Bloggers at California Conservative commenting on the flying imans case question whether it was “a stunt designed to give political cover to Democrats who want to weaken airport security.” He observes that:
Incoming Judiciary Chairman John Conyers, (D-MI), has already drafted a resolution, borrowing from CAIR rhetoric, that gives Muslims special civil-rights protections.
Giving Muslims special civil-rights protections– especially in regards to airport security– is akin to making the school bully a hall monitor in the hope that will make him stop beating up the other kids.
California Conservative notes that Democratic attempts to give Muslims special protection could backfire in 2008:
I hope that Conyers’ legislation gets extensive coverage on CNN, FNC and conservative talk radio. I pray that the NY Times makes this legislation its next major cause. I’d be positively giddy if there’s a recorded vote on this so we can use it in commercial after commercial in 2008. Giving “Muslims special civil-rights protections” would tell Americans that (a) Democrats are in the back pockets of radical Muslim ‘civil rights organizations’; (b)Democrats care more about appeasing a fringe group than about maintaining tight airline safety and (c)Democrats will neither be tough nor smart in the GWOT. In fact, this debate will show them to be the appeasers that they’ve always been.
Giving “Muslims special civil-rights protections” is code for Democrats’ caving on this important issue, which will cement in peoples’ minds that they’re more worried about not hurting someone’s feelings than they are about protecting Americans.
It does seem that Democrats oppose practically every measure designed to thwart the terrorists– wiretapping, the Patriot Act, harsh interrogation of known terrorists, and even airport security checks of Muslims. Whose side are they on?
