the U.S. military in Iraq, some Democrats on Capitol Hill appear intent on using the dark-of-night (figuratively, if not literally) to another, grievous misdeed: Trying to eliminate one of the most important anti-terror provisions adopted by Congress since 9/11. This legislation is the so-called “King amendment,” which is designed to ensure that public-spirited citizens are not discouraged, let alone penalized, for doing their civic duty by informing the authorities of activities that could be associated with terrorism.

As the brilliant former counterterrorism prosecutor and legal analyst Andy McCarthy observes in a posting on National Review Online today, the King amendment’s opponents in the congressional leadership understand that the overwhelming, bipartisan support for this legislation in the House and Senate leave them few options.

In fact, as a practical matter, the only way they could dispose of a provision which was initiated by the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Pete King of New York, after the insidious Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) brought suit against several “John Does” and adopted by the House of Representatives by a vote of 304-121 would be to snuff it in a conference committee. Word on the Hill is that it could be attempted TODAY.

Such a gambit should be made more difficult by the inclusion of similar language in the Senate version of what has come to be called the “9/11 Bill,” thanks to strong support in that chamber from, among others, Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee Chairman Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and his ranking minority member, Susan Collins of Maine. Still, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her lieutenants are reportedly hoping to use a technicality – the fact that the King amendment was to a railroad security bill rather than the 9/11 bill – to strip it from the conference report. By so doing, the minority of the House that voted against the King amendment and that is made up of most radical left-wing members of their caucus would have the last word, to the delight of their Islamist friends at CAIR.

Making such a point of order would, of course mean that a similar objection could be registered to every other aspect of the railroad legislation – which includes a number of provisions near-and-dear to the hearts of Democrats, as well as Republicans on the conference committee. Unless, that is, no one is paying attention and the dastardly deed can be accomplished behind closed doors and out of the glare the public’s eye.

Thanks to Andy McCarthy for raising the alarm. Every one of us who understands the indispensable role alert private citizens can – and must – play in protecting the American people from future terrorist attacks should immediately contact Speaker Pelosi’s office (202-225-4965), their own congressional representatives and their favorite talk radio show hosts and bloggers. The message should be clear: Enact the King amendment – because our lives, literally, depend upon it.

Posted in: John Doe

Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly

comments (193)

trackbacks (77)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: [1] 2 »

#1

On July 19th, 2007 at 9:50 am, jrlingreenbay said:

When will the Democrats stand up ( where it counts ) for the average American citizen?

How could anyone logically think that protection of ordinary citizens who honestly & caringly report suspicious activity is a bad thing?

They cry for protection for political whistle-blowers ( when they talk about a Republican administration, of course ), because it feeds their political needs.

This is nothing more than a blatant kow-tow to questionable groups like CAIR and the ACLU. Speaking of which, why isn’t the ACLU up in arms about protecting the diligent free speech of ordinary Americans trying to report what they feel is suspicious activity?

The crickets are deafening.
#2

On July 19th, 2007 at 9:58 am, Pulchritudinous Patriot said:

As I said on Hot Air, I’m raising my children to be politically incorrect, which is hard as they are influenced by school teachers and the union’s agenda, but my girls alos are of the age where Mommy’s word is still good as gold.

Teach the children well.
#3

On July 19th, 2007 at 9:59 am, OneofThem said:

I’m not surprised this bill has bipartisan support; it’s common sense!
#4

On July 19th, 2007 at 9:59 am, Artbyruth said:

I think the Libs want another attack here so that they can play the “blame Bush” game and secure the election in 2008.

Yes, I think they are that sick and desperate.
#5

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:08 am, On-my-soap-box said:

“Democrats are trying to find any technical excuse to keep immunity out of the language of the bill to protect citizens, who in good faith, report suspicious activity to police or law enforcement,”

Compare this to the border patrol agents doing 12 years for shooting an illegal drug smuggler. The drug smuggler was offered immunity to testify in the case. My goodness, talk about backwards.

How can Americans not be offered immunity? If I were a Democrat and even thinking about killing the John Doe amendment, I would be ashamed.
#6

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am, jrlingreenbay said:

They won’t offer immunity to John Q. Public for reporting suspicious activity in an airport, but are willing to offer it to a Government employee who they want to give up the goods on the Gonzales / Attorney shindig….

Like I say - whatever suits their political needs…..

