Captain's Quarters -

The short answer is that Donks can not win power unless the terrorists give America a very bloody nose. The so-called "teachable moment"

Sick

"This move really seems inexplicable." CE

The shorter answer is "trial lawyers" (or more accurately, plaintiffs' bar.)

The Congressional Dems, many lawyers themselves, are beholden to one of their biggest contributing blocs: trial lawyers' associations. Lawsuits are their lifeblood.

This partisan voting by the Donkeys against the John Doe protection bill is similar to their shoulder-to-shoulder vote on the shamnesty bill, which also offered loophole opportunities for litigation ad infinitum.

Check out these contributions from 1999 to the present: http://www.campaignmoney.com/Trial_Lawyer.asp?pg=6

We've already seen the intimidation in the Flying Imams case. The Flying Imams have sued the various passengers and crewmembers who reported their bizarre behavior to authorities.

Had the good samaritan exemptions been in place, the victims of the Imams would have been immunized against this lawsuit. As I remember, the period of coverage for the immunization began the day before the Flying Imams flew.

Any comments on Keith {Hakim|X} Ellison{-Muhammad}'s position or influence in this matter?

For the Dems, it's obviously just typical sucking up to minority activists and trial lawyers at the expense of the good of the nation. What's mysterious? That's what Democrats do.

I think CAIR's motives and the motives of the flying imams are far more interesting. Is it just grievance-group politics, or is it actually about making things easier for their co-religionists to murder Americans?

There isn't a logical explanation but political correctness is a start. That's why Democrats worked with CAIR to "limit the reach of the Patriot Act & end racial profiling as far back as July, 2004.

It's time to stop pussyfooting around with our words. It's time to simply state the facts: Democrats don't take homeland or national security seriously.

If the Donks are worried about "profiling" now...then they should be really be worried about what will happen if we're attacked again (especially it occurs on the watch of a President Hillary! or President Obama!.

If, may God forbid, we're attacked again, the public will demand that the borders be locked down tighter than a snare drum, and all Muslims, whether they be foreign or native-born, and illegal aliens be monitored, deported, or shipped off to internal "protective custody."

And I pity the well-coiffed Capitol Hill pols who dare object to such moves. If they're lucky, the mob which then marches on Washington will only tar and feather them, then ride'em out of town on a rail.

If they're lucky.

The legislation seems like good sense on the surface but there is good historical cause for concern. Ask the WW2-era Japanese-Americans. I suspect that there is existing law that would lead to rejection of the flying mullah's case, which would then preclude any future similar cases. And really, if I see a bunch of guys in black turbans waving scimitars and screaming about Allah while lugging around a case of dynamite, I don't think any concern about a lawsuit would stop me from reporting it. I mean, the scimitars alone are a dead giveaway. ;-)

But I can see a situation where more than one person on a plane might object to flying with -anyone- that appears Middle Eastern. It's a tricky situation that deserves consideration, but instead has been turned into a political issue.

You're right Gary,Political Correctness has ninety percent to do with it.The liberal Dems will have second thoughts when we are being blown up,or when a green cloud is ingulfing us. Then it will be to late.

WW2-era Japanese-Americans "You will recall that units of U.S. Marine Reserves and of the National Guard from Arizona, California, Oregon and Washington had been stationed in the Philippines prior to December 7, 1941. These units had been decimated by the Japanese who treated them brutally as prisoners of war, a subject which had become widely known. Anti-Japanese feeling was intense." see more at: link

The Imam's civil lawsuit is based on existing anti-discrimination laws and they are claiming that the 'john does' assisted in violating their civil rights and that the 'john does' are guilty of racial and religious discrimination, aka hate crimes. Any attempt to introduce legislation to shield 'john does' from civil liabilities simply for voicing their concerns (and that what this bill is all about, making sure you can not be punished for voicing a concern) is being portray as an assault on civil rights, and thus is a danger to minorities, and this could be seen as a liability to the Democrats if they were to allow this bill to become law.

I highly doubt that the Democrats will do anything that may cause concern to their diminishing minority base no matter how innocuous this bill is and how much it would protect ordinary Americans from legal harassment. They will most likely wait until after the 2008 elections before they even consider debating this bill, let alone allowing it to become law.

