|
All possible terror targets funded equally
Not only does the federal government treat every person boarding an airplane—from young Arab men paying for their flight in cash to 60-year-old white businesswomen—as mathematically equally likely to be a terrorist, but it is also treating every locality in the United States as equally likely to be a terrorist target, and thus as equally deserving of anti-terrorism funding. Congressman John Sweeney (R-NY) explains this politically correct Bush policy and offers the solution: to allocate anti-terror funds based on a point system showing the relative degree of threat to each locality or installation, and the severity of consequences to the nation should it be successfully attacked.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: either liberalism goes down, or we do. Comments
Amen, Amen, Amen! The remnant of Western Civilization in the USA must repent of liberalism or die with it. There is no other choice. Sadly, I see no signs of life. Only continuing stupefication. Oh, that the blind eyes of so many would be opened! Posted by: Carl on September 16, 2003 1:50 AMIt is indeed utopian to think we have the resources to search everyone. Why not just create a prison with 280,000,000 cells so we can all be equal in our confinement? Posted by: Bill on September 16, 2003 2:05 AMThe worst thing about this is that I am convinced that Bush would be in no political danger for adopting either of the suggestions mentioned. Nearly the whole country understands that singling out Arabs for added scrutiny is the right thing to do. People understand that cities like New York are in greater danger than cities like Albuquerque. Bush’s base would support him. The people who would attack Bush are the ones who would never support him anyway—and they would only look foolish to the rest of America anyway. Again and again I see what I can only consider to be a fundamental incompetence on the Bush team. It always seems to creep out at the worst times. I do not know who is the cause. But I do know who is responsible. President Bush is the one in charge, and if he wants history to judge him kindly, he will need to begin displaying an interest and intelligence in political affairs that he has not yet shown. He is capable of it. It is lack of character not to exercise it. Posted by: Thrasymachus on September 16, 2003 2:57 AMThe Honorable Sweeney’s proposal is illegal under current interpretations of the law. All citizens are due equal protection. As a resident of rural Oklahoma, I’m entitled to whatever protection the government affords a citizen of New York City. Posted by: Jason Eubanks on September 16, 2003 8:27 AMMr. Eubank’s comment sounds like a parody, but is too horribly true. Under a consistent application of the 14th Amendment, effective homeland defense would be unconstitutional. Posted by: Lawrence Auster on September 16, 2003 9:55 AMI just had a vision of Federal Justices directing troop movements in the case of an actual invasion. All to make sure that everyone is equally protected from invading troops. Posted by: Thrasymachus on September 16, 2003 10:35 AMyikes, why all the wringing of hands? we don’t actually want ‘homeland’ do we? at least not at each of our doorsteps, do we??? i propose ‘safe states’, designed under the singapore model, where everyone who wants a nice yummy and secure police state can have what they want. new york would be a police state and my state wouldn’t be a police state, but a catholic one. let’s bring back federalism and give each of us what we think is the most fitting form of government. Posted by: abby on September 16, 2003 2:58 PM |