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

Regular View

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

« Older Comments

Newer Comments »

#106666

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.
#106668

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?
#106672

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.
#106673

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.
#106675

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.
#106676

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.
#106679

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…
#106686

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

Speaking or courtroom shenanigans for political agendas……….
#106694

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
#106696

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
#106700

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.
#106724

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.
#106725

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.
#106741

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
#106806

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.
#106807

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:14 pm, IrishEi said:

Rep. Pet King was cautiously optimistic around 5pm this afternoon. He mentioned that the Dems were getting a lot of heated phone calls, and he thought that was helping. So, it sounds like people tried; sadly, it was probably only Republicans calling.
#106808

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:15 pm, DesertLover said:

CAIR wins another one … DEMO-CRAPS SUCK
#106809

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:17 pm, John Ansell said:

I agree with #102. Time to look into all the money CAIR paid to get this killed.
#106810

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pm, IrishEi said:

Pete King was just on Mark Levin’s radio show. He says we have to keep the pressure on, particularly on these three people:

Pelosi, Reid, and Van Hollen
#106811

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:20 pm, NeoConNews said:

“Failed to include”? That’s nice packaging.
#106815

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:34 pm, IrishEi said:

Here’s the contact info:

Pelosi:
Office: 202-225-4965
Fax: 202-225-8259
Email: sf.nancy@mail.house.gov

Van Hollen:
Office: 202-225-5341
Fax: 202-225-0375
Email: http://vanhollen.house.gov/HoR/MD08/Contact+Information/Web+Contact/

Reid:
Office: 202-224-3542
Fax: 202-224-7327
Email: http://reid.senate.gov/contact/email_form.cfm
#106816

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:35 pm, Boomer said:

Sorry to see we lost this round now on to round 2 in the Senate. Time to write Crapo and Craig (he may not get it on immigration, but he is strong on the war effort and the threat of Islamist).
#106818

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:38 pm, nbarry said:

#66 blacktygrrrr got it right. The Dems had no choice but to kill it. The loss of business to their litigating shyster donors would cause a significant drop in campaign contibutions.
#106820

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:39 pm, gayle said:

Why doesn’t Mark Levin appear often on FOX NEWS?

I just adore this man!!!!!!!!

Sorry to get off topic, but he’s brilliant and to the point.
#106823

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:42 pm, gayle said:

Do you feel like we have to babysit Democrats?

They are paid royally to get the job done and from my observations, all I see them do is have sleepovers.
#106828

On July 19th, 2007 at 7:51 pm, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

Mike B:

“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.”

I’m not a lawyer but this is basic: if it was untrue, she could sue you for slander and/or libel, depending on in what medium you made your statement. And if it could proved that you likely did it for malicious reasons (for instance, if you were a determined hard-left poster who has demonstrated distain for Michelle and her “followers” as you have done so many times here) the amount won by Michelle against you for restitution and damages could be quite large a large sum indeed by any standard.

If someone can make it seem as though someone else was reporting them for prejudiced reasons, the same result could wind up being manifest, whether the person who hypothetically stole the wallet committed the crime or not. That is what this is all about. The amendment is about allowing people to function reasonably out of concern for the rule of law, not be left quaking in their boots for fear of some politically correct lawsuit against them from some scummy lawyer or the ACLU, which is a collection of scummy lawyers.

A little information is a dangerous thing. Check your facts. It seems silly to say this to a pro-active liberal because people who check their facts usually wind up being conservative, but give it the old college try and check your facts anyway, Mike.
#106830

On July 19th, 2007 at 8:00 pm, gippergirl said:

sounds like “aid and comfort to the enemy” to me…AND there are more than 2 witnesses to the same overt acts…
#106838

On July 19th, 2007 at 8:14 pm, feralcat said:

gippergirl – “sounds like “aid and comfort to the enemy” to me…AND there are more than 2 witnesses to the same overt acts…”

There is no such thing as treason, or being prosecuted for it anyway, in
America anymore.

Not since Jane Fonda sat on that North Vietnamese gun.
#106840

On July 19th, 2007 at 8:18 pm, gayle said:

FeralCat, LOL!
#106842

On July 19th, 2007 at 8:21 pm, feralcat said:

The worshipers at the alter of the God of Political Correctness must give frequent sacrifices to their master.