TW:

1. CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator of HAMAS, and was founded by HAMAS people with HAMAS money. CAIR's leadership has consistently praised 9/11 and acted as a bullying organization to allow Muslim intimidation: South Park, the Danish Cartoons etc. on threat of violence.

2. Dems feel "terrorism is the cost of doing business in the global economy." Only the "little Eichmans" died in 9/11. No one important, as the WTC was a back-office place and the Pentagon filled with ordinary people as well.

3. Dems are class-based. Patronizing upper-class twits who hate/fear/loathe ordinary people allied with minority group grievance organizations that target middle class white people as the source of all evil to gain monetary transfers via taxes funneled to orgs like the Rainbow Coalition or various other payoffs (Affirmative Action, Diversity, etc.)

Anything that hurts ordinary people therefore, Dems are for. None of their coalition flies commercial: it's either on government or corporate charters (such as Mayor Tony Villaraigosa's trips on Ameriquest jets or Nancy Pelosi's military jets) or they don't fly at all (impoverished minorities that folks like Sharpton and Jackson represent).

Once you understand that politics in America is all.about.class you'll get it. Dems represent the sneering upper class and Reps are dived between corporate interests and populism.

ANYTHING: Kelo property rights, gun ownership, "If you see something, shut up" or Affirmative Action, if it hurts the white middle class Dems are for it. [Because the White middle and working classes are huge threats to the hereditary sinecures the Dems hope to leave to their children.] The Whiskey Rebellion, Andrew Jackson, it's all the same continuum.

The Republican party, including the President, have to stop pretending that politics is like a tea party where you curtsey to the opposition. This issue requires a slap in the face and a challenge to a political duel.
The President needs to show his anger and stop the comity crap.

Old: "If you see something, say something."
New: "If you see something, sue someone."

To begin an understanding of the "new" Left within the Democratic Party and where they may come from, I highly recommend reading the interview with Norman Geras in "Marxism, the Holocaust and September ll" in the Journal of Analytic Socialism's online content from Vol. 6 vol. 3, 2002, at the following url: http://mail.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/normangerasinterview.html Fascinating. For years I have tried to understand what happened to this country's liberals. They are still there, of course, but we are really talking about the "Left" and if you read Geras, you begin to get an inkling of what these tinfoil hatted leftist loons actually think! Amazing!!

One way to possibly solve this would be for the airline companies, which are, after all, private entities as opposed to government agencies, to publish a usage policy that stipulates that if you fly with them, you are specifically agreeing to have your own behavior scrutinized for suspicious activity by the crew and passengers, and that you are a) expected tp report suspicious activity yourself, and b) waive any right of recourse against anyone for scrutinizing you by stepping on board the plane.

Scot, I like your idea a lot and I want to believe that this could be done.

However, I suspect there are specific rights you can't sign away and I bet civil rights are among those.

Posted by: Ray The Imam's civil lawsuit is based on existing anti-discrimination laws and they are claiming that the 'john does' assisted in violating their civil rights and that the 'john does' are guilty of racial and religious discrimination, aka hate crimes.

The flying imam lawsuit isn't based on existing anti-discrimination laws. It's based on the good faith reports of specific behavior such as: the requests for seat belt extenders when none of the imams needed them, the positioning of the imams in the front, middle and rear of the plane (9/11 style), the fact that several had 1 way tickets & only 1 had brought luggage on board.

I've written extensively about the incident, including here, here, here, here & here. It isn't a stretch to call it a planned event designed to assist in passing ERPA.

BTW, that legislation is co-sponsored by CAIR-MI's Man of the Year John Conyers & CAIR's Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

"The President needs to show his anger and stop the comity crap."

PRECISELY! This is the point I have been making every chance I get here. The media is at war with the administration for who will run this country, and I know who got elected and who didn't, so I want to see the media slapped down, and HARD!

Bush need to take of the gloves and go bare-knuckles on these bastards, but I am afraid their psy-ops have got even him convinced that nobody will follow if he takes the lead.

Maybe while they're at it, the Dems can scrap the witness protection program too. All that does is encourage criminals to testify against each other in exchange for a safe new life somewhere else.

Omerta. A conspiracy of silence. Nobody cooperates with law enforcement ever. Keep your mouth shut, your eyes down and pray that the guy waving the wand around coming through security might actually catch a bad guy before he gets on the plane.

