Sanity Prevails in the United States Senate
July 25th 2007 23:00
In a critical victory for the rights of responsible, freedom-loving Americans, the Senate finally did the right thing today by passing the John Doe Amendment. Sanity prevailed, thanks in large part to Senator Joe Lieberman, a principled leader who places his country's safety above partisan grandstanding. Because of the efforts of Senators Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, ordinary citizens can rest assured they will not be subjected to frivilous lawsuits, simply because when they "saw something" they "said something."
A joint statement by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Peter King, R-New York follows:
"This is a huge victory, a hard-fought victory for House Republicans, and more importantly, for the American people," King said.
"In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I'm thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard and our country is safer because of it.¯
Added Boehner: I'm pleased that Democratic leaders finally decided to do the right thing and agreed with Republicans that we should be encouraging Americans to report potential terrorist activity to the proper authorities."¯
"This much-needed measure is critical in the effort to confront the significant threats posed by Al Qaeda and other terrorists and protect the American people. I want to thank Reps. King and [New Mexico Republican Steve] Pearce for their leadership on this issue and their efforts to make America safer."¯
While passage of the bill is indeed a triumph for freedom and western democracy, it is more than a little disheartening that in a post-9/11 world, it took a pervasive public outcry and the dogged determination of a few statesmen to accomplish. Virulent opposition by a majority of Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, once again underscores their chilling indifference to the defining struggle of our time, the Global War on Terror. Is it any surprise at all that during last night's Democratic presidential debate, the word "terrorism" was never even mentioned? Well, as John Edwards recently observed, our ongoing fight with radical Islamists is really nothing more than a "bumper sticker slogan," a devious ploy hatched by the evil Hitler-like duo of Bush and Cheney in their never-ending quest for oil. Ad nauseam comparisons to Hitler. The tired old blood for oil mantra. Liberals really need to get some new talking points. But I digress.
It's as if the carnage of September 11 never even happened, not to mention the spate of more recent events including the Madrid train bombings and the London subway bombings. Oh, and let's not forget the foiled (thank God) attempts to blow up the JFK and Glasgow Airports this year. And in case anyone needs reminding, we are coming up on the one-year anniversary of the thwarted Heathrow terrorist plot to destroy airliners 30,000 feet above the ocean, using liquid explosives.
In the wake of September 11, political leaders of all stripes publicly implored Americans to "remain vigilant." Given that we are engaged in a war without borders or boundaries, wrought upon us by murdering zealots who represent an ideology, not a country, this was certainly sage advice. After all, these savages have no rules of engagement, other than to kill infidels wherever and whenever they can, whether said infidels are military members or civilians. And since the police cannot possibly be everywhere, an involved citizenry is vital to preventing another bloodbath.
But when it came time to stand up for principle and protect so-called John Doe's, a majority of Democrats chose to stand down. Whether they were motivated by hatred of George Bush, or influenced by their far-left money danglers, race-baiters or special interest groups, one thing is clear: A vote against this bill was a vote against their country's national security and safety. Despite their political fortunes being invested in failure in Iraq (a topic for another post), just this once, couldn't they have demonstrated a smidgen of character and a hint of patriotism? They claim to be the voice of the "little guy" but had they gotten their way, the little guy would have had to cough up a pile of money for attorney's fees, simply for blowing the whistle on threatening behavior (One notable exception: Hillary Clinton. Ever the shrewd politician, she voted for the provision, in her ongoing balancing act of placating the Far Left while trying to appeal to Centrists. Regardless, I am still willing to give credit where it's due).
Which brings me to Joe Lieberman. Having lost the Democratic Primary last year to the "nutroots" candidate, Ned Lamont, an undaunted Lieberman switched to his party affiliation from Democrat to Indepedendent, handily winning re-election. And though I disagree with Joe on just about every other issue, the man has been unwavering where it counts. A true statesman, he understands that all other considerations are pointless if we don't fight the good fight against this menacing threat to America and western civilization. I applaud him for doing what so many Democrats are unwilling or unable to do -- put their country's (and the world's) needs ahead of their own political aspirations. Thank God there are enough public servants left in Washington who are willing to vote their conscience.
Here's to John Doe. May he always have the courage and character to do the right thing.
A joint statement by House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, and ranking member of the Committee on Homeland Security, Peter King, R-New York follows:
"This is a huge victory, a hard-fought victory for House Republicans, and more importantly, for the American people," King said.