Nothing new, move along.
#106850

On July 19th, 2007 at 9:06 pm, NeoConNews said:

Ah yes, voted down because it doesn’t have anything to do with education. If the kids get blown up because someone was too scared to report the slightly suspicious thing they saw, wouldn’t that directly affect their education?
#106858

On July 19th, 2007 at 9:41 pm, JWS said:

How, in the name of God could anyone vote against this? Even a scared libtard senator would notify the flight crew if they saw these muslim idiots acting like…well…muslim idiots. Who the hell are they pleasing here? The few muslims in our great country who would happily cut off their heads too? This is officially out of control.
#106863

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:01 pm, gippergirl said:

feralcat you make a good point, but my history is a little fuzzy…did cronkite begin his long and illustrious career w/cbs before or after jane came out as commie?
#106868

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:20 pm, MichaelO said:

If I see suspicious package or people near a Democrat’s office, I surely wouldn’t report it. That’s their constituency!

Otherwise, I’m reporting it. Lawyers I’ll live with; terrorism I can’t.
#106870

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:23 pm, katieanne said:

Yet another new low for Democrats. I would love to see a mike shoved in the face of these Dems and have them asked to explain why they won’t protect concerned citizens.

I was glad to see this on Hannity and Colmes. Maybe O’Reilly will cover it tomorrow.

I hope everyone keeps calling.
#106872

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:29 pm, DesertLover said:

OK … here we go … for those of you that haven’t read this whole thread … take the time to check out my #14 from this morning … it really does apply to this method the DEMO-CRAPS used to pull this one off …

If this “tactic” of removing something from a bill is legally allowed then why can’t we ever remove the “PORK BARREL SPENDING” they attach to everything … those amendments never have anything to do with the bills involved …

I have been researching “Robert’s Rules of Order” … thus far haven’t found a mention of this particular procedure … nor have I found anything that says there has to be a limit to the number of amendments that can be attached …

Since the DEMO-CRAPS said they were only allowing a finite number of amendments to this bill … where’s their basis in the “Rules of Order” …

Seems we are making up the rules as we go along to satisfy the DEMO-CRAP need of the moment …

Those interested can find the full reference at:

http://www.rulesonline.com/
#106875

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:40 pm, greenfairie said:

The Dhimmicrats have screwed us again, bowing to their new masters at CAIR.
#106876

On July 19th, 2007 at 10:44 pm, DesertLover said:

greenfairie in #122

agreed … the only positive I see for the future is putting Bela Lugosi Pelosi in a head to toe Bourqah … won’t have to look at her ever again …
#106884

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:26 pm, Loose Cannon said:

The substance of the amendment will become law. It’s just going to take awhile . . . and a whole lot of dead Americans.
#106886

On July 19th, 2007 at 11:37 pm, gippergirl said:

obviously the dems don’t care about the 3000 innocent Americans who were killed six years ago…
#106894

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:13 am, Speakup said:

Trial lawyers and their liberal enablers win again, they soak us and give up part of the proceeds as bribery/extortion money to keep their symbiotic members of Congress in office.

Just another fantastic example of how liberalism is sucking our blood and de structing the US.
#106898

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:41 am, feralcat said:

Let me see if I have this straight now.

If I see some suspicious activity around DNC headquarters, like something that looks like someone may be planting a bomb, I should keep on walking and keep my mouth shut?

Yup, sounds like that’s what it means.
#106902

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:49 am, Speakup said:

If I see some suspicious activity around DNC headquarters

Why should when you walk by be any different?
#106904

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:58 am, feralcat said:

OK, you probably thought that you got me there.

How about it being suspicious if there is no suspicious activity going on there?

Wouldn’t that be suspicious?
#106905

On July 20th, 2007 at 12:59 am, SirKnob said:

The bull continues, when will people learn, do not elect attorneys.
This is just another fine example of attorney protectionism. They want the lawsuits, keeps them in business, it is not a matter of winning or losing, it is a matter of getting paid. And we, the voters, continue to pay and pay and pay and pay…
#106906

On July 20th, 2007 at 1:05 am, Speakup said:

How about it being suspicious if there is no suspicious activity going on there?

Wouldn’t that be suspicious?

LOL not if it’s another back room deal.