"The flying imam lawsuit isn't based on existing anti-discrimination laws"
They are basing their lawsuit on existing anti-discrimination laws as they have stated in the compliant.

Section 8 of the preliminary statements is as follows:

"Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d), 49 U.S.C. § 41705, the Minnesota
Human Rights Act and state tort claims.

As I have stated above, this lawsuit IS based on existing anti-discrimination laws, but that doesn't mean it has any merit.

Old: "If you see something, say something."
New: "If you see something, sue someone."
Posted by: arb at July 22, 2007 3:28 PM"

You got that right.

As a child in the 60's I use to have a saying: "If it moves, nuke it!"

I guess that has been replaced with: "If it breaths, sue it!" and: "If it doesn't breath, sue the government!"

As I have stated above, this lawsuit IS based on existing anti-discrimination laws, but that doesn't mean it has any merit.
Posted by: Ray

Saying that that's what it's about isn't the same as that being what it's about.

Call your representatives to state your position. I did and was told that the office has been besieged by calls like mine. In fact, the man taking my call sounded extremely weary and told me they had been getting protests all day. Trust me. They DO listen and the calls are logged. Whether you are in the same party as your rep or not, CALL and make your anger known. BTW, call Pelosi's office and Reid's as well! :-)

I certainly don't agree that not protecting people who just make inquiries into fellow passengers is a good idea.However, while we're in the mood for predicting the next attack on our citizenry, I think the lack of a vigilant course of action regarding our borders and our feeble immigration policy, specifically Mexico and a southern border state, the SPINELESS GOP will be to blame for protecting their Dear Leader when fecal matter hits the oscillating wind mover. You can run but you can't hide folks, covering for the President while he aligned himself with Sen. Ted Kennedy will truly be the GOP's constituency's legacy.

The great lesson of Watergate was to "follow the money".

Who supports CAIR? Saudi money.

Who supports the Flying Imams and their various little bloody buddies? CAIR?

Who is flooding Washington DC (and has been for years) with petro-dollars for lobbyists and other issues of concern? Saudi Arabia.

Who has been proven to have bought Jimmy Carter's soul? Saudi Arabia.

I wonder what an audit of Keith Ellison's campaign fnding would reveal. And traditional sources of funding for the Democrats are drying up: Texas oilmen have sold themselves to Dubya to keep cheap Mexicans flowing in; pork and earmarks are increasingly becoming very bad ideas as transparency threatens to overtake those procsses; and the Hollywood A-list is pulling back from its support of Clintonista's.

What's a poor Democrat to do for fund-raising if not to sell a vote or three to protect terrorists? But we should never, ever, question their patriotism!

The Dems claim that their way of fighting terrorism is to work on domestic issues instead of fighting a war abroad.

This demonstrates they really don't care about our Security at all.

There is no basis for allowing vigilant Americans to be sued.

Devil's Advocate
Editorialist
Copious Dissent - Your Daily Dose of Liberty

Nicely informative Captain but the real question is why the American people know nothing about it.

The one consideration I have against the Republicans and conservatives above all else is their incompetence at communicating with the American people. Rational arguements and informative news mean nothing if it is not heard.

GW has never caught on that his message is simply not getting through to the American people or else he is simply impotent at doing anything about it.

TW,

It isn't the same. In the case of the Japanese American Internment, FDR was acting on the racism of many west coast politicians, as well as that of Gen. John DeWitt. In this case we are dealing with an individual case of aberrant behavior which appears to have been deliberately performed to gauge its effect.

All of the actions of the Imams, combined, indicate that they understood the mechanics of an aircraft takeover and, either for theater or for real, were enacting those mechanics. After 9/11, it is no longer their audience's job to figure out which -- that is best left to the authorities. This isn't a case where someone with minority features is just going about their normal business and suddenly finds that the President of the USA has ordered their expulsion along with everyone else who looks like them -- this is quite a different case. Those who try to make them the same are surely suffering some sort of blindness.

This Republican President has not ordered the incarceration or removal of every Muslim, although, given the actions of the most revered Democratic President, he could. That Bush hasn't shows a form of cultural sensitivity and deep respect for the individual freedoms afforded by our Constitution; that FDR did shows a lack of the same sensitivity and respect.

Jim Rockford is dead true right on correct.

