June 4-6, 2007
Jun 04 02:42 Most Open Congress In History Is History Jun 04 12:58 Most Ethical Congress In History Is History Jun 04 21:57 Democrats to Americans: If You Report Suspicious Behavior, You'd Better Get a Lawyer Jun 05 03:17 McCain Kisses Presidential Ambitions Goodbye Jun 05 09:08 Pelosi, Murtha & Obey: The Axis of Earmarks? Jun 05 09:36 Thompson's Speech Jun 05 16:48 The Rehabilitation of Basim Elkarra Jun 06 12:03 Compromised Immigration Bill On Rocks? Jun 06 13:00 Democrats Not Serious About Airport Security
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006
Most Open Congress In History Is History
That's the only conclusion you can reach after reading this article. Of course, it doesn't come as a surprise after writing about it here. Here's a refresher on what I said then:
House Appropriations Committee Chairman David Obey first skirted the new rules by claiming no earmarks were contained in the supplemental appropriations. Last week, he decreed that henceforth, earmarks in his bills would not be revealed until a measure passes both the House and Senate.Now it's official:
Democrats are sidestepping rules approved their first day in power in January to clearly identify "earmarks'' - lawmakers' requests for specific projects and contracts for their states - in documents that accompany spending bills.In other words, David Obey has taken it upon himself to unilaterally declare the House rules that he voted for as irrelevant. That's the embodiment of audacity. Who made him king? That type of imperiousness won't ingratiate his party with voters. That type of hubris is the type of thing that turns voters off.
Rather than including specific pet projects, grants and contracts in legislation as it is being written, Democrats are following an order by the House Appropriations Committee chairman to keep the bills free of such earmarks until it is too late for critics to effectively challenge them.
Rep. David Obey, D-Wis., says those requests for dams, community grants and research contracts for favored universities or hospitals will be added to spending measures in the fall. That is when House and Senate negotiators assemble final bills to send to President Bush.
Such requests total billions of dollars.
I dare Rep. Obey to attempt that. If he sticks with his plan, I'll tie a string of tin cans to his tail a mile long. And I'll tie it there in October, 2007. Furthermore, I'll point it out until Election Day, 2008. If Mr. Obey doesn't want that type of attention, he'd better play by the rules that he voted for. PERIOD.
Obey insists he is reluctantly taking the step because Appropriations Committee members and staff have not had enough time to fully review the 36,000 earmark requests that have flooded the committee.That's a pile of Barbra Streisand. These requests should be posted online so that everyone in America can review the earmarks. They could be vetted within a week. Furthermore, Obey is our employee. As such, we demand that he spend all his time reviewing these requests. If there's alot, then he'd start vetting the requests ASAP and he'd better tell his staff that vetting these requests is their sole focus until they're all finished before the bills are voted on in the House. Anything less is unacceptable.
Budget watchdog groups who "scrub" appropriations bills for questionable provisions are outraged. "Who appointed him judge and jury of earmarks?" Tom Schatz, president of the Citizens Against Government Waste. "What that does is leave out the public's input."Mr. Schatz has just nailed it. Obey's intent is to limit public criticism. This next paragraph gives us ammunition on why we should unite with Mr. Schatz:
What Obey is doing runs counter to new rules that Democrats promised would make such spending decisions more open. Those rules made it clear that projects earmarked for federal dollars and their sponsors were to be made available to public scrutiny when appropriations bills are debated.We demanded earmark reform so that we could pressure the worst 'serial earmarkers'. We should let them know in definitive, unambiguous terms that we demand more fiscal restraint and personal responsibility than hiding behind a power drunk tyrant like Rep. Obey.
If Obey doesn't comply, then Republicans should file an ethics charge against Obey each day until Obey stops sidestepping the rules. In fact, the Club For Growth should start running ads on this intentional ignoring of the rules.
The rules also require lawmakers requesting such projects to provide a written explanation describing their requests and a letter certifying that they or their spouse would not make any financial gain from them.I'm all for complying with that rule but they should also certify that they aren't getting substantial campaign contributions from earmark recipients like Jack Murtha did.