Of course that precludes cigar smoke.
#106919

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:07 am, Mr_Conservative_Cat said:

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 …

If it were only that simple. I honestly think the survivors would love it, or at least jump on it opportunistically. They could cry alligator tears for the dead whose chairmanships they would take over, blame Bush for not doing enough here and too much there and blame the US for “creating the problem by avoiding diplomacy” (like the psychotic murderers who cut off the heads of hostages and parade them on TV in the name of Allah are going to sit down for afternoon tea).

I know I’m a broken record on this, but so much of what we hate in Washington really does lead down the same road: left wing media control. Qualify it, you ask? Okay, a very simple mental exersize: what would public reaction be if this was something the Democrats wanted and the Republicans voted it down? It would be on the front page of ever newspaper and leading the nightly news on all three networks. That isn’t the problem, of course – if Republicans did that then they would deserve to be called out, as we ourselves did here on immigration. The problem is the Democrats are never called on these things by the MSM – and they know it and so they don’t care.

Sound too simple?

It isn’t.

If you knew that a tiny well-informed minority who would never vote for you and you would never associate with made hay about something you wanted to do but everyone else would cover you and you’d likely win next term’s election, would you hestitate to do whatever it was? Not if you believed in it, regardless of the logic.

That’s our country. That’s what’s happening now. And until we can win back some portion of the MSM, we’re in deep trouble. Do you think the likes of Pelosi and Reid could have held their positions of authority 20 years ago? Of course not.

This is why, boys and girls, we should make whatever noise we can. Over and over I try to tell everyone who will or won’t listen to make noise about the Democrats not debating on Fox – snubbing the world’s most-watched news network out of fear. Nobody cares. Until you start making noise where noise matters – like in immigration – we’re basically screwed, because while we now have Fox, the rest of the MSM is tightly woven around the far left’s pink finger.

But there is no outrage about the Dems not debating on Fox, even though that issue is one of the few issues where the right can make decisive inroads back into the MSM – by hammering the left endlessly about it. And make no mistake, until we get back part of the MSM, all our victories, like immigration, will be turned on their heads and spun into anti-conservative propganda in the next election, and we’ll have only Fox to help us, and Fox isn’t enough.

If you’re about to mention talk radio, don’t. Preaching to the converted isn’t enough, either. We have to make inroads, and we have to start making them now.
#106921

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:19 am, WisCon said:

This is absolutely disgusting. Traitors.
#106922

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:19 am, WisCon said:

This is absolutely disgusting. Traitors.
#106923

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:37 am, Ombre Rose said:

When the Dims’ garbage comes home to roost and it is time for them to pay the Piper, it’s going to be too sad for them. For the One Who returns their harvest upon them, filled to overflowing, pressed down, and shaken together, FULL MEASURE – will return to them ONLY WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO OTHERS.
#106926

On July 20th, 2007 at 2:52 am, Ombre Rose said:

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.

****************************

YES, it’s EASY to see why we have to debate this – WHO EVER STOOD UP AND BLOCKED THE DIMS FROM THEIR INSANITY???

“DEBATE” just ENCOURAGES them.

Sometimes if you don’t walk the talk, the talk is meaningless – been that way in America for 50 years. They been walkin’ – we been TALKIN’ – PERIOD.

Patrick Henry – Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!

We need more than a toothless roar.

I ain’t saying what that might be – I don’t think a dumpload of cabbages is it, though.

Maybe a bombardment of the airlines folks?????? I know it ain’t their fault, but with the $$$Billions of govt bailouts for that industry, maybe THEY have the govt ear?????
#106929

On July 20th, 2007 at 4:55 am, feralcat said:

Great comment on this matter that I saw on another web site.

If anyone thinks that we have to wait for millions more Muslims to enter this country before they start exerting substantial influence over the government’s political, social and security policies, they’d better think again.

Just an small, cohesive, concentrated minority of Muslims in a place like Dearborn, Michigan, among others, can exert an influence far beyond anything their numbers would indicate.

Dearborn, for one example, is a Democratic party stronghold, and the National Democratic party organization is going to do whatever it takes to keep it that way. If that means ignoring the Islamic threat to this country, and jeopardizing the lives of American citizens, they’ll do it. The selfish interest’ of elected officials like Keith Ellison, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are all that count. Everything else takes a back seat.