He also used to make really good u-turns with his Firebird. :)

Cap'n Ed wrote:

Investors Business Daily's editors wonder why Democrats in Congress want to make it easier for terrorists to attack our transportation infrastructure.

I take a backseat to nobody in my contempt for the dems and my belief that they are Benedict Arnolds and quislings, scum that rank among the most vile, treacherous and loathsome traitors that have ever disgraced our country.

BUT...

Not even they WANT to make terrorists' jobs easier. They are simply playing the odds. Six years after 9-11 with no more attacks on American soil, they feel complacent enough that they think they can put political pandering ahead of national security. They think that the odds of a terrorist attack are MUCH lower than the odds of some (liberal) Muslim being "harrassed" by a islamophobic (conservative) redneck. The potential cost of a successful terrorist attack is far outweighed by the cost of losing contributions from CAIR and other "civil rights" groups. Further, they've staked out a political position that terrorism isn't REALLY a threat to the United States; it's just a bumper sticker slogan. The REAL threat is the Christian theocratic police state that George Bush wants to create by frightening Americans with an Islamic boogeyman. Look at Russ Feingold and his censure motion.

Even if there is another terrorist attack, they'll simply blame it on Bush. Remember that PDB that supposedly warned Bush that terrorists would hijack planes and crash them into buildings on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001? You don't remember that? Well, don't worry: the dems certainly do, and don't think that they won't find similar "proof" that "Bush knew!" if there's another attack.

MarkJ. No need to worry about an attack under a 'President Osama Obama' they will already have a radical Islamist in the white house. "Once in Islam you stay or die".

Don't count on anyone reporting anything after this mess by congress. I wouldn't report it if I saw Arabs/Islamist mixing diesel fuel and fertilizer. Maybe there's a use for it other than blowing up things? The only way out of the mess created by the left wing congress is to let a few hundred thousand die in the United States and hope the congress is included in at least one of the major attacks that are coming down the road.

"Rational arguements and informative news mean nothing if it is not heard." That's what the US was doing on December 6 1941. Then, the next day!

There is indeed a logical explanation.

If the general public cannot be the "eyes and ears", then the government will have to hire millions of additional Securty Personnel (and permanent democratic voters) to "keep us safe".

Imagine TSA at train stations, bus stations, on the highways, etc.

"Saying that that's what it's about isn't the same as that being what it's about.
Posted by: Gary Gross at July 22, 2007 6:06 PM"

The same can be said of your interpretation of this lawsuit, but I am basing my statement upon the actual complaint that was filed in federal court and not on anyone's interpretation of said complaint.

As I stated previously, this case may be without merit but that is something only a jury can decide.

There are several good reasons in the comments above. I would like to add another one to them.

Remember that the Democrats are trying to downplay the war on terror. If there are a lot of incidents reported in the crucial lead-up to the next election, it will look like the Democrats are wrong and that there is a real danger out there. If people are afraid to report, there will seem to be far fewer incidents, and it will appear that there is less danger. Better for the Democrats.

All the Democrats care about is getting elected.

“I think the lack of a vigilant course of action regarding our borders and our feeble immigration policy, specifically Mexico and a southern border state, the SPINELESS GOP will be to blame for protecting their Dear Leader when fecal matter hits the oscillating wind mover. You can run but you can't hide folks, covering for the President while he aligned himself with Sen. Ted Kennedy will truly be the GOP's constituency's legacy.”

Were you paying any attention at all during the immigration bill debate? The base of the GOP clearly broke with the president over immigration. The Democrats are clearly on the side of lax border security.

The reason the Dems want us to lose is because of their strange philospohy where everything has to be equal - equal to the point of nothingness.

As many of us have spent years trying to figure them out and, as the talk show people have identified the symptoms of their "disease", Evan Sayet, a former writer for Bill Maher, really has them pegged.

WATCH THIS VIDEO OF EVAN DESCRIBING MODERN LIBERALS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaE98w1KZ-c

You'll see why they want us to lose and why they seem to be on the wrong side of every issue.

"Further, they've staked out a political position that terrorism isn't REALLY a threat to the United States; it's just a bumper sticker slogan. The REAL threat is the Christian theocratic police state that George Bush wants to create by frightening Americans with an Islamic boogeyman."

