Skip to content

Democrats Strip John Doe Amendment from Homeland Security Bill

July 21, 2007

 The other day the Democrat leaders,(it had bi-partisan support), stripped from the homeland security bill an amendment called the John Doe amendment. This amendment would have protected concerned citizens who report suspicious activity from civil lawsuits. This legislation was in response to the Flying Imams case.

  We are asked to be more vigilent in these trying times, and when we try to do the right thing… comes the ACLU. What a shock.

  Political correctness almost led to the non-twarting of the Fort Dix six. You can read how here. The store clerk who reported the six after seeing their terrorist training video they asked him to copy was a young man. He has obviously been raised in the politically correct mindset as he at first wasn’t sure he should report it for fear of being called a racist. If somwhow these men are freed, they will now be able to sue this store clerk hero. This amendment would have stopped that.

  So why would the Democrat leaders kill this measure when it had bi-partisan support? I can only think of two reasons why. They are either in the pockets of the ACLU and the trial lawyers, and value their interests more than the American people’s interest. Or they are afraid to do anything that might seem to admit that Americans need to stay vigilent. In a sick sort of way they don’t want it to seem that George Bush is right that a danger still exists. They know the are soft on national defense, and crime for that matter, and don’t want the American people to feel there is any danger for fear of losing votes.

  Either way, they showed the American people where they stand on this issue, or wait, maybe they didn’t as I have not seen this reported anywhere.

4 Comments leave one →
  1. July 21, 2007 8:32 am

    It is pretty sad, isn’t it? I’m honestly at a loss for words on this one, because I can’t for the life of me figure out how they can justify taking away a little bit of protection from the American public. I mean, lawsuits are a threat to people anyway, since there seems to be no boundary that the trial lawyers aren’t willing to cross when it comes to suing people and making money. One would think that having a lew in place to protect people who are simply trying to do the right thing would only make sense.

    What really makes me mad is that we have a law in place to protect whistle blowers from retribution, why not protect good citizens who are simply looking out for people’s well-being too?

    The only rationale I can think of is exactly what you said. They are so deeply tied into the ACLU and trial lawyers groups that they wouldn’t dare infringe on their territory.


  2. July 21, 2007 8:59 pm

    I never even thought of the whistle blower angle. Good point. I believe they have to be in bed with the lawyers on this one. It is sad that they put their own interests above America’s interests.



  1. American Traditionalist - Traditional Views & Opinions » What the difference between a Terrorists and an ACLU lawyer?
  2. American Traditionalist

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: