Register Now...

For those of you who missed the opportunity to sign up for those opposed to the hysterical and fictional War on Christmas and feel you missed your chance to participate fully in the mass hysteria of the conservative right, there is a new campaign. Michelle Malkin and her cohorts have come up with the John Doe Manifesto.

You can read all about why they are doing it. Just like the War on Christmas, on the surface, it seems relatively harmless until you get to the end and that is when they sponsors of this campaign become--to use Ms. Malkin's own phrase--"unhinged."

I will resist the imposition of sharia principles and sharia law in my taxi cab, my restaurant, my community pool, the halls of Congress, our national monuments, the radio and television airwaves, and all public spaces.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance.

I will not be cowed by your Beltway lobbying groups in moderate clothing. I will not cringe when you shriek about “profiling” or “Islamophobia.”

I will put my family’s safety above sensitivity. I will put my country above multiculturalism.

I will not submit to your will. I will not be intimidated.

I will not be censored in the name of tolerance? Uh...OK...no one is trying to censor you but being angry with the prosecution of the war in Iraq and praying before you get on a plane do not necessarily constitute suspicious behavior. If it had been Christians standing in line arguing about the war and then openly prayed before they got on the plane would anyone have jumped to the conclusion that their behavior was suspicious? Does praying before a plane ride imply that you are planning to blow up or hijack the plane? I pray before I fly and my commitment to God is highly questionable.

You won't cringe when someone calls you on your own bigotry? Maybe a little cringing is warranted if every time you see a Muslim you see a crime about to happen.

No one thinks you should put sensitivity above safety but how about putting a little sanity in your perspective? And yes, put multiculturalism above country--that is what we are asking. Not!

This whole thing is ridiculous. People are responsible for their actions. If the "John Doe's" reported these guys just because they don't like Muslims or out of hatred then filing a false police report--or whatever the technical definition of what they did is called--then they should be held accountable.

If you pass a law that says no one can be sued for malicious acts of reporting Muslims then the police and Homeland Security and TSA are going to be doing nothing else but chasing down false leads.

No one is asking anyone to submit to anything except a little common sense and sanity. I know, I know. What an outrageous request!

Chris

 

Comments

[catastrophile]

I do think it's a little funny that some of the same people that will go to bat for pharmacists who want to refuse to fill certain prescriptions drugs on religious grounds are going to freak out because a store clerk would rather you scanned your own bacon or won't let you bring booze in his cab on religious grounds.

But really, this is all ridiculous. Countering extremism with extremism doesn't solve things.

[JFH]

"If the "John Doe's" reported these guys just because they don't like Muslims or out of hatred then filing a false police report--or whatever the technical definition of what they did is called--then they should be held accountable."

Chris - Come on you can't be THAT clueless on the facts of the case.

[RD]

I guess I could answer to your concerns better when a group of crazed Christians crash four airliners and murder a few thousand innocents. And no, I don't recommend entering an airport, gathering at the gate and loudly debating global political issues in a foreign tongue and then scattering into unassigned seats before departure. You might attract unwanted (wanted?) attention to yourself.

[Chris]

so it;s the foreign tongue that makes them suspicious? really? let's have the same converation in French and then conduct a Christian prayer scene on the plane--see if we get thrown off--what I'm saying is that the suspicious behavior appears to be praying and being angry over Iraq--oh and the arbitrary decision that they didn't need seatbelt extenders--I can't speak to that one--didn't see them try to fasten their seatbelts--are you kidding? you think we need a law to protect people who would report suspicious behavior? how about we decide what suspicious behavior is--because since 9/11 being Arab or dressing in traditional Muslim dress is deemed by many to be suspicious--and you just don't get to do that here--

Terrorist acts are terrorist acts committed by twisted people--hwo about we arrest everyone who is "speaking in tongues" and writhing in prayer infront of an abortion clinic since the people who have shot abortion doctors in the past have been part of the groups who do that--therefore--praying hysterically infront of abortion clinics must be a sign that you are likely to kill abortion doctors so you can't do that here anymore?