Posted Monday, June 4, 2007 2:44 AM
No comments.
Most Ethical Congress In History Is History
It's sad but true based on this CBS article about the impending indictment against William 'Cold Cash' Jefferson on corruption charges. Of course, David Obey's refusal to follow House rules is another stain on the 'Most Ethical Congress in History'.
Sources tell CBS News that authorities are seeking an indictment against Congressman William Jefferson, (D-LA), on more than a dozen counts involving public corruption. Jefferson has been the subject of a ongoing probe in which FBI agents allegedly found more than $90,000 in cash in his freezer. CBS News correspondent Bob Orr reports that the Justice Department is expected to unveil the charges later today.The 'Most Ethical' mantra was a joke from the start. Jim McDermott broke the law by accepting a taped cell phone conversation from DFL activists, then leaking it to the press. (That isn't opinion; it's the DC Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling.) Alan Mollohan funneled millions of federal dollars into "nonprofit groups he helped start." That's before we even mention serial earmark profiteers like John Murtha, Paul Kanjorski and William Delahunt.
This was the latest development in the 16-month international investigation of Jefferson, who allegedly accepted $100,000 from a telecommunications businessman, $90,000 of which was later recovered from a freezer in the congressman's Louisiana home.
Jefferson, who has publicly denied any wrongdoing, won re-election last year despite the looming investigation.I doubt that his denials will be any comfort when he's fitted for prison blues.
Good riddance to Rep. Cold Cash. It'll be a welcome day when we wave goodbye to 'Speaker Most Ethical Congress in History', too. Those days can't come soon enough.
Posted Monday, June 4, 2007 12:59 PM
Comment 1 by tim Harrington at 05-Jun-07 06:08 AM
Nice my freind, Delahunt has more to worry about than just eqrmarks, but then again, we all know this.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Jun-07 04:53 PM
Exactly right Tim. Exactly right.
Democrats to Americans: If You Report Suspicious Behavior, You'd Better Get a Lawyer
That's essentially what Congress is telling people by not enacting Steven Pearce's legislation that would protect people from litigation simply because they reported suspicious behavior. To say that Frank Gaffney isn't taking this sitting down is understatement. Here's a sample of his ire against Congress:
It is against this backdrop that Congress must enact legislation to protect "John Does" and, thereby, to protect us all. It is unacceptable that the Democratic leadership is seeking to prevent such an outcome through parliamentary sleight-of-hand, by keeping the public in the dark about the make-up and timing of the conference committee that will hammer out differences between the House-passed legislation, which includes such protection, and the Senate bill that does not.There's a history of Democrats attempting to protect CAIR and like-minded organizations, ranging from John Conyers' attempt to "limit the reach of the Patriot Act" to Conyers and Nancy Pelosi co-sponsoring the End Racial Profiling Act. Now they're attempting to stop a bill that would protect civic-minded citizens from litigation stemming from their reporting suspicious behavior.
Simply put, CAIR's attempt to prevent people from reporting suspicious and potentially terrorist behavior should outrage every American citizen.
I wish that was the full extent of CAIR's agenda but it isn't. According to this NY Sun article, they've been named as an unindicted co-conspirator in an alleged criminal conspiracy to support Hamas. Here's the details from the article:
Prosecutors applied the label of "unindicted co-conspirator" to the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Islamic Society of North America, and the North American Islamic Trust in connection with a trial planned in Texas next month for five officials of a defunct charity, the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development.In addition to the legal issues that they're faced with, this essentially puts these organizations into persona non grata status with politicians. This also puts Keith Ellison in an uncomfortable box, especially after getting endorsed by CAIR at a secret Florida fundraiser last fall and after speaking at the MAS-Minnesota chapter event last weekend.
While the foundation was charged in the case, which was filed in 2004, none of the other groups was. However, the co-conspirator designation could be a blow to the credibility of the national Islamic organizations, which often work hand-in-hand with government officials engaged in outreach to the Muslim community.
A court filing by the government last week listed the three prominent groups among about 300 individuals or entities named as co-conspirators. The document gave scant details, but prosecutors described CAIR as a present or past member of "the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood's Palestine Committee and/or its organizations." The government listed the Islamic Society of North America and the North American Islamic Trust as "entities who are and/or were members of the U.S. Muslim Brotherhood."
