A major victory for common sense. By Audrey Hudson in the Washington Times (thanks to Davida):
House Republicans tonight surprised Democrats with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity -- the first step by lawmakers to protect "John Doe" airline travelers already targeted in such a lawsuit.After a heated debate and calls for order, the motion to recommit the Democrats' Rail and Public Transportation Security Act of 2007 back to committee with instructions to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121.
Republicans said the lawsuit filed by six Muslim imams against US Airways and "John Does," passengers who reported suspicious behavior, could have a "chilling effect" on passengers who may fear being sued for acting vigilant.
Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican and ranking member of the House Homeland Security Committee, offered the motion saying all Americans -- airline passengers included -- must be protected from lawsuits if they report suspicious behavior that may foreshadow a terrorist attack.
"All of our lives changed after September 11, and one of the most important things we have done is ask local citizens to do what they can to avoid another terrorist attack, if you see something, say something," said Mr. King.
"We have to stand by our people and report suspicious activity," he said. "I cannot imagine anyone would be opposed to this."
Mr. King called it a "disgrace" that the suit seeks to identify "people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity."
Indeed.
Here is a list of the votes. No surprise how the votes went. Courtesy of LGF
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll200.xml
I am surprised that there was a 'heated' debate - or any debate at all. But, then look at the list of ones who voted no on this bill.
Common sense is not common...
But there is still a chance that the survival instinct is stronger than the rot and the corruption....
Who would oppose this bill? On what conceivable grounds? Defeat them.
Mr King rocks. I wish he was my congressman. Im stuck with Hastings.
Who would oppose this bill? On what conceivable grounds?
Posted by: Hugh at March 28, 2007 02:11 PM
Ellison, Kennedy, Rangel, Dems........
There were 121 "No" votes? That means we have 121 in the House that need to be voted OUT!
Well Champ you beat me to it...
"to add the protective language passed on a vote of 304-121."
121 morons....American morons at that....
Any word on how Mohammedan Rep. Keith Ellison D-Minn. voted on this?
OT: Minneapolis peaceniks last year threw their support to get Mohammedan Keith the Democratic nomination, which is tantamount to winning the Minnesota 5th Congressional District.
Anyway, now there’s a horrible misunderstanding and the aged hippies --- well known faces in the Twin Cities cuz they’ve been demonstrating at local defense plants since 1967 --- yesterday stormed Mohammedan Rep. Keith’s downtown Minneapolis office to protest his vote in favor of extended funding for the Iraq “war.”
Such a terrible misunderstanding. The peaceniks think that Mohammed Rep Keith voted for the surge, for more American imperialist war to subjugate the innocent Iraquis.
Fools.
Mohammed Rep. Keith voted for the additional funding cuz he knows that most of this hard-earned American money will land in Baghdad, smack-dab in the middle of Dar al-Islam. This is important, cuz many of these billions will be to supply the Shia and Arab Sunnis and Kurd Sunnis with weapons and ammos and training. Many other billions will be flat welfare giveaways to the mooches there, which is to say everybody there.
Then surrender and defeat, Democratic-Marxism style. But the peaceniks foolishly think that Mohammed Rep. Keith is pro-American imperialism.
After these aged hippies kiss and make up with Mohammed Rep. Kieth, they’ll be back in the Jihadi fold, right where they belong. Sheep in the pen.
It must be tough for Mohammedan Keith to resist specifying that the bulk of the dough go to the Arab Sunnis, his group as a fake Arab Sunni (but real Moslem, sorta kinda).
There were 121 "No" votes? That means we have 121 in the House that need to be voted OUT!
Posted by: champ at March 28, 2007 02:16 PM
All Dems. I provided the list of how the vote went down. See my post above.
Ayes Noes PRES NV
Republican 199 2
Democratic 105 121 6
Independent
TOTALS 304 121
...a telling tale.....
"Any word on how Mohammedan Rep. Keith Ellison D-Minn. voted on this?"
according to the roll...he is listed as voting no....
Elric66 -- they were all democrats? Well, that explains it. That means we have 121 Dhimmicrats in the House.
Is your islamgressperson on the list of nays? If so their message to you is, report suspicious activity and we support the targeting of you and all those around you! Representatives of the people, for the people and by the people? I don’t think so.
Elric66 -- they were all democrats? Well, that explains it. That means we have 121 Dhimmicrats in the House.
Posted by: champ at March 28, 2007 02:32 PM
All the CAIR supporters are Dems including my congressman.
Ellison voted no. Any surprise here? I got this from the first poster's website.
" Mr. King called it a "disgrace" that the suit seeks to identify "people who acted out of good faith and reported what they thought was suspicious activity." "
A disgrace indeed. The Imans are a disgrace and all those who voted against the resolution are a disgrace.
How would Ellison like to be on the next hijacked plane, where everyone had clammed up?
I hope this law is retroactive... CAIR is going to whine like a crybaby... When ever p***es CAIR off is good for us.
"Who would oppose this bill? On what conceivable grounds? Defeat them."
What say you KJ? Surely there is a good explanation...
-XRDC
"All the CAIR supporters are dems"
Now that's very telling -- and very chilling. I am not a demi myself, and here is one more perfect example why not!
with a procedural vote to protect public-transportation passengers from being sued if they report suspicious activity
Procedural vote means exactly what?
Resistance,
The law is retroactive and covers the lying Imams and the CAIR lawsuit.
The amendment is retroactive to activities that took place on or after Nov. 20, 2006 -- the date of the Minneapolis incident, and authorizes courts to award attorneys' fees to defendants with immunity.