I agree with that 100 percent. The Democrats are hoping that America will slip back into the domestic slumber that permeated this country prior to 9/11. This is why the Democrats downplay every threat assessment and security alert as a Bush ploy to "scare" Americans. They want us to forget about international threats as Democrats are usually seen as weak on foreign policy, especially military policy and the protection of America from foreign threats, and they wish the debates to be focus on domestic matters as this is perceived as a Democratic strong point.

The problem with this policy is that the attacks of 9/11 and the continuing threat of international terrorism is still fresh in the minds of Americans despite the fact that America has not been attacked since 9/11. This lack of a workable policy for the threat of terrorism on the part of the Democrats will hurt them in the coming Presidential election.

You guys may want to think about Chairman Benny Thompson here. He was interviewed when this bill was first introduced, and was quite up front about his objections. To Benny, the enemy is an Alabama sheriff named Bull Connors. Osama what-iz-name is just Rosa Parks with a bad temper. Benny did experience 9-11, but it was the one down in Selma and Montgomery, with police dogs and water hoses.

Sad to say, the only thing that will wake these people up is another attack on the scale of 9/11. But even then I don't know.

9/11 was the largest loss of American life in a direct attack since 12/07/1941, yet in this case we were directly attacked in major parts of the homeland.

But more importantly, the vast majority of those targeted and killed on 9/11 were civilians.

Numerous kids were on a couple of those planes, headed to a National Geographic shindig in California.

No one ever mentions their deaths.

And I pity the well-coiffed Capitol Hill pols who dare object to such moves. If they're lucky, the mob which then marches on Washington will only tar and feather them, then ride'em out of town on a rail.

If they're lucky.

Posted by: MarkJ at July 22, 2007 1:47 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

Another move just as serious would be when AMERICANS refuse to DEFEND Congressmen, and judges, and DIMS on American soil - when they begin to congregate for strength, or move through a neighborhood to wipe out Islamofascist and Mexico Reconquista street gangs attacking their homes, they'll SKIP defending homes of these RED CARPET-LAYING THUG HUGGERS, and leave them to their own j ust rewards.

And when they catch DIMS burning flags and tossing acid in the face of policemen in protest of THAT behavior...
Then the Dims will KNOW AND PERCEIVE IN TRUTH that AIDING AND ABETTING THE ENEMY means you are indeed ONE OF THE ENMY.

Sad to say, the only thing that will wake these people up is another attack on the scale of 9/11.

Oh, I disagree. I don't think they will EVER "wake up". They're programmed to not-think that way and it's impossible at this point to deprogram them.

What *will* happen after another 9/11, however, is that the realists among us who have been saying "Beware!" for six years now will haul out our howitzers and start taking potshots at them when they start blithering on about "multicultralism". The anti-American moonbats may then, at that point, wake up to discover their options have shrunk to two: shut up or die. Or Option #3 would be to move to Canada. Bye-bye.

I have to agree. These people are completely sold on their "narrative". Another 9/11 won't make a difference. Hell, 10 US cities could go up in nuclear explosions and they'd still find a way to make it Bush and America's fault.

Not to say that there wouldn't be a small percentage that would finally wake up. There's a fair amount that wake up and are so repulsed by what they themselves believed that they go hard for the other side. Unfortunately, it remains to be seen if the numbers that wake up can exceed the numbers that are newly indoctrinated into the Kool Aid. I'm not optimistic, I'm afraid. The vast bulk won't rest until the United States is gone. It's the only fitting revenge for the loss of their beloved Soviet Union.

Qwinn

Scot, I like your idea a lot and I want to believe that this could be done.

However, I suspect there are specific rights you can't sign away and I bet civil rights are among those.
Posted by: bulbasaur at July 22, 2007 4:24 PM

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

You don't HAVE a "CIVIL RIGHT" to terrorize, intimidate, or amuse yourself by immitating those terroristic behaviors.

But if you are on a flight, far from authorities, and you incite a riot AGAINST YOURSELF for suspicious behavior - you have a right to fully experience the consequences of your own conduct - as some would-be hijackers have already experienced. I'm sure the incited mob would be glad to include any flying lawyers and judges and Congressmen and ACLU members into the bargain.