Will Ellison distance himself from CAIR and MAS? After all, MAS is just another organization on the Muslim Brotherhood's flowchart. If he doesn't distance himself from CAIR and MAS, what's the political ramifications to his political future? How will today's naming of CAIR as an unindicted co-conspirator affect Bill Pascrell's race in New Jersey or Joe Sestak's race in Pennsylvania? Here's a section of Joe Kaufman's article on Ellison's speaking at the MAS-Minnesota event on Memorial Weekend:
In May of 2006, then-candidate for House of Representatives, Keith Ellison, faxed a letter to the Executive Director of the Minnesota Jewish Community Relations Council (JCRC), Stephen Silberfarb, stating, "There has been much speculation about my past connections to the Nation of Islam, I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues. I have a deep and personal aversion to anti-Semitism regardless of its source and I reject and condemn the anti-Semitic statements and actions of the Nation of Islam, Louis Farrakhan, and Khalid Muhammed."It sounds like Mr. Ellison is distancing himself from anti-semitic remarks, right? I'd like to see how he reconciles that statement with this information:
The Minnesota chapter of MAS, the chapter that Ellison addressed, has striven to uphold the Ikhwan legacy, by propagating materials authored by past Brotherhood leaders, like Hassan Al-Banna (Egypt MB founder), Sayyid Qutb, and Syed Abul Ala Maududi (Pakistan MB founder). Within these works, which are located via the group's "Online Library," one finds heated discussions about waging jihad, what MAS-Minnesota terms "holy battle," against non-Muslims. One reads, "A Muslim must always worship Allah and wage jihad until death in order to reach his ultimate goal , although the goal is invisible and it takes a long time to achieve. Therefore the steadfast Muslim will achieve this goal either through a lifetime of effort or through sudden death as a martyr,Regularly make the intention to go on jihad with the ambition to die as a martyr. You should be ready for this right now, even though its time may not have come yet."Another set of questions is how much CAIR's associations will hurt Democrats' image in defeating the terrorists. Isn't it impossible to take Democrats seriously considering their ties to such terrorist-sympathizing groups as CAIR?
As well as verses about murderous jihad, one discovers on MAS-Minnesota's website a general obsession the group has with regard to Jews, including an entire section devoted to the "STONING TO DEATH OF JEWS AND OTHER DHIMMIS."
Readers of my blog know that I haven't been pushing against CAIR as long as Daniel Pipes, Steve Emerson or my friend Joe Kaufman. My readers also know that I can't wait to see the dominoes start falling. Considering all that's happened in the past three months, I now think we're at a point where the dominoes might fall.
If that happens, the entire political landscape will change because of Democrats' ties to CAIR and like-minded organizations.
Posted Monday, June 4, 2007 9:58 PM
Comment 1 by Diamond Dog at 05-Jun-07 09:38 AM
Unfortunately, we've actually seen most of this before and it is not new. Many of these facts were laid before the Jewish community before the general election and Ellison won 56% of the electorate.
So deep are politically correct notions in the Fifth Congressional District, these connections to CAIR are actually seen as a badge of honor for Bush-hating liberals.
It seems to me the only thing that will change the direction of that prevailing wind would be another terrorist attack with a smoking gun connected to CAIR.
Many of us already get all of this. The liberals do not.
McCain Kisses Presidential Ambitions Goodbye
Based on this article, it's safe to say that John McCain just kissed his presidential aspirations goodbye. Here's what happened:
Sen. John McCain has a message for other Republican presidential candidates: Opposing an immigration bill for political gain will only worsen the problems of undocumented immigrants and an unsecured border. McCain plans to talk about the bill at an event here Monday, and excerpts of his prepared remarks take aim at other Republicans in the race.One message deserves another, right? Here's my message to Sen. McCain:
"I would hope they wouldn't play politics for their own interests if the cost of their ambition was to make this problem even harder to solve," McCain said in the prepared remarks obtained by the Associated Press.