Also: Artbyruth - I don’t know if I’d go as far as saying the Dems WANT another attack on the country - but it sure seems as though they are ready to politicize it 30 seconds after it happens.
#7

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am, ajmontana said:

Soap, go to hot air and read Noam Askew at the top of the page regarding border agents, it might sooth you somewhat.
#8

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am, ajmontana said:

I knew it was going to be a gigantic clusterf*** with the Dems but this is getting ridicules, every day it’s a new piece of garbage we need to throw away.
#9

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:16 am, uhangtight said:

i give up. clearly, lobbying needs to be made illegal or have very strict guidelines in place. we obviously will not get them to vote in term limits, so the best we can do is direct our efforts to the lobbying. a senator or congressman can only be lobbied by a constituent; and if it is a company that company must be headquartered in the jurisdictrion of their constituency. that would leave CAIR out of it, of course the ACLU is in every large city, but at least it would begin to limit their efforts.
#10

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:21 am, Rick Moran said:

The common sense nature of this amendment is so obvious, you wonder about the reasons for trying to kill it.

I think we can conclude that the Democrats will bend over backward not to anger CAIR - probably because they call themselves a “civil rights” group - which may be either the funniest or the saddest commentary on how liberals use language to obfuscate the truth. CAIR has good relations with the black community activists who constantly point up America’s short comings about race.

Maybe the mystery is who they think they’re kidding…
#11

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:27 am, On-my-soap-box said:

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:13 am, ajmontana said:
Soap, go to hot air and read Noam Askew at the top of the page regarding border agents, it might sooth you somewhat.

Thanks for the tip. If it is in headlines, it has cycled out. Link?

There are a bunch of us who will be soothed when these guys are released.

I fly international a lot and I WILL report suspicious behavior in a second. I have no money anyhow so the only thing I have to lose is my life!
#12

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:31 am, ajmontana said:

#10 in headlines. hot air, fienstien / cronin
#13

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:32 am, ajmontana said:

opps,
cornyn
#14

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:33 am, DesertLover said:

Earlier this week posting about the Durbin Dream Act I said the following:

WE THE PEOPLE NEED TO PUSH FOR A NEW AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION …

No amendment shall be attached to any bill or proposed law that does not relate to the subject of the bill or law being offered for consideration

I think that should also help eliminate PORK BARREL SPENDING … since none of those ever have anything to do with the bill they are attached to …

Now it seems that the Dems are going to try to use the fact that the King Amendment was relating to Homeland Security but was attached to a Railroad Bill …

Help Me Here Michelle and all …

1. If they can do that … how come we have never heard of it being done before, especially on something of this magnitude?

2. Wouldn’t my suggestion prevent exactly this kind of opportunity to subvert an issue because it would be prevented from occurring?

Everyone … please forgive my reposting this but it seems to be exactly what I was talking about.
#15

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:35 am, Speakup said:

Trial lawyers, doing the underhanded bidding that the Democrats don’t want to be associated with, making huge dollars doing it and spending huge dollars to keep it that way.

When law enforcement is taken away from private entities and placed back with the Government the desecration of our liberties will cease.

The proper remedy is not always in court but the trial lawyers association would have us believe otherwise.
#16

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:37 am, ajmontana said:

But DesertLover, a Bill like that make’s to much sense……
#17

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:40 am, DesertLover said:

uhangtight in #10

I agree with the term limits and have stated that before on here …

Does anyone know if we have the ability at the national level to get something on the ballot like we have at the local level through petitioning, and such?

If so, how can we start a movement to get a vote by the people on term limits?
#18

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:43 am, DesertLover said:

ajmontana

Duh … guess I was having one of my daughter’s “brain farts” as she calls them … how totally dumb of me to try to make any sense out of this …

Please forgive me all … ROFLMAO
#19

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:47 am, ajmontana said:

lol
#20

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:49 am, jrlingreenbay said:

DesertLover - I hesitated posting a comment furthering the discussion on term limits ( thought it was going to go off-topic ) - but since it’s already in the discussion:

I agree with you 100% - and my comment was going to be a question like yours - how can we, as citizens, get an amendment for term limits passed? It is obviously something that all the politicians would find against their well-being. But there MUST be some way we can do it.

There are some very good politicians out there who would fall to this sword, but this idea of lifetime political work such as Kennedy, Byrd, etc…. gives them too much power.

We need fresh ideas on a regular basis, whether it be 6 years, 8 years, or whatever.