A procedural vote was held to decide if the specific language to protect John Does should be inserted into the already pending Rail and Public Transportation Security Act. This is an add-in or insertion of specific language to the already existing/pending legislation that is proceeding through congress. Does that help?
Witness,
It means how our rights are to be used in a civil context. They were voting on how to use our rights.
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/procedural-law.html
Procedural law
Definition - Noun
: law that prescribes the procedures and methods for enforcing rights and duties and for obtaining redress (as in a suit) and that is distinguished from law that creates, defines, or regulates rights
also
: a particular law of this nature
compare substantive law
Further proactive legislation is required, of course. Protections must be put in place to deter efforts by organizations whose aim is to advance Sharia supremacism.
Also, this vote must be remembered; those who have voted 'no' have exposed themselves to tremendous political risk, and they should be made aware of that. The 'no' vote now may merely seem slightly unpopular now, but that can change; the circumstances surrounding any legislation concerning the jihad against the American public can change on a dime, and those on the wrong side will pay dearly with the American public.
304(yeahers) against 121(Nayers)... which means there are over 30% traitors in the house.
Democrats are big let downers. Can't trust them. Then we have eight f...ing dim-wits couldn't figure what the heck that hoo-hah was all about.. my mind boggles.
House is divided into three types - patriots; traitors and dim-wits.
Good to read-- sheik yer'mami at March 28, 2007 02:10 PM is back...
hope that King-Ping is pinged sheik?
Conyers yep
Dingell
Ellison inshalla
Honda you sure tha't not Fonda?
Jackson (IL) son of the "Hymietown" preacherman.
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Kennedy Why wasn't this sick alcoholic sued for damages by the Kopechnies?
Kucinich I'd heve NEVER guessed!
McGovern
Meeks (NY)
Nadler
Pascrell
Rangel oh yeah! Fat Charlie!
Wasserman Schultz
Waters Maxie the Un-American One!
Woolsey Traitor
These are the ones with the name recognition. WHO are the fools voting these people in office? Pretty much a list of the "usual suspects" Dhiimis traitors and one jihadist [Hakim Ellis]
The 121 that voted no are just the place to start when cleaning house.Obviously they work for the enemy.Two from my own state,how rediculous.Maybe if the would be mall bomber had blown up the mall in Chicago instead of his plan being foiled thay would have voted differently.In any case after learning of his plans and they still vote no...they deserve to be strung up in the same spot as saddam and his cronies.
Like i always say pitiless times are approaching,hearts will turn to stone and the self servers deserve to go,including the media.
None of this political smoke is being blown up my ass.They have failed to see none not a single one has said one word or acted out one deed of which i approve.They can all rot wherever they fall because they are all useless,especially as leaders let alone human beings.
Those 121 traitors just spit in the face of every victim that has died at the hands of islam.Every single victims families were told that the enemies rights are more important to them than the protection of it's faithful citizens.The victims.The REAL victims.
If muslims don't like it they know how to leave.just keep trying to chip chip away you morons this country will be tore up from the floor up to find each and every one of you and tossed into the sea to swim back to hades where you can profile each other all day long.
You Americanphobes,you freedomphobes,you humanitarionphobes,you civilityphobes.You and your creton politician abettors would be wise to mleave on your own free will.
The monsters in the belly of the beast do not wish to play no more...at all!
Sorry my bad i failed to mention that my earlier post (above ) is especially for CAIR!!!!
At whatever the cost
Exsgtbrown, these 121 morons ain't morons. They are cold, calculating SOBs and DOBs who will sell their votes for 20 pieces of silver or less. They represent the left fringe of the Democratic party. If they aren't traitors, they certainly are acting the part.
Can someone breathing be considered a threat?
Exsgtbrown, these 121 morons ain't morons. They are cold, calculating SOBs and DOBs who will sell their votes for 20 pieces of silver or less. They represent the left fringe of the Democratic party. If they aren't traitors, they certainly are acting the part.
Posted by: Pelayo
These dimmicrats are corrupt and are not acting on behalf of the American people. They are covering their own butts. They are holding on to their power/position.
They do not vote on behalf of the American citizen. They vote for the lobbyists that pay for their campaigns and perks.
They were bought by the TRASH that fund their campaigns (media, corporate america, islamic agencies, etc.) and now they are obliged to that same trash.
It would be most interesting to get a list of WHO funded their campaigns. I'm sure it would be an eye-opener.
What if the dimmicrats grew spines, put the batteries back in their consciences and decide to go a different way? The trash that elected them would replace them by funding someone else that would do their bidding. They know this, so they continue to look out for THEIR best interests.
As for the American public being prepared to deal with corruption in Washington? Well, it won't happen. They are too busy being manipulated in the same way the Romans controlled their population to prevent an uprising.
Bread and Circuses.
squire -- thanks for the clarification.
It means how our rights are to be used in a civil context. They were voting on how to use our rights.
http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/procedural-law.html
Procedural law
Definition - Noun
: law that prescribes the procedures and methods for enforcing rights and duties and for obtaining redress (as in a suit) and that is distinguished from law that creates, defines, or regulates rights
also
: a particular law of this nature
compare substantive law
In a war traitors are usually shot...
At least in America, party members (the Democrats) who vote against the party lines are not disciplined like Canadian MPs who are...
The 121 who voted against this need to go.
Great news!
My representative, a Minnesota Democrat no less, voted YEA.
I like to entertain the idea that my letter to him made a difference.
Did anyone notice that all but three of the representatives covering NYC voted NO?! Even the representative FOR GROUND ZERO! How quickly people forget...