Sen. McCain, You just never figured this amnesty/immigration thing out. Now, it's cost you the presidency. You didn't realize that we the people have a plan for immigration and that it started with the demandment that we first secure the border. You didn't realize that we didn't care about comprehensive plans, at least not until we knew that we wouldn't be writing a new amnesty law 15 years from now to reform the reform that didn't work the last time.
What's worse is that you didn't realize that you got snookered by Ted Kennedy. You thought that this bill was a bad compromise that didn't solve anything:
The Senate's immigration bill will cut annual illegal immigration by just 25 percent, and the bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal aliens within a decade, Congress' accounting arm said yesterday. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) said in its official cost estimate that many guest workers will overstay their time in the plan, with the number totaling a half-million in 2017 and reaching 1 million a decade later. "We anticipate that many of those would remain in the United States illegally after their visas expire," CBO said of the guest-worker program.Sen. McCain, most upsetting to GOP primary voters is that you tried to ram this legislation through before anyone knew what was in the bill. You had to do it that way because the bill is junk.
In a blow to President Bush's timetable, the CBO said the security "triggers" that must be met before the guest-worker program can begin won't be met until 2010. Mr. Bush had hoped to have those triggers, setting up a verification system, deploying 20,000 U.S. Border Patrol agents and constructing hundreds of miles of fencing and vehicle barriers, completed about the time he leaves office in January 2009.
For instance, the House, led by Duncan Hunter and Jim Sensenbrenner, passed a bill calling for 700 miles of double fencing that President Bush signed. This compromise bill only calls for 370 miles of fence.
Sen. McCain, how dare you negotiate down the amount of border fencing from last year, then tell us that you're serious about shutting down the border. That's insulting. We don't take kindly to your trying to pull such a stunt.
Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, McCain's chief rivals, oppose the measure to varying degrees, even though they have made statements in the past in which they appeared to support a similar measure the Senate previously considered.Let's get something straight. Romney and McCain aren't Giuliani's rivals. They're in his rear view mirror. Sen. Thompson is Giuliani's rival. Sen. Thompson also opposes this legislation. Vehemently.
McCain's mistake is that his arrogance got in the way. He acted like he was the authority on the matter. He told us he knew better than us when we knew better than him. This isn't the first time his arrogance has gotten him in trouble with conservatives. He 'knew better' when he passed campaign finance reform, 'knowing' that we needed to end money's influence to end Washington's corruption. Thankfully, that's about to get stricken down by sane justices who understand that the First Amendment is unambiguous.
This bill is going nowhere. It's time that McCain understood that.
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007 3:19 AM
No comments.
Pelosi, Murtha & Obey: The Axis of Earmarks?
This Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial deals rather harshly with David Obey, John Murtha and Nancy Pelosi for not taking earmark reform seriously. Frankly, each deserves the harshest treatment imaginable but we know that won't happen with Democrats running
When Democrats took control of Congress four months back, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., bragged it would take her party less than 100 hours to curb wasteful pork spending by requiring members to attach their names to their "earmarks," exposing such waste to the harsh light of public scrutiny.This shouldn't surprise anyone with a functioning brain. What's most depressing is that Tom Cole doesn't seem to have the initiative to push an anti-earmark agenda during the 2008 campaign, meaning we're likely facing at least another term of Speaker Pelosi.
She failed to mention this "reform" would remain in effect for little more than 100 days.
If Rep. Cole and the House GOP leadership won't push this agenda, then it's time we led the effort by turning up the heat on the worst GOP earmark violators. We should make it clear that they need to change their ways or face primary challengers. We should let them know that We the People have set a higher standard for them than they've set for themselves.
Meantime, Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chuckled and accepted congratulatory handshakes on May 22 after his fellow Democrats banded together to permanently table (219-189) an official reprimand of the Pennsylvania Democrat for violating his party's own four-month-old rule barring "revenge killing" of other members' earmarks.Rules mean nothing to Pelosi, Murtha and Obey because they're arrogant. Their sense of entitlement is stunning. Whatever they want is what they make happen. If that means ignoring the rules that they just passed, so be it. For some reason, their actions remind me of the Steven Seagal movie 'Above the Law' because the diabolical trio refuses to abide by the law. Then again, Murtha's defeating Mike Rogers' attempt to defeat Murtha's earmark for the NDIC reminds me of Seagal's movie 'Hard to Kill' because it's impossible to kill Murtha's earmarks.