No term limits leads to arrogance and a lack of will to do what is right for, and according to the will of, the citizens.
#21

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:53 am, DesertLover said:

jrlingreenbay in #20

Well said … wasn’t meaning to get off topic either just responding to the other post …

I have always said 2 terms in Senate or 4 terms in the House and you cannot run for that office again … period … to me that is “citizen representation” … want to stay in politics … have to keep changing the office you are running for on a regular basis …

But unless the people can make it happen we are barking at the moon …
#22

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am, DesertLover said:

Getting back on subject … is CAIR on the terrorist supporter lists?
#23

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:57 am, katieanne said:

Democrats not only don’t support secure borders, anti-terrorism laws and taking care of American security, now they are actually helping terrorists by trying to stifle Americans who come forward with information to keep us all safe. What is in the Democrat’s brains? Do they actually want our country destroyed? Do they care about US citizens at all?
#24

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am, On-my-soap-box said:

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am, DesertLover said:
Getting back on subject … is CAIR on the terrorist supporter lists?

Not according to Gerald-ino.
#25

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:59 am, ajmontana said:

What is in the Democrat’s brains?

Answer: Pork
#26

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:05 am, jrlingreenbay said:

“On July 19th, 2007 at 10:55 am, DesertLover said: Getting back on subject … is CAIR on the terrorist supporter lists? ”

According to this article - they’ve been named as an ‘unindicted co-conspirator’:

http://www.nysun.com/article/55778
#27

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:06 am, DesertLover said:

katieanne in #23

Democrats brains are one track … only problem is that the brain train is always running off the track …

They don’t want the country destroyed … they want it turned into the next Socialist France ..

They care about US citizens a lot … or is that they care about taking a lot of the US citizens money under their control?

Remember … they think they can talk their way out of everything in the mold of Bill and Hill … terrorists are always oging to be reasonable and accomodating at the peace conferences … or was that a surrender conference?

Does boggle the minds of all of the rest of us for sure …
#28

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:09 am, DesertLover said:

On-my-soap-box in #24

Is that Geraldo’s list or the JOD?

ajmontana in #25

I assume that is “shredded pork” for BBQ

jrlingreenbay in #26

Thanks for the link and info
#29

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:11 am, TheCityTroll said:

This is just a glaring example of why the left can’t be trusted with our security.
#30

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:15 am, MrFreeman07 said:

I just wonder what one of those dems would do if, while on an airplane, they saw some Arabic looking…um…”gentlemen” engaging in suspicious activities?
#31

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:17 am, DesertLover said:

finger-check in my #28 … JOD should be DOJ … sorry about that … need more caffeine …
#32

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:18 am, Wise Old Do0d said:

I was able to get through to Speaker Pelosi’s office on the first try and the young woman answering stopped me in mid-sentence to ask, “You’re calling to support the King Amendment?” I replied yes, she said, “I”ll be sure to let her know! Have a nice day!” I hope that is a sign that they are getting lots of calls and can take the clue.
#33

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am, DesertLover said:

Wise Old Do0d

Mirrors my phone call except I didn’t get through on the first try …
#34

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:22 am, gayle said:

Makes one wonder - can it get any worse than it is?

What’s their approval rating? 14%?

Obviously most Demoncraps do not care about anything except undoing the Republican party at the enormous expense of human lives.

How arrogant they are and it would be my hope that they could be impeached for such neglect of their responsibility to country FIRST.

I say we need to address that privilege - to demand impeachment of incompetent baffoons who endanger our country with such treachery and deceit.

How? I do not know but I am sure there is a way. Maybe Ann Coulter could assist in this endeavor.
#35

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am, jrlingreenbay said:

MrFreeman07 in #30:

Regarding your scenario of a Dem on a plane seeing an Arab ‘gentleman’ doing something suspicious….

It would be assumed that it was a new flight crew personnel on their private jet getting them a drink.
#36

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:23 am, DarkKnight said:

I just wonder what one of those dems would do if, while on an airplane, they saw some Arabic looking…um…”gentlemen” engaging in suspicious activities?

Fair question. But how do you protect Arabic people in general from getting on a plane and instantaneously being reported as “suspicious” to authorities by a random stranger who doesn’t trust “those type of people” on the same plane as them? (I have heard this quote exactly.) This is the racial profiling that is trying to be protected against.

