We’ve got anti-Muslim accusations. We’ve got anti-American accusations. We’ve got anti-Peter King accusations. We’ve got charges of bigotry, racism and religious intolerance. We’ve got a New York Times magazine writer asserting that “America is a tinderbox of prejudice and fear.” In short, we’ve got a lot of hysteria.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, the ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, today announced the ranking members for the six subcommittees.
Sheriff Dupnik's politicization of Arizona shootings a sad day for politics, law enforcement and the pursuit of justice
What kind of law enforcement professional would blithely discuss possible motives about a heinous and shocking crime to the media, to national television, while the investigation was ongoing? What kind of law enforcement professional would do such things without a shred of evidence? And, most important, what kind of man would make such an incendiary, partisan and politicized charges in the midst of chaos and grief when nineteen people had been killed or wounded during a tragedy that has led to national mourning?
Let’s take a moment and view this patdown controversy through they eyes of the TSA. Nobody wants to be profiled. Nobody wants to go through scanners. Nobody wants patdowns. Frankly, nobody wants the TSA at the airports at all. And yet we all want the TSA to project us while we fly. The public is going to have to have a serious discussion about finding a balance between privacy and security. The obvious answer is profiling, despite the campaigns of professional privacy lobbyists against it.
I was thinking about going out and looking for a hooker, but then I realized it was a bad idea. It’s exploitative. I don’t have the money. Should my wife find out, she would have rusted debris surgically inserted into uncomfortable places around my body. And, what’s more — why pay for a prostitute when the TSA will give you the same very personal attention for free?
If journalists are going to maintain intellectual integrity, then they must objectively acknowledge–whether they like it or not–that there are indeed Americans still traumatized by the murder of some 3,000 Americans by Islamic extremists who crashed airplanes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
If DOJ is going to sue the state of Arizona over its immigration law that is allegedly at odds with federal law, then why is the same standard not applied to California, which has legalized so-called medical marijuana and is pushing to fully legalize pot outright?
When I’m listening to two guys with guns–one a four-star general leading our troops in Afghanistan and the other a holster-packing freak who thinks he’s Abraham ready to sacrifice his own –I think I’ll go with the general. Listen to Patraeus: Drop the Koran-burning idiocy.
Back in 2006, before George W. Bush’s approval ratings dropped through the basement into somewhere around the fourth circle of hell, it made political sense for the congressional Democrats to attack the Republican administration on cargo security. They were fighting to regain control of Congress and had to show that they, too, were capable of protecting the American people from another terrorist attack. They found themselves an effective–if inaccurate–sound bite in accusing the administration of screening a mere 5 percent of cargo coming into the country. But are they seriously going to continue this bizarre effort? Even President Obama’s Administration thinks this is a terrible idea.