One comedian has some jokes about the nature of different airlines' passengers, and how they handle different situations - it wouldn't exactly make the ACLU's day to hear the AUDIENCE REACTIONS to those jokes about the passengers taking matters into their own hands.
But then, the ACLU wouldn't like to hear audience reactions to taking the ACLU into their own hands, either.

I take a backseat to nobody in my contempt for the dems and my belief that they are Benedict Arnolds and quislings, scum that rank among the most vile, treacherous and loathsome traitors that have ever disgraced our country.

BUT...

Not even they WANT to make terrorists' jobs easier.

Cite one single solitary action by the Dim Liberal politicians to back that contention.

I MEAN BLOODY ONE!

That is merely YOUR FANTASY they they don't WANT to make the Terrorists' goals easier to accomplish.

Because there is NOT ONE SINGLE SOLITARY ACTION on their parts to back your contention.

They are like an adulterous husband CAUGHT IN THE ACT who claims THIS DOESN'T MEAN I DON'T LOVE YOU, WIFEY DEAR!

And WIFEY DEAR doesn't want to face FACTS, because that would mean she has to go home to live with Mother! So she gushingly accepts his lying contentions.

You have no foundation for believing they don't hold fast to the enemies of America.

You just don't want to deal with the reality.

Mr. Robert Brown, wasn't the GOP in complete control of Congress for 6 years? How could anyone forget that? They were SPINELESS for 2 reasons, they had the votes before the 06 elections and did NOTHING in fear of making the Dear Leader look weak.Did the GOP's policy come from a total rejection of The President's and Sen. Kennedy's ideas? NO. Then why didn't they 'break" with the President before? #2:THEN they waited like fools for the Democrats to produce legislation and give them cover. Yeah, that looked like a real break from the President. Political expediency trumps all doesn't it?

Writes Jim Rockford, "3. Dems are class-based. Patronizing upper-class twits who hate/fear/loathe ordinary people allied with minority group grievance organizations that target middle class white people as the source of all evil to gain monetary transfers via taxes funneled to orgs like the Rainbow Coalition or various other payoffs (Affirmative Action, Diversity, etc.)"

While this is an apt characterization of the leadership, it is a puzzle how they manage to get 50+% of the electorate to vote for them. You would think that 'ordinary people' would still make up the majority of the country.

Re this conversation: "One way to possibly solve this would be for the airline companies, which are, after all, private entities as opposed to government agencies, to publish a usage policy that stipulates that if you fly with them, you are specifically agreeing to have your own behavior scrutinized for suspicious activity by the crew and passengers, and that you are a) expected tp report suspicious activity yourself, and b) waive any right of recourse against anyone for scrutinizing you by stepping on board the plane."

Posted by: Scot at July 22, 2007 3:55 PM

"Scot, I like your idea a lot and I want to believe that this could be done.

"However, I suspect there are specific rights you can't sign away and I bet civil rights are among those."

Posted by: bulbasaur at July 22, 2007 4:24 PM"

The captain of a ship, probably including an aircraft, has certain absolute rights, which supercede those of the crew and passengers.

I suspect this authority, combined with Scott's waiver, would be definitive (depending on the judge, of course, in this cockamamie society where the rule of [liberal] man so often overrides the rule of law), and I would urge the airlines to adopt the waiver at once.

/Mr Lynn

As I stated previously, this case may be without merit but that is something only a jury can decide. Posted by: Ray at July 22, 2007 7:55 PM

Then why did John Conyers have a full-blown resolution prepared the morning after the incident? Why did this resolution contain "special civil rights protections for Muslims"?

You don't throw together a resolution complete with civil rights protections overnight.

"Then why did John Conyers have a full-blown resolution prepared the morning after the incident?...

...You don't throw together a resolution complete with civil rights protections overnight."

It is very possible that Mr. Conyers had been working on his resolution for several weeks or even months prior to this incident (this was not the first time Mr. Conyers have accused of the Bush administration of instituting a policy of discrimination through the use of security enforcement and Mr. Conyers has pandered to the fears of minorities through the use of false claims of "racial profiling" many times in the past) and used that incident as "proof of discrimination" which emphasizes the reason for introducing his bill. Mr. Conyers is, after all, a politician so this type of opportunistic behavior is well known to him.

In other words, Mr. Conyers simply took advantage of this incident for political reasons and not as part of some grand conspiracy.