It is a fine line.
#37

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:26 am, DesertLover said:

MrFreeman07

I think the everday American citizen would do exactly what they shold and report what was going on … regardless of their political affiliation …

The problem is the ones in DC making these idiotic decisions don’t usually fly on the same commercial flights that the rest of us do … the senior Congressional leadership mostly takes military flights that we all get to pay for with our taxes … so they would never be in the position of making that decision like the rest of us …
#38

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am, katieanne said:

I called Nancy to let her know I supported the King Amendment. I wonder if it she really cares, no matter how many calls she gets. If she doesn’t support protecting loyal Americans, will it make a difference? However, I will still make calls and give my 2 cents. I at least feel like I am doing something.

I just got a call from national Republicans wanting money. Once again, I said no more money until the Republicans start acting like Republicans and stop being wimps when fighting the Democrats. He said he’s pass my comments on, but I wonder if they are listening to all of us. I seriously doubt it. They’ll be sorry if they don’t shape up.
#39

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:27 am, jrlingreenbay said:

Dark Knight - you have a point.

However, I’m guessing that any suspicious activity would be investigated, and those that were of the type of, “He just doesn’t look right” would be most likely dismissed.

If someone is actually acting in a suspicious manner, more than likely one passenger would speak first to another or draw attention to the airline staff and it would be witnessed.

I’m more concerned with the airline staff or TSA idiot who ‘writes it off’ as bigotry rather than investigating it.
#40

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:28 am, ctmom said:

I got through the speakers office first try. Staffer was very polite. I said “I am calling to let the Speaker know how I feel about the King ammendment”. She said “thank you for you call, I’ll let her know”. I said “I haven’t told you how I feel about it. I think it should be kept in the bill” Again, she said “thank you, I’ll let her know”.

More calls are needed.
#41

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:28 am, aqvik said:

Done and done.
#42

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:29 am, sharinlite said:

I just called Pelosi’s office i DC and her staffer was rude “we’re getting lots of calls so I don’t have time, I’ll put you on the comment line”…or, Siberia! These people are truly a joke!
#43

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:32 am, DesertLover said:

sharinlite

Sounds like we are already having an effect on the staff at least … guess those of us that called early got in before the frustration factor hit the staff … keep it up everyone … good job
#44

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am, DarkKnight said:

However, I’m guessing that any suspicious activity would be investigated, and those that were of the type of, “He just doesn’t look right” would be most likely dismissed.

That is what I am thinking may not happen because I think authorities would rather ask the person some questions and inconvienence them a little bit, rather than people later complaining their complaints weren’t acted on.

It’s sad because you do have national security questions on one hand, and liberty questions on another. People shouldn’t have to be inconvienenced and pulled aside based on suspicions, while a person who has some prejudices against “them A—s” (again, heard that quote before) get away scott-free.
#45

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:36 am, DarkKnight said:

Again… a fine line.
#46

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:38 am, Pat said:

These pathetic lawmakers sound shocked that the public is actually paying attention to their doings! And here they thought they were working for the lobbyists…

It’s another case of politics as opposition: designed to weaken our institutions not improve them. The Dems are lost in the woods.
#47

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:41 am, jrlingreenbay said:

All very good points, DarkKnight….

I am still of the belief though, as politically incorrect as it is, that it’s better to racially profile ( using factual leads / info ) than inconvenience everyone.

Case in point: A family trip several years ago - caucasion family with 2 white males, 30’s, 1 white female, 30’s, 2 elderly white females, 70’s, 2 white female children, ages 9 & 7.

Did I get extra checking? No.
Did my sister’s boyfriend? No.

Who got asked to take off their shoes and socks?

My daughter and my neice, ages 9 & 7, and my mother, age 75.

I know there’s no way to predict WHO may be carrying something…but sometimes the obvious is just that - obvious.
#48

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:48 am, Heartland Perspective said:

I swear it’s almost getting to be a daily occurrence that we have to call out our congressmen to do the right thing or God knows what kind of country this is going to become. Good thing I have an unlimited long distance plan.
#49

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:54 am, katieanne said:

Keeping our liberties often entails being inconvenienced. We are driving more because we don’t want to deal with the hassles of flying, but that’s our choice. People need to be protected.

Dems always claim their are for the average American yet time and time again, they show that is just propaganda. Increasing taxes, failure to protect rights of Americans, etc., is not taking care of the average American. It’s hurting them.