Former army guys who hang out alone fit the profile of Timothy McVey so quick--round the rest of them up--prevent them from renting vans...

the problem with profiling is that it doesn't really work--cathching terrorists and bad guys will always be about intel--not the way someone looks or prays...

and no one here seemed to object to the idea that there are people who would and have report every Muslim or Arab who got on a plane or runs a convenience store as acting suspicious...

so really, what is the point of this law and where are the conservatives who think that we have too many laws--or do we only have too many laws when they don't foster an atmosphere os fear and hate? Just asking...

[Lee]

Chris..You're OK, in principle, on this issue...

It seems like today is: "I'm a Rightie, so I'll just whine, and obfuscate today"

[catastrophile]

Chris: "where are the conservatives who think that we have too many laws"

They've been cowed into silence by the authoritarian neocons.

See, "paleo"-conservatives have the option of keeping their mouths shut if they don't want to be called traitors.

Liberals, of course, will be called traitors (or some variation thereon) no matter what.

[dimmer]

"Michelle Malkin"
Why do we keep letting this America hater out of her internment? And even if we do that, don't we still have asylums?

[Lee]

Dimmer..

Reagan closed all the asyla...

[dimmer]

I guess he needed some of that old "elbow room" for it's altzy self?

Can we recycle the MM joke?

MM gets on a plane, goes into the bathroom for a wee-wee and notices that there are some undesirables (non-white, maybe non-christians) on board.

Worried, she asks to talk to the pilot.

"Pilot sir, we should be careful, there are "dangerous types" on board!"
"Oh my golly gosh. OK, go back to your seat."

"Flight 212 to ATC, we have a situation, making a forced landing at maximum speed into hardest piece of earth we can find."
"ATC to 212, Terrorist activity?"
"Negative ATC, service to humanity."
"ATC: Malkin or Coulter?"

[dimmer]

On a serious note, it's a real shame to see that all these people can do is hate, and hate based on creed. They need to take a look at Sartre dissemination on why Antisemitism is pointless. Sadly, we just seem to be falling into the same ignorance gap: Jew as meta-enemy becomes Arab as meta-enemy.

I guess we need to stop Schoolhouse Rock from singing that "Melting Pot" song ever again.

[LizaJane]

What I think is ridiculous is that these Muslims claimed to be or were supposed to be "scholars" . Now they are outraged and claiming to not understand (and some of you are too) why the rest of the passengers on that plane might have been worried or would find their behavior questionable.

I guess if you forget 9/11 and how scary it was; and don't believe we are at war; and don't believe there is a real enemy; you would argue every possible angle that would only make the passengers look like the wrong doers and the less sensitive individuals in this case.

Up is down and left is right. We sure live in interesting times.

[dimmer]

LizaJane: the problem with that approach is that it leads to things like the Japanese American internment camps. We've now (so many, many decades later) publically said "Whoopsie" on that.

I'm an athiest, but I hate flying, every take-off you'll hear me pray to god, jesus, mary, buddah, and Andy Dick to please let me come down easy: it doesn't make me a terrorist. I was in Scotland when Lockerbie happened: it was a shock, but we were kinda used to terrorist activities (IRA/UDA) so we didn't automatically start thinking anyone Libian (sp?) was a bad guy. These days, Lybia is "on our side" after we started to talk with them (and, err, blowing up their Presidents kids).

Ick, my long-winded way of saying this is that if you think prayer in public should be banned, I'm against you. If you think that basing someone based on race, color or creed is right, I'm against you. If you think that it takes unusual circumstances for people to give their lives for a political point and maybe we need to figure out what the underlying problem is I'm with you.

9/11 was scary. Especially for a nation unused to such extreme responses to foreign policies. But you won't make traction by just responding with hate and seclusion. Words are cheaper than bombs.

[LizaJane]

"But you won't make traction by just responding with hate and seclusion"

Tell it to the scholars.