The whole point of the Democratic "reform" was to allow other members to criticize and oppose pork set-asides. But last month, when Rep. Murtha (the second-ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, a man so powerful that he secured more than $200 million for his personal pet projects in 2006 alone, according to Taxpayers for Common Sense) sponsored an earmark to authorize $23 million for the National Drug Intelligence Center, a government agency that happens to be based in his district, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent, had the nerve to rise and propose the allocation be canceled.
For most of the first two centuries, the House of Representatives was called the People's House. It's sad to think that it's more fitting to give it the title the 'Special Interests' Shopping Mall'.
Pelosi, Murtha and Obey should be ashamed of themselves, which would be a first.
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:10 AM
No comments.
Thompson's Speech
Fred Thompson delivered a great speech in Richmond, Virginia Saturday night. Here's the YouTube video of it, broken down into 4 parts:
The bad news is that they didn't get the entire speech. At least you get a taste of what a principled conservative sounds like.
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:36 AM
Comment 1 by DFAL at 06-Jun-07 11:02 PM
Thompson is one hell of a public speaker. One of the reasons the media loved Clinton was because he was a good public speaker. Thompson rivals or exceeds Clinton. But I doubt a Conservative would get the same level of love.
The Rehabilitation of Basim Elkarra
It was inevitable that CAIR-supporting liberals would rehabilitate Basim Elkarra. Based on this CAIR press release, that effort is now happening.
Elkarra also recently received the Unsung Hero Award from the Harry Truman Club, in recognition of his civil rights work and as an outspoken proponent for worker and immigrant rights in California. Jerry Chong, Chief Legal Council on CAPITAL, also received an Unsung Hero award for his work to empower minority groups.Getting an award from an organization called the Harry Truman Club sounds impressive so I checked into them. Here's what I found:
Since 1981, the Harry S Truman Club has been a leading voice for Democrats in the Sacramento area.Let's put this together. Elkarra receives an award for his civil rights advocacy on behalf of "worker and immigrant rights in California" from an admittedly leftist organization. If I didn't know better, I'd think that they're giving him this award because he's an outspoken advocate for illegal immigrants.
We are committed to maintaining and increasing local Democratic representation by supporting qualified incumbents and developing a new generation of Democratic leaders.
Our diverse membership includes business owners, community activists, labor groups and public officials who, through their leadership and financial support, promote Democratic Party principles and candidates in the Sacramento region.
The Truman Club gives people the opportunity to gather and share Democratic Party ideas, platforms, and beliefs with community leaders.
In other words, he's getting an award for advocating civil rights for lawbreakers.
Let's remember that he needs this rehabilitation because he was first given an award by Sen. Barbara Boxer, only to have it taken away after AAH Chairman Joe Kaufman pointed out Elkarra's history of anti-semitic statements. Here's a portion of Kaufman's press release:
As Executive Director, Basim Elkarra has defended someone that trained for jihad in a Pakistani terrorist camp; he has defended an imam that urged a Pakistani crowd to wage attacks on America; and he has defended an imam that was attempting to build an Islamic school for the purpose of teaching children how to commit violent acts against Americans. As well, Elkarra has described Israel as a "racist" and "apartheid" state, and he has moderated an event that featured a Hamas operative who spent five years in an Israeli prison and who is currently on trial in the U.S.This leads to the inescapable truth that the Truman Club either didn't do their homework on Mr. Elkarra or it doesn't care about Mr. Elkarra's racist history.
Either way, it's a black mark for an organization named after a stand up guy.
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007 4:49 PM
Comment 1 by Christine Craft at 27-Jun-07 01:05 PM
Join Basim Elkarra for "Ask a Muslim" on the Christine Craft Show.....how's that for freedom..?
oh..not that much freedom...hmmmmm
does building a wall to segregate and demoralize a people create "apartheid" or genocide.???