"In a post-9/11 reality, vigilance is essential to security. Despite the Democratic opposition to this important homeland security measure, I'm thrilled to announce that common sense has prevailed and heroic Americans who report suspicious activity will be protected from frivolous lawsuits. The American people were heard and our country is safer because of it.¯
Added Boehner: I'm pleased that Democratic leaders finally decided to do the right thing and agreed with Republicans that we should be encouraging Americans to report potential terrorist activity to the proper authorities."¯
"This much-needed measure is critical in the effort to confront the significant threats posed by Al Qaeda and other terrorists and protect the American people. I want to thank Reps. King and [New Mexico Republican Steve] Pearce for their leadership on this issue and their efforts to make America safer."¯
While passage of the bill is indeed a triumph for freedom and western democracy, it is more than a little disheartening that in a post-9/11 world, it took a pervasive public outcry and the dogged determination of a few statesmen to accomplish. Virulent opposition by a majority of Democrats, led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, once again underscores their chilling indifference to the defining struggle of our time, the Global War on Terror. Is it any surprise at all that during last night's Democratic presidential debate, the word "terrorism" was never even mentioned? Well, as John Edwards recently observed, our ongoing fight with radical Islamists is really nothing more than a "bumper sticker slogan," a devious ploy hatched by the evil Hitler-like duo of Bush and Cheney in their never-ending quest for oil. Ad nauseam comparisons to Hitler. The tired old blood for oil mantra. Liberals really need to get some new talking points. But I digress.
It's as if the carnage of September 11 never even happened, not to mention the spate of more recent events including the Madrid train bombings and the London subway bombings. Oh, and let's not forget the foiled (thank God) attempts to blow up the JFK and Glasgow Airports this year. And in case anyone needs reminding, we are coming up on the one-year anniversary of the thwarted Heathrow terrorist plot to destroy airliners 30,000 feet above the ocean, using liquid explosives.
In the wake of September 11, political leaders of all stripes publicly implored Americans to "remain vigilant." Given that we are engaged in a war without borders or boundaries, wrought upon us by murdering zealots who represent an ideology, not a country, this was certainly sage advice. After all, these savages have no rules of engagement, other than to kill infidels wherever and whenever they can, whether said infidels are military members or civilians. And since the police cannot possibly be everywhere, an involved citizenry is vital to preventing another bloodbath.
But when it came time to stand up for principle and protect so-called John Doe's, a majority of Democrats chose to stand down. Whether they were motivated by hatred of George Bush, or influenced by their far-left money danglers, race-baiters or special interest groups, one thing is clear: A vote against this bill was a vote against their country's national security and safety. Despite their political fortunes being invested in failure in Iraq (a topic for another post), just this once, couldn't they have demonstrated a smidgen of character and a hint of patriotism? They claim to be the voice of the "little guy" but had they gotten their way, the little guy would have had to cough up a pile of money for attorney's fees, simply for blowing the whistle on threatening behavior (One notable exception: Hillary Clinton. Ever the shrewd politician, she voted for the provision, in her ongoing balancing act of placating the Far Left while trying to appeal to Centrists. Regardless, I am still willing to give credit where it's due).
Which brings me to Joe Lieberman. Having lost the Democratic Primary last year to the "nutroots" candidate, Ned Lamont, an undaunted Lieberman switched to his party affiliation from Democrat to Indepedendent, handily winning re-election. And though I disagree with Joe on just about every other issue, the man has been unwavering where it counts. A true statesman, he understands that all other considerations are pointless if we don't fight the good fight against this menacing threat to America and western civilization. I applaud him for doing what so many Democrats are unwilling or unable to do -- put their country's (and the world's) needs ahead of their own political aspirations. Thank God there are enough public servants left in Washington who are willing to vote their conscience.
Here's to John Doe. May he always have the courage and character to do the right thing.
| 42 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
Comment by Daria
Freedom Bright
Once again, you ignore the facts. These Imams were deliberately behaving in a threatening way, imitating the 9/11 hijackers. And as I've noted, an Arabic-speaking Middle Eastern passenger also expressed alarm. It has nothing to do with race, although the FACT remains that radical Islam is the driving motivation for terror. It is not Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or Atheist men flying planes into buildings, blowing themselves up, hatching plots to destroy subways, airliners, etc. and generally causing death and destruction.