Dems have got to take their heads out of the sand and wake up to the threats to the US, be it border security or watching out for suspicious behavior. now is not the time to cave in to CAIR
#50

On July 19th, 2007 at 12:01 pm, DesertLover said:

jrlingreenbay

I can relate to what you are saying … I have some pins in my body thanks to the Nam war … so I get to have some extra attention every time I get on a plane …

I agree that in a family group the kids and elderly are not likely to be dangerous … unless they fit our terrorist family profile … and yes I said profile … Israel does it … why can’t we …

The problem is that all enemies adjust … and we already know that they are trying to recruit non-middle eastern looking people to conduct attacks … so that will be coming at some point … but the preponderance of attacks will still be done by those that fit the public image of a terrorist … not by kids and grandparents …

I feel we need a 2 or more tiered security system at the airports …
entering the airport grounds or at least the terminals … and then the access to the gate areas …

This would also allow for more video monitoring of people within the terminal area for suspicious activity before they ever got to the gate security checks …
#51

On July 19th, 2007 at 12:04 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

I’m not sure exactly what it will mean in the long run, however, given the response from the public on Immigration and the growing # of times people are calling in to congress on issues like this, here’s my thought:

This Democratic-led congress, if they continue to pursue legislature that is against the will of the mainstream - will never accomplish anything worthwhile.

While this is probably not big news, it will continue until our calls and letters and faxes and emails are seen as the true weather vane ( not the lobbyists ), and not simply nuisance calls from the nut-root opposition.

Whether the voters will see the truth in this ( that they are only interested in passing laws that suit their political needs ) or whether the Dems will be able to spin this as ‘Republican obstruction’, we’ll have to wait and see.

We’ve already seen how they spun the immigration defeat as obstructionism, ignorance or bigotry ( when it was the will of the people that won out in the end. )
#52

On July 19th, 2007 at 12:06 pm, rightisright said:

#5, most dems have no shame, can’t get what isn’t there. The dems as most polliticians put themselves and their party ahead of what’s good for the country.
#53

On July 19th, 2007 at 12:50 pm, puhiawa said:

The fact that Democrats want to kill this is very disturbing. It means that rather than do a simple common sense act recommended by all the experts, Democrats want Americans to cower to acting-out Muslims and sacrifice themselves and their children rather than report the same. It appears that some Democrats actually wish another air disaster so that they can embarrass the Bush administration.
#54

On July 19th, 2007 at 12:55 pm, johnv40 said:

Perhaps the Democratic party should be renamed the Selfish Underminer party. The jackass symbol has never been more appropriate.
#55

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pm, avintaquin said:

From the McCarthy quote:

Failing to report suspicious behavior could end up costing thousands of lives — and while the “flying imams” don’t seem to understand this, the American people do.

I have to ask…Do these imams really not “seem to understand this”? Or do they really understand it. Maybe they are taking a page right out of Sun Tzu and attacking a weak spot…I.E. our propensity to beat our selves up in an effort to not appear bigoted. If I recall the story right it appeared that these men made a point out of behaving overtly “Islamic”. Maybe it was a mission to “prepare” us.
This is another reason why this issue is so critical. Evil people will use your own charitable nature against you. We have to be on our guard even if it does “offend” the “tender feelings” of some.
Or am I just seeing spooks in the bushes?
#56

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:06 pm, anne said:

I just called the Speaker’s office and had no trouble getting through.

I left a respectful message on the “personal message line” which I’m sure gets dumped before anyone even listens to the messages - but I tried.
#57

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:09 pm, anne said:

Another thought…are they just so insulated and disconnected that they don’t understand the reason the congressional approval rating is 14%?

It really isn’t a mystery with their behavior on immigration and stunts like this.
#58

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:23 pm, Insomniac said:

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:04 pm, avintaquin said:

From the McCarthy quote:

Or am I just seeing spooks in the bushes?

No, I think you’ve it the nail right on the head. They’re exploiting our self-flagellating tendencies, and using our collective paranoia about “bigotry” and “phobias” and “discrimination” against us. It’s psyops to make us feel guilty about opposing Islamism and being vigilant towards terrorism. You create enough guilt, and eventually you stop doing it — which is their goal.
#59

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:24 pm, Insomniac said:

“hit” not “it” PIMF
#60

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:38 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

avintaquin # 55:

I think the Imams, and those similar, including the enemy forces in Iraq, understand our system all too well.

We’ve become a society of sound-bites, film clips and over-sensitivity.

Referring to the enemy forces in Iraq - our MSM reports on a bomb explosion here, an attack there, an IED blast here. Most of these attacks are upon the Iraqi people, NOT our military forces. But it isn’t portrayed as such. These insurgent attacks on Iraqi citizens are overshadowed by the Political side of this war and blame is shifted back to a ‘failed policy’ or something else that is ‘our fault’.