Compromised Immigration Bill On Rocks?
That's the best news I could hear this morning. According to this Reuters article, it appears as though this bill will collapse because (a) it's an awful bill and (b) Democrats don't appear willing to allow any GOP amendments to fix this awful piece of legislation.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted to close debate on the bill by this week's end despite Republicans' objections, which could doom the fragile compromise legislation that backers say would help fix a broken immigration system through which millions of illegal immigrants have slipped into the United States.Harry Reid's right that Republicans are saying that this bill isn't going anywhere in its current state. It shouldn't go anywhere because this bill doesn't take border enforcement seriously. It's also in trouble because it's nothing more than a payoff to the Democrats' open borders coalition. That's unacceptable because we demand control of our borders and therefore, our sovereignty. Anything less falls far short of the demandments that conservatives have.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said his fellow Republicans had a number of amendments they wanted considered before voting on the bill.
But Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said Republicans were stalling. "What we have heard today are buzzwords for 'this bill is going nowhere,'" Reid said in a Senate floor exchange with McConnell.
I just sent an email to Sen. McCain explaining why I opposed this legislation. I suspect that many of you feel the same way. Here's the content of that email:
Sen. McCain, The current immigration bill is totally unacceptable on several levels.One of the clearest thinkers on immigration reform is John Cornyn, (R-TX). This past Sunday, Sen. Cornyn wrote an op-ed on the immigration bill's shortcomings. Here's what he sees as a major shortcoming of the bill:
1. Most importantly, this legislation doesn't do anything to enforce the borders. Last year, President Bush signed a bill that provided for 854 miles of double-fencing. This year's has 370. That won't secure our borders. Until you get that right, this legislation will be viewed as a sellout to Ted Kennedy's open borders coalition.
As a result, we don't take you seriously when you talk about this as a national security issue. We know it's a national security issue. We just don't think you take it seriously by compromising away the ability to stop illegal immigrants from crossing our border.
2. The multiple types of identification is a fatal flaw, too. Establish a single, clear form of identification. That's my demandment. Also, establish large fines for employers who hire illegal aliens.
3. Until you allow GOP amendments, especially John Cornyn's amendment an up or down vote, this bill should be stopped dead in its tracks. The simple fact is that I'd rather have no bill than a bad bill.
You can call that silent amnesty if you'd like; it doesn't faze me. The legislation that you've signed onto is in-your-face amnesty. This legislation doesn't secure the borders anymore than your campaign finance reform 'fixed' the money in politics.
Conservatives have figured out that calling something reform isn't really reform. They've also figured out that working across the aisle is only useful if it produces something of value. This bill doesn't produce anything of temporary or lasting value.
Even after 9-11, our record of enforcement is sadly lacking. For example, in 2004, demanding better control of our border, Congress approved a Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative that requires a U.S. passport starting this spring for anyone visiting Canada, the Caribbean, Bermuda, Mexico and other parts of Latin America.Let's summarize. This legislation reduces the amount of border fencing that we'd been promised and the background checks that this legislation 'promises' don't have a chance of happening because the government agency that deals with them is already overworked. That's legislated chaos. Just on the basis of that alone, we should stop this bill dead in its tracks.
The State and Homeland Security departments had three full years to prepare for an easily foreseeable flood of new passport applications. However, we are seeing the results. Planning and staffing for the new law has been woefully inadequate.
Tens of thousands of U.S. citizens who applied for passports in January and February of this year, anticipating travel this summer, have not yet received their documents. The passport office is in near-chaos. All over the United States, people are turning to congressional offices seeking help.
Some critics are justifiably asking: If the federal government cannot even handle routine passport applications for U.S. citizens, how can it possibly do thorough background checks and issue visas for millions of foreign-born applicants?
An oversight report last year declared that the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services already is overworked and stretched to its breaking point. Under the immigration reform bill being debated, that USCIS work-load would be tripled, without any significant increase in resources.
Sadly, these aren't the only bad provisions of the bill. Far from it. If ever there was a time to contact your legislator, this is that time. Demand that your concerns are heard and acted on. Anything less is unacceptable.
Posted Wednesday, June 6, 2007 12:04 PM
No comments.
