Ayaan Hirsi Ali forced to leave U.S. after feds refuse to provide security?
posted at 2:07 pm on October 1, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Too awful to be true, but it apparently is.
Islam critic Ayaan Hirsi Ali returned to the Netherlands, Dutch daily NRC Handelsblad reported on Monday…
The former legislator for the Liberal VVD party was allegedly forced to leave the US as American authorities had refused to finance the expenses of her personal security measures.
So far, the Dutch government has paid all those expenses, but after more than a year of residency in the US, the Dutch allegedly said they were no longer willing to continue this arrangement.
Exit question: The U.S. presumably knew the Dutch were about to pull the security rug out from under her. That being so, if they weren’t prepared to guarantee her security themselves, why did they issue her a green card six days ago?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
What office made that boneheaded call? The state department?
Slublog on October 1, 2007 at 2:10 PM
I question the timing.
This is an outrage, let’s start up a Hirsi Security Fund!
omnipotent on October 1, 2007 at 2:11 PM
That’s a shame if it’s true. She’s one of the most well spoken voices against radical Islam.
BadgerHawk on October 1, 2007 at 2:11 PM
We use the Secret Service to protect UN Diplomats and murderers like Chavez and Iranian Hitler but for some reason we can’t provide security for Ali? WTF?!
Defector01 on October 1, 2007 at 2:12 PM
The article implies that there’s a reason the US can’t protect her (if the NRC is correct). Any guesses as to what it would be?
Our loss is their gain. I hope they can keep her safe.
Tanya on October 1, 2007 at 2:14 PM
I’d give 100 bucks a month to that.
Heck I’d be her security if I were allowed. No double entrendre.
JasonG on October 1, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Its the “Government”.
Can we expect anything less?
.
GT on October 1, 2007 at 2:16 PM
Why should the American taxpayer pay for her security? Is she a diplomat or a gov’t official?
roux on October 1, 2007 at 2:18 PM
Isn’t it always?
CP on October 1, 2007 at 2:18 PM
WTF
abinitioadinfinitum on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
Why on Earth would she need protection, don’t our moral values come from religion?
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
I need to understand the level of threats against her in this country.
Somethings missing here that I didn’t read or pick up on.
Are we saying she was being threatened here in this country? I would have expected her to be much safer than back in the Netherlands.
Kini on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
The 500lb gorilla in the room is why did she need security to start with? I am very familiar with her and I know why she needs security, I am sort of against taxpayers dollars being used to fund the security of a private citizen. I know that sounds harsh but it points to the bigger question. If they can’t assure the security of an individual how can they possibly say they are providing for our security? She would be in danger simply because she would have to do the things, we the average citizen does everyday.
Think about it. The headline should read Government says citizens not safe without private security.
LakeRuins on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
This legitimately makes me sad. I love her.
Not just, as in, “”I admire her and her work”, I mean, like, I think I’m actually a little in love with her.
Heart-ache.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM
This world is mad. Upside down!
abinitioadinfinitum on October 1, 2007 at 2:20 PM
“She’s one of the most well spoken voices against radical Islam”
There’s no question this is true and she has raised the level of awareness of the atrocities committed by the Muslim cult to anyone that has heard her. But she is not only anti-Muslim. Several local talk show hosts here in Georgia brought to my attention the fact that she doesn’t support many religions for a variety of reason. Though she went around the country correctly talking about the hypocrasey of the cult, she was also quick to point out faults with all the other religions. And where do we (the US and the goverment) draw the line with insuring protection for the opponents of the Islamic cult? If I want to go picket and raise Caine at the local 7-11 because the proprietors are Muslims, should I be guaranteed protection? At whose expense? To what degree?
rayvet on October 1, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Probably.
steveegg on October 1, 2007 at 2:21 PM
Why would she need protection from the Religion of Peace?
darwin on October 1, 2007 at 2:22 PM
A sad loss for the US.
Some free-speech billionaire liberal needs to cover security costs for her–wouldn’t that be a brave statement to say about the importance of free speech?
albo on October 1, 2007 at 2:23 PM
She needs a fast track to U.S. citizenship, not another green card.