They can act as they wish, on the battlefield or in our airports, and not get any blame for their own actions.
#61

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:41 pm, DesertLover said:

anne in #56

Earlier most of us were actually talking to someone not having to leave voice messages … so sounds like they have quit answering the published phone numbers …
#62

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:42 pm, DesertLover said:

jrlingreenbay in #60

Well said
#63

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:46 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

I can’t believe it. Every day it’s some other new horrible thing we have to fight like hell against. Not just ideological stuff - terrible, unimaginable stuff, like giving a free pass to illegal alien criminals, or setting a deadline to surrender to murderous gangster thugs who have preached for our destruction and acted accordingly and now turning our definitions of right and wrong again on their heads by opening the door to punish those who would help the good guys.

On a personal note, and probably an inappropriate one, I have always been passionate, but now I’m getting pissed off. We have finally seen what happens when fantasy-based liberals get control of Congress - and the result is simply horrible.
#64

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:50 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Addendum: yes, we have had liberals in control of congress before, but not like this insane, looney-land bunch. Add their determination to their impossible-to-reconcile-with-reality ideology, and we have a horrible, dangerous chemistry in Congress right now.
#65

On July 19th, 2007 at 1:51 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

Conservative Cat:

I agree with you 100%….but take a breath before your head explodes….

You sound like one angry kitty…and as a cat-owner 3X over….I know that’s not pretty….
#66

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:01 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

It is not that the democrats deliberately wants to destroy America. It is that they are beholden to fringe groups, such as the trial lawyers. Litigation Nation made John Edwards and his friends rich, and at some point the madness has to stop. The way to defeat the madness is to hire strict constructionist judges, which means electing republican Presidents who actually govern as conservatives.

Until San Francisco gets bombed (which I hope never happens), the left will not understand how much damage they are doing by allowing CAIR to manipulate our own legal system against us.

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/06/30/until-san-francisco-gets-bombed-they-will-not-understand-anything/

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2007/04/24/liberals-are-rightjust-not-about-anything-that-matters/

eric
#67

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:02 pm, DesertLover said:

Mr_Conservative_Cat in #63

I feel your pain … but rather than having you pissed off I would like tomeone to tell me what it is going to take to piss off these idiot DEMO-CRAPS to the point they will understand what is going on in this world … guess until one of them is actually directly affected by something terrorist things will not change …
#68

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm, DesertLover said:

tomeone = someone … fat fingers
#69

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:03 pm, MrFreeman07 said:

I guess I had a momentary lapse of reason when I assumed that a democratic politician would actually associate with the “common folk” on a commercial flight. I sincerely apologize for that.
#70

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:06 pm, calamityville said:

One more reason why democrats HAVE TO BE VANQUISHED.
#71

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:07 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

BlackTiger #66: Even a terrorist act in a city like San Francisco would do nothing more than create a wave of “Blame Bush” amongst this liberal crowd.

The only thing that would ever possibly do something like that is, as DesertLover states, one of them is directly affected by something of a terroristic nature.

I think back to that movie, “Executive Decision” - where the terrorists seize the aircraft and the Senator on board uses it as a political stunt to “negotiate” and become a hero. Of course he’s killed for his trouble, but that is exactly the mentality, so it seems, of these Democrats & liberals. Not until they have a gun to their head, or a masked enemy in their home will they ever seem to understand the true danger to this society.
#72

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:13 pm, Cowboy said:

This is just more proof that democrats aide and abett terrorist. democrats can’t be trusted with the defense of the United States.
#73

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm, Brian72 said:

I would like to hearby officially report the leadership of the Democrat Party to the Department of Homeland Security, for engaging in activities that result in a greater risk of a successful terrorist attack on the United States. I sure hope they don’t sue me.
#74

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:15 pm, DesertLover said:

jrlingreenbay in #71

Thanks for the “Executive Decision” analogy … fits in perfectly …
#75

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:18 pm, MikeB said:

I guess I must be the one to oppose this useless legislation.

There is no evidence that passing the “John Doe” law will save “thousands of lives” or even one.