I think the obvious answer is the most accurate answer. It walks like a duck, etc..

Harry Reid and Company want the Dems to gain control of the government, lock, stock and barrel, and they're hoping the terrorists will do the dirty work.

At the moment, Dems are saddled with Bill Clinton's rather anemic history on terorism, and an attack during the Bush administration would balance the scales. Another attack would allow the Dems to say, "See, see, we said the Bush administration had not done enough to prevent an attack."

Another attack also would be a blow to the economy, which, to the distress of Dems, is humming along quite nicely at the moment.

Connect the dots: The effect of not approving the "John Doe" provision is to discourage citizens from reporting suspicious behavior, and that increases the chances of a terrorist attack ... and victory for the Democrats.

Yep, it walks like a duck.

I think the obvious answer is the most accurate answer. It walks like a duck, etc..

Harry Reid and Company want the Dems to gain control of the government, lock, stock and barrel, and they're hoping the terrorists will do the dirty work.

At the moment, Dems are saddled with Bill Clinton's rather anemic history on terorism, and an attack during the Bush administration would balance the scales. Another attack would allow the Dems to say, "See, see, we said the Bush administration had not done enough to prevent an attack."

Another attack also would be a blow to the economy, which, to the distress of Dems, is humming along quite nicely at the moment.

Connect the dots: The effect of not approving the "John Doe" provision is to discourage citizens from reporting suspicious behavior, and that increases the chances of a terrorist attack ... and victory for the Democrats.

Yep, it walks like a duck.

I think the obvious answer is the most accurate answer. It walks like a duck, etc..

Harry Reid and Company want the Dems to gain control of the government, lock, stock and barrel, and they're hoping the terrorists will do the dirty work.

At the moment, Dems are saddled with Bill Clinton's rather anemic history on terorism, and an attack during the Bush administration would balance the scales. Another attack would allow the Dems to say, "See, see, we said the Bush administration had not done enough to prevent an attack."

Another attack also would be a blow to the economy, which, to the distress of Dems, is humming along quite nicely at the moment.

Connect the dots: The effect of not approving the "John Doe" provision is to discourage citizens from reporting suspicious behavior, and that increases the chances of a terrorist attack ... and victory for the Democrats.

Yep, it walks like a duck.

It appears the jihaddies are using the legal sstem to wage war on th civilized. The purpose of the lawsuits are to intimidate. The jihaddies have nothing to lose but being taken to court is a major expense and they are funded by very deep pockets.

The nonsense about its in the law only shows how ridiculous the system is that allows anyone to bring suit without penalty for frivilous purposes or in this case with the aim of subverting the entire justice system.

The failure to pass a "good samaritan cause" in these cases only reveals that the dimmierats have the interests of the trial lawyers and special interests at heart rather than the safety and security of the nation.

I hope the spineless party that is the GOP makes this a major campaign issue, but this would require that they had brains as well as a spine.

"The nonsense about its in the law only shows how ridiculous the system is that allows anyone to bring suit without penalty for frivilous purposes or in this case with the aim of subverting the entire justice system."

This is why we need the 'john doe' protections which this bill would provide. Of course, the 'john does' could always counter sue for defamation of character but I doubt they could afford the legal expenses involved. These Imams are using our legal system to attack ordinary Americans and the Democrats don't seem to care. Once again, the Democrats are showing their true agenda; A government Of the Party, By the Party, For the Party.

My spin is in general, it's a good idea to protect people that are whistle blowers, while I would argue the sweeping language lends too much favor in the other direction. The argument is that only professionals would make judgment on such things, but, professionals, for good bad or worse are still human. If a bad call is made, and it costs someone years of their life through litigation to clear their name simply because someone "thought" they were behaving badly, it reflects another problem in the opposite direction.

Find a way to protect people from going off willy nilly calling everyone here a terrorist scott-free, and I am all for it.

My spin is in general, it's a good idea to protect people that are whistle blowers, while I would argue the sweeping language lends too much favor in the other direction. The argument is that only professionals would make judgment on such things, but, professionals, for good bad or worse are still human. If a bad call is made, and it costs someone years of their life through litigation to clear their name simply because someone "thought" they were behaving badly, it reflects another problem in the opposite direction.

Find a way to protect people from going off willy nilly calling everyone here a terrorist scott-free, and I am all for it.