Funny you should mention Hitler. Thanks to appeasers like Neville Chamberlain (to whose philosophy you appear to subscribe), Hilter was able to inflict his reign of terror for much longer period of time. Appeasement doesn't work and political correctness is going to get us all killed.
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
Remember, it was a Company that ran India for 100-years, the British East India Company. Millions die, because "companies" are grabbing gold in Africa, etc.
Radical Islam is a project revived by Saudi Arabia, on orders and with help from a faction typified by the BAE (British Aerospace Enterprise), now being investigated for $2 billion in illegal bribes to Saudi Ambassador Bandar, in the United States, and setting up a $100 billion slush fund. I gave you the links, do a google, this is the Internet, baby!!! Information is at your finger tips...do a google of "BAE", "Bandar" "bribes". It's all in the British press, etc.
Comment by Anonymous
Look, you are making this more complicated than need be. The issue in this post is not which transnational unethical player is pulling the strings. The issue is whether when you - you Howard! - board a plane, or walk to the subway stop, or otherwise encounter behavior that makes you think: "something's not right", will you be able to make a good faith report of your suspicion to the authorities without fear of legal reprisal? That's all.
Now, perhaps you are off your meds one day, you go to the tube, and you think that the dude with the backpack has designs on blowing up the tube and all the passengers. Do you have the ability to find a constable and ask him whether your suspicion is worth investigating without having to retain a lawyer? That's it. Now the constable may simply say "Howard, you are off your meds again, eh mate?" And that's that. But if you have your way, Howard, the dude with the backpack could sue you for reporting your suspicion.
Now, it's not hard, is it? Which scenario would you prefer? Come on, I think you can answer this one! We're all pulling for you!
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
The founding fathers (at least of the United States) were deist. They were generally partial to a belief in one god, or universal, but not, in terms of law, Jews, Christians, Muslims, etc....
When and if we are under total dictatorship and starving in the street, perhaps you'll view this as something serious, not just blog gossip.
We need political solutions with rational people. That means Iran, Syria and all. You don't have to marry them. Remember, we have the space weapons. The Saudis may be in with the Israelis at the present, but they tend to have some real and obvious problems...
Comment by Anonymous
I am so disappointed! And we were all hoping you would get it right.
So let's try again....
You don't want a police-state (I will overlook your ridiculous claim that there are more police than non-police citizens in France). One way to do that is to empower regular citizens to do things like report suspicious behavior. But the likelihood of that happening will be mitigated (oops, I'm sorry, I'm talking to Howard: reduced) if there is fear of legal reprisal. Hence, the push to eliminate that threat. Are we making any progress in gaining understanding on this basic point, Howard?
And Howard - good luck finding the rational interlocutors (oops, I mean, people to talk to) in Iran and Syria. They obviously hold nothing so dear as the enlightenment values enshrined in the US Constitution and western society more generally. They wouldn't do anything so dastardly as take sides with tribal allies and engage in the massacre of those outside the tribe, right? It's just the case that the Jews, Christians, and other non-Muslims from places like Syria, Iran, and Iraq just decided to relocate, right?
Actually, Howard, it seems that the plan as it exists is to use military might to secure Iraq and establish civil society to the extent possible within Iraq, appealing to whatever rational beings exist within that country. So in a way, the Howard Plan is being implemented. Isn't it?
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
If we start another war, possible nuclear war, 5-year olds will start to be asked to rat on their parents, like in Stalinist Soviet Union. It's time to stop being told, "just a few more months in Iraq" by the Oligarchy (how is that for a big word), who are trying to hold onto their power while the financial system merrily disintegrates.
By the way, do you have a 5-year old?
Comment by Anonymous
Look, Howard, I have been funning you for laughs, but let me be serious: you are not addressing the points being made in the posts. That doesn't mean that there isn't some basis for what you are saying that requires attention (the Saudi role in the current ME situation), but you post things in a way that seems to be the throw-it-on-the-wall and see if it sticks style.
Why can't you accept the sanity of the John Doe law while also questioning some other elements of the current war? It's as if I am arguing with a 5 yo: the world view is so limited that a deviation from the expected becomes a major crisis. Separate out your thoughtful objections from the things that you shouldn't object to (or, if you think you should, make germane arguments).
Comment by Howard
Real Crash
Comment by Carole
It si like The New York Times leaking info yo our enemy or Sandy Berger stealing 31 documents out of the National achives, and got a slap on the wrist!
Comment by Howard
Real Crash