Reporting suspecious activities is already protected. The problem is determining what is “good faith.” If I reported suspecious behavior and was sued I would present my evidence that I was acting in good faith and the suit would be thrown out. If I could not show good faith, the plaintiff may win a judgment against me. How does this law change that?
#76

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:19 pm, DesertLover said:

Just had a crazy thought …

Some of you will remember our “lawyer” poster yesterday that gave us the definition of an “attractive nuisance” for lawsuits …

Can we file a class action lawsuit for ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE against the DEMO-CRAPS in Congress for failing to take actions to protect us?

Based on the 5 points given yesterday I think this qualifies.

LOL
#77

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:23 pm, MikeB said:

Following up to what I said, this “John Doe” law is an example of doing something symbolic instead of actually doing anything. As all of you should know, anyone can file papers in court and sue someone.
#78

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:27 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

MikeB:

As I understand it, and anyone who knows differently, please correct me:

The John Doe legislation would take away the ability for someone to sue a “tipster” who reported suspicious activity if the person they are reporting is not charged.

While what you say is true - that if the report was done in good faith ( as in the Flying Imam case, by all reports ), the court would throw it out anyway….
The fact remains that the innocent tipster would incur great legal expenses in defending themselves against a frivolous lawsuit.

This legislation would protect those diligent and observant citizens who are doing their duty by being observant and cautious.
#79

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:31 pm, MikeB said:

But how would it actually work? You cannot enjoin someone from going to a courthouse with a summons and complaint and filing it and serving it. If sued, you can make a motion to dismiss because you acted in good faith (you’re still incurring the same fees). So, again, I ask what would this law do?
#80

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:37 pm, DesertLover said:

jrlingreenbay in #78

If I may add to your description …

The reporting is to “authorities” … which can mean Flight Crew, Gate Agents, TSA Officers, Local Police, etc.

This simply means that the situation will be checked out … doesn’t mean they will find anything … and I trust the American public enough to not think such a report would always be just a “single” person reporting it … in the “Flying Imams” case there were numerous passengers that voiced concern …

Can’t guarantee that would always be the case … but suspect it would be more than one person concerned if something was going on that was suspicious in nature …

This simply means in this specific situation there is no option to file a lawsuit afterwards … it is still up to the authorities to get an explanation regarding the activity and determine whether or not there is reason for concern …
#81

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:41 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

MikeB:

I’m not an attorney - so I don’t know the legalities of all this. It just seems, to me, to be common sense that you shouldn’t be able to sue someone for reporting suspicious activity. And ACTIVITY, I think, is the key word.

I don’t believe it exempts those who would report someone based on their ethnicity or racial make-up just for being, say, “Arabic”. But for someone who reports the actions of those Imams on the airplane, again, the keyword being actions - any lawsuit wouldn’t reach that stage due to this law.

People who disagree with this law are only doing so based upon, in my opinion, the underlying recent acts of Muslims which have been highlighted. Therefore, they equate this to ‘racial profiling’ which it is not.

If I see someone in a parking lot, acting suspicious around my car and I call the cops - and it turns out this guy is just looking for his car, should he be able to sue me? That’s ridiculous. Same principle here with the case of the Imams. Other passengers simply reported suspicious activity. What is the harm in that?
#82

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:42 pm, MikeB said:

Yes, but as I said before, reporting something to a law enforcement official is already protected speech, that is 100% immmunity from civil suits. I cannot be sued if I said say “MM stole my wallet.” I may be prosectued for perjury but MM could not sue me.
#83

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:52 pm, zorro said:

Michelle, Rush is talking about this issue now. I called Nancy Pelosi at lunch, couldn’t get through…
#84

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:55 pm, DesertLover said:

zorro in #83

Tha is actually good to hear … means we have gone from early on getting right through to Bela Lugosi Pelosi’s office to having to make several calls to only getting voice mail to your not getting through …

Hopefully this means we are making our point by our calls …
#85

On July 19th, 2007 at 2:57 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

The bill would provide civil immunity in American courts for citizens who, acting in good faith, report threats to our transportation systems to appropriate law-enforcement and transportation-system officials, without fear of being sued. The bill would not protect individuals who knowingly make false statements.

The fact is that in normal circumstance, if, say, you or I were mistakenly reported for something we may have done which SEEMED suspicious, we probably wouldn’t sue someone for it. We’d laugh it off and go on our way.

The fear is that these lawsuits by Islamic groups are a means to deter reporting of suspicious activity in order to open up our vulnerabilities.

If they are allowed to sue someone who reports their suspicious activity, over and over again, eventually people will begin to second-guess whether or not to report something because of a fear of legal action.