Democrats Not Serious About Airport Security
Based on this Ed Koch op-ed, it's impossible to think that Democrats take airport security seriously. Here's the background information you'll need:
According to Congressman Peter King (R-NY), "While boarding, passengers and flight staff witnessed these six individuals demonstrating suspicious behavior, including not sitting in their assigned seats, but rather sitting in a configuration similar to that used by the hijackers on 9/11; requesting seat belt extenders but not using them; and speaking loudly about Osama bin Laden and the United States' role in the death of Saddam Hussein. Concerned passengers and airline personnel properly reported this suspicious behavior, and the pilot and the Federal Air Marshall determined that the behavior warranted asking the individuals to leave the plane. When they refused, airport security and law enforcement personnel responded and removed the individuals to investigate whether a true threat existed."We all know the facts of this case but I'll bet most didn't know about Rep. King's letter to CAIR's Speaker, Nancy Pelosi. After Koch cites this letter, he talks about Bennie Thompson's speech. Here's that speech:
Congressman King reported this in a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA). He continued, "Rather than receiving praise for coming forward to protect the traveling public, the airport and airline personnel and 'John Doe' passengers are now confronting a civil lawsuit filed by the six individuals. This represents a startling precedent, one that could freeze the very behavior law enforcement has encouraged. If we are going to encourage the public to speak up to prevent a terrorist attack, then they must be assured that they will not face the threat of frivolous litigation."
Congressman Bennie Thompson (D-MS) made the following argument: "I think the record is clear in this country that some people are profiled and I am wondering if people are profiled illegally, not charged with a criminal act. They absolutely should have the ability to seek redress in a court of law. What I want to do is to say that there is nothing wrong with reporting in good faith, but when it is clear that we have not defined in a good-faith language in this motion to recommit what that is, then a number of people in this country could be singled out for various and sundry reasons. And what I am saying in this motion to recommit is it sets us up to start profiling against individuals regardless of religion, custom, or what have you. If I am praying on a plane simply because I am afraid to fly, then I could be singled out in the eyes of someone else. So I am clear that this is speculative on people who look different; it is speculative on people who perhaps act differently. I am convinced that, knowing you [Peter King], you have not proven on the committee to be a punitive person; and the reason I say that, Mr. Ranking Member, is we should not be singling people out for personal reasons. We need to catch bad people, but we need to make sure that we are not profiling those individuals because of how they look. I mean, this is America. This is the melting pot with a rainbow."That's the type of stupidity that you'd only get from a liberal. He's essentially saying that its' clear that the imams were illegally profiled because of their skin color. This statement is paranoia driven:
If I am praying on a plane simply because I am afraid to fly, then I could be singled out in the eyes of someone else.Give me a break. Anyone with a functioning brain knows better than to believe Rep. Thompson. Thankfully, Mayor Koch puts an end to Thompson's insanity by saying this:
Mr. Thompson's argument is ridiculous. It is the airline that makes the decision whether passengers are to be removed and barred from completing their trip. The airline can be sued and is in fact being sued by the six imams who were removed from the plane. Should passengers concerned about their safety who in good faith report suspicious activities of fellow passengers, which our government encourages, be intimidated by lawsuits that could be brought against them? I would hope not.In the end, the amendment passed 304-121. Here's what Mayor Koch said about that:
In the New York delegation, 13 voted for the amendment and 16 voted no. Those voting to support the King amendment were Representatives Arcuri (D), Bishop (D), Fossella (R), Gillibrand (D), Hall (D), Higgins (D), King (R), Kuhl (R), McHugh (R), McNulty (D), Reynolds (R), Walsh (R), and Weiner (D). Those voting "no" were Representatives Ackerman, Clarke, Crowley, Engel, Hinchey, Israel, Lowey, Maloney, McCarthy, Meeks, Nadler, Rangel, Serrano, Slaughter, Towns and Velazquez, all Democrats.I'd hope that that isn't the group of clowns you want in charge of homeland security. If it is, get back to Kos-land where you'll fit in.
Posted Wednesday, June 6, 2007 1:00 PM
No comments.