There can be no other explanation for Pelosi’s actions in removing an obvious protection for Americans who report suspicious activities to authorities.

That small, cohesive minority of Muslims are flexing their muscles, and it’s paying big dividends in the halls of Congress.

We desperately need a third part in this country! Period.

- rational
#106936

On July 20th, 2007 at 5:45 am, gayle said:

To me this borders on TREASON.
#106940

On July 20th, 2007 at 6:45 am, jamesgreenidge said:

To hate George Bush so much as to not protect us is just to hate all of us.

James Greenidge
Speechless in Queens NY
#106942

On July 20th, 2007 at 7:13 am, tgillian said:

I just emailed Senator Brown (D-OH) and asked what could compel him to vote against this no-brainer amendment. I can’t agree that these guys are carrying water for the CAIR crowd when there are only about 2000 members in CAIR!
We need to find out what they are REALLY thinking.
#106945

On July 20th, 2007 at 7:25 am, Just A Grunt said:

Fine, I won’t say a word, instead I will just act and take my chances in court. Better to be tried by 12 then carried by 6. I took a vow a long time ago to protect this country against all enemies foreign and domestic. Sure I was wearing a uniform but the vow remains in tact. No American should die because of intimidation or fear.
#106947

On July 20th, 2007 at 7:26 am, DesertLover said:

Investigate the Demo-Cair connection … show me the money and all will become clear …
#106948

On July 20th, 2007 at 7:28 am, DesertLover said:

Just A Grunt in #141

Count this former Marine in on that … I can assure you that if they came to me and indicated they needed me to take up arms again I would not hesitate to do so … even old vets are better than the young wimps in Congress …
#106951

On July 20th, 2007 at 7:39 am, Gabe said:

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.”

This is why you don’t ever want to vote for Democrats no matter how conservative they pretend to be. Their votes here were a big win for terrorism, and its no wonder terrorists support Democrats.
#106959

On July 20th, 2007 at 8:15 am, gayle said:

They have just handed the USA over to the terrorist for their main entree.

Thank you.
#106960

On July 20th, 2007 at 8:28 am, jrlingreenbay said:

TGillian #140:

I agree that it can’t just be CAIR – with such a low # of members…

I think it’s a combination of influences, most likely the strongest being the trial lawyers.

Heaven forbid we take away their bread & butter!

For all the talk from liberals of how GWB has made this country less safe – I’d love to hear their explanation for excluding this piece of legislation.

Oh – and Good Morning to you all!
#106969

On July 20th, 2007 at 8:47 am, Chief RZ said:

This vote exposes the social-democrats as the traitors they are. Politically incorrect and anti-democratic; communists.
#106978

On July 20th, 2007 at 9:03 am, Airforce_5_O said:

The Dems take away one of the best tools we have to sniff out terrorist on the ground; US Citizens.
Why leave yourself exposed to the worst creature prowling our court systems that is the civil lawyer? Why tell what you have seen when you could be sued even if your information may be true?
The Liberal Dems and the Powerful Lawyer lobby have back door us once again.
#106997

On July 20th, 2007 at 9:25 am, jrlingreenbay said:

I urge you all to write or call your Senators / Congressmen about this travesty.

I just sent my emails to Reid and my two state Senators.

Here’s the text of my email, if you want some help getting started:

Senator:

I am writing to you to express my disappointment and disbelief that you, and other members of the Democratic Party, would vote to dismiss S.Amdt. 2340 to S.Amdt. 2327 to H.R. 2669 (College Cost Reduction Act of 2007 ), which would protect common citizens from frivolous lawsuits deriving from their diligent reporting of suspicious activity.

It is the duty and responsibility of every American citizen to be vigilant in this new age of terrorism.

I find it completely irresponsible of you and your colleagues to disregard the best interest of your constituents and this country’s security by continuing to allow baseless litigation upon the citizenry of this nation from persons or groups of questionable character and motive such as CAIR and the ACLU.

Can you honestly state that your vote protects American citizens? Can you, in good faith, proclaim that you are looking out for the best interests of American individuals and families when you leave them open to ridiculous accusations of bigotry, racism, libel or slander when their intention is to be honest, vigilant citizens of a society under attack from radical elements?

It is clear that you, and your fellow Democrats in Congress, are deserving of your 14% approval rating.