By eliminating that possibility completely ( as this bill would do ), that fear of conscientious reporting is never allowed to be created.
#86

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:00 pm, otcconan said:

Sent my email to Kay Bailey Hutchison.

Yah I know she’s a Senator, but she’s more likely to listen to me than my Congressman, who is a flaming Lib.
#87

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:02 pm, Brian72 said:

You seem to want to empower the CAIR types to send the message to the American traveling public that if they report some supicious behavior that they will wind up in court, therefore sending a chill over the passengers, who have been told that their eyes are a great network for stopping terror attacks, as we learned with Flight 93.

Protecting whistleblowers from retaliation is what this amounts to. If it’s symbolic then that’s good. Put all these Congressmen on the record as to how they feel about this message to the American public, that they are a critical part of the defense of our country.

Our Congress has been engaged in all sorts of meaningless symbolism trying to undermine our troops in the field for 7 months straight now, so a little positive symbolism now wouldn’t hurt anyone, would it?

The only thing hurt by this bill is
CAIR’s silencing through lawsuits strategy, and that needs to be hurt. Don’t you think so?
#88

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:06 pm, Bill DeFelice said:

To report suspicious activity is being vigil.It is every patriotic,law-abiding American’s duty.
To hinder such duty,that political party is being treasonist.What do you expect from the commie-puke/al-Qeada loving slug democRATS.
#89

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:07 pm, Brian72 said:

Removing this provision behind closed doors is more of the same from these people, just like shamnesty.

Why not have a wide open up-or-down vote on this provision? Because the Democrats know they would lose, and be hammered for pulling this out. So they do it in a sneaky fashion, hoping none will notice. Too late, Michelle is on it. So is Rush.

Those in Congress who want to appease the CAIR agenda in secret should be exposed, and roasted in public.
#90

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm, puhiawa said:

Disgraceful. The Democrats have degenerated into a party of loons, as opposed to the GOP which has merely degenerated.
#91

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:11 pm, Brian72 said:

Now Sean Hannity is on it too

Can you believe we even have to debate this?

I agree. totally.
#92

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:21 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

Speaking of lawsuits….

A judge just threw out Valerie Plame’s lawsuit against the administration.

My day just got a bit brighter…
#93

On July 19th, 2007 at 3:45 pm, Brian72 said:

Speaking or courtroom shenanigans for political agendas……….
#94

On July 19th, 2007 at 4:06 pm, blacktygrrrr said:

I am thrilled about Valerie Plame as well, but the person who leaked her identity should go to prison.

“Joe Wilson, you’re under arrest.”

eric

http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
#95

On July 19th, 2007 at 4:09 pm, feralcat said:

In case no one has posted this.

Debbie Schlussel: USAir Flt. 300 Passenger Pauline Klemmer Tells the Real
Story on the Flying Imams
#96

On July 19th, 2007 at 4:15 pm, feralcat said:

blacktygrrrr said:

I am thrilled about Valerie Plame as well, but the person who leaked her identity should go to prison.

“Joe Wilson, you’re under arrest.”

There’s a woman who leads a life of leisure.
To everyone she meets she says Hi Stranger
With every move she makes, another photo he takes.
Odds are he won’t preen again until tomorrow.

Secret Agent Girl. Secret Agent Girl.
They’ve given you a husband and taken way his brain.

Beware of prisy faces that you find.
A prisy face may hide an evil mind.
Ooh be careful who you marry, or he’ll give you away.
Odds are he won’t preen again until tomorrow.

Secret Agent Girl. Secret Agent Girl.
They’ve given you a husband and taken way his brain.
#97

On July 19th, 2007 at 4:51 pm, jrlingreenbay said:

FeralCat - thanks for the link

Great piece, I hadn’t read the whole thing before.

Very very enlightening and a perfect reason for diligence and this legislation.
#98

On July 19th, 2007 at 4:52 pm, gayle said:

I may have to SUE THE DEMONCRAP PARTY.

WHY? Emotional damage to my well-being.

I will have to enter an anger management center to deal with another 2 years of this crap.

It’s THEIR FAULT.
#99

On July 19th, 2007 at 5:12 pm, DesertLover said:

gayle in#98

You are welcome to join my “attractive nuisance” lawsuit I referenced in #76
#100

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:13 pm, John Ansell said:

Dems side with the enemy again. Soft on Terror as much as they are soft on crime. Long live tookie….oh wait…he’s had his journey to the gurney. My bad.