Never has the difference between our the two major political parties been clearer.
In fact, it can be distill to one question... national security.
Last week democrats stripped the "John Doe" provision in the proposed homeland security that would protect Americans from being sued for in good faith reporting behavior they consider suspicious and might lead to a terrorist attack
The usual suspects are behind this protection of terrorists act... Senate Majority Leader Harry "The war is lost" Reid, and Senate and House Judiciary committee chairs, Sen. Patrick Leahy and Rep. John Conyers. They've used procedural roadblocks to kill the provision and if it isn't included in the final bill it will blow a hole in our national security you can drive a car bomb through.
That's what you get with a democrat majority in the Senate... how you like it?
According to the WSJ, the NYC Metro Transpiration Authority subway tipline received almost 2,000 reports of suspicious activity last year alone. How many were terrorism in the making and how many were not?
Let us assume 99% of the "suspicious" activities came to nothing. That means that in a Reid-Leahy-Conyers nation, each and every one of those alter citizens could be sued by the ACLU, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, or any number of other deep-pocket organizations that would bankrupt those guilty of only good intentions.
Of course the irony is that Saudi money... terrorist money... would likely fund these very efforts to undermine our national security... with a great deal of help from American attorneys like John Edwards.
Yet... a terrorist can fail 99 times out of 100, but we cannot fail a single time.
"This party hurts my country every day... some worse than others." -- Dennis Prager.
All this is here and now... and if you want to see the future your children and grandchildren are likely to inherit from a politically-correct, democrat nation... Prager reports:
Five months ago in a McMinnville Oregon middle school, the kids... both boys and girls... engaged in "Butt Slapping Day"... in my day it was "bra snapping".
Two seventh-grade boys were singled out, arrested, stripped search, jailed and prosecuted; they now face 10 years in prison and a life-time on the sexual offenders list. Heart-breaking video here.
A Nifong DA clone, Bradley Berry, and a craven school administration are behind it all.
By the way... the girls who engaged in this were not even interrogated; in fact, they said they were intimidated into saying the "right" things and asked to speak in court on behalf of their "friends".
Despite this, Berry said "these cases are devastating to children. They are life-altering cases."
The War Against Boys continues.
Remember... "the DA is not our friend."
I am not comfortable with any law that says a crime is determined not by what the accused did or said, but only by how the victim feels about it. How can any accused defend themselves, then? How could you possibly prove the accuser is lying about how they felt? Why even bother with a trial, then?
For a another common example, consider how sexual harassment rules at work are based entirely on how the accuser claims they felt (regardless of what was actually said or done). A shy guy can ask a girl out and it might make her feel uncomfortable; but if a guy she likes makes an obvious sexual inuendo, she might just laugh and feel flattered. It becomes a crime simply because it came from a person the "victim" isn't attracted to (and how many men really know how women think?). This is exasperated by the tendancy of women to pretend they are interested even when they are not (so as never to hurt a man's feelings). She keeps smiling and telling el Wierdo she'd really love to do lunch, but can't today, so he takes her at her word and keeps asking. Next thing he knows, he is in a scary one on one with a supervisor, hearing that he can't be told what he is accused of nor who has accused him, but if he doesn't stop he will be "let go". A system begging for abuse (intentional and otherwise).
I think a 13 year old boy should know better than to slap girls on the butt, but it sounds like the punishment in this case is way out of proportion.
This isn't the same DA that handled the McMartin case is it? Why are there so many of them? Scary!
Posted by: DontAskMe | July 23, 2007 at 07:49 PM