Entelechy on October 1, 2007 at 2:23 PM
Seriously? You can wiki her and find out. I hear that Wikipedia is on the Interweb now.
albo on October 1, 2007 at 2:24 PM
Hirsi Ali – Nah, we won’t fund your security.
Ahmadinejad – Hey, want the secret service and NYPD to escort you down to Ground Zero?
nailinmyeye on October 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM
Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a professed atheist, in the mold of Christopher Hitchens. That is another sad commentary on todays’ world. That some of the most outspoken critics of Islam are atheists’ and not religious leaders of other faiths or even those within the Islamic faith.
LakeRuins on October 1, 2007 at 2:26 PM
She’s been immensely critical of Islam, which sadly means she’s not really “safe” no matter where she goes. Unless she moves to someplace really remote, like Antarctica.
She has been threatened in this country before. Remember how earlier this year, an imam from Pennsylvania – I want to say the Pittsburgh area, but it could have been Philly – stated that she deserves to be put to death for her criticisms of Islam.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Perhaps they were afraid she would accept an invitation to speak at Columbia University and that once there, there would be no way to protect her from being torn apart by “free speecher” faculty and students. (Joke.)
Dr. Charles G. Waugh on October 1, 2007 at 2:27 PM
Maybe Skeletor could have stepped in if he wasn’t so busy building the border fence. Oh wait he isn’t doing that. He is too busy refusing fruit baskets for security reasons from Tom Tancredo.
400lb Gorilla on October 1, 2007 at 2:28 PM
NO they come from GOD
“A universal sense of moral right and wrong can only come from a source outside of ourselves: a transcendent source, a moral Lawgiver. So the recognition of moral law is by default the recognition of a moral Lawgiver.” Mark Eastman, M.D.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 1, 2007 at 2:28 PM
Tragedy! Absolute tragedy!
Mcguyver on October 1, 2007 at 2:29 PM
And just who’s going to look like the international bonehead when she gets murdered by the Islamists in Europe?
Somebody in DC is begging for a huge black eye!
thejackal on October 1, 2007 at 2:31 PM
does the US government normally do things like provide security for people who aren’t on official business? i assume ali was here to do some public speaking arrangements, maybe make a couple bucks…does the US government normally assume security responsibility for this kinda stuff?
ernesto on October 1, 2007 at 2:32 PM
Nonsense. and this should be a thread about hirsi ali, not imaginary sky dads thought up by ancient goat herders being the sole source of human morality.
albo on October 1, 2007 at 2:33 PM
It’ll be a great day when Ayaan Hirsi Ali can afford all the protection she needs, and Rosie O’Donnell has to hold a bake sale to hire her armed guards, except Rosie would probably eat all the baked goods and not have any money left for security.
I guess what I’m saying is, AHA needs a GuyPod and a CCW license.
see-dubya on October 1, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Holy crap! Google GuyPod and the Charter Arms Bulldog now comes up as the second hit!
I guess I’ll take the blame for that…
see-dubya on October 1, 2007 at 2:35 PM
Then get on he haw for his constant Religion bashing, every he has the chance.
abinitioadinfinitum on October 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Is there a chance she wanted to go back? She will probably have more impact over there. Let’s just hope she doesn’t get murdered. I really don’t have much faith in the Dutch sticking up for her. Her neighbors bailed on her ignominiously before.
Did the issuance of the green card prompt the Dutch to cut her off? I’m a little confised by the whole thing. I din’t notice any private effort to raise funds, and now she’s left already.
forest on October 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM
does that mean the cultural universals of language jewlery and music all come from god too?
ernesto on October 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM
Funding for such security, I assume, would come from Congress. Without the funding, I am not sure what the US government can do, it isn’t exactly something already covered by law.
bnelson44 on October 1, 2007 at 2:36 PM
I would personally pay for a plane ticket for Ayaan to go join delightful John Smeaton in Glasgow, Scotland to assure her safety!!
If I can’t have him, I’d like Ayaan to. ;)
tickleddragon on October 1, 2007 at 2:37 PM
sense, that sentence makes, not
albo on October 1, 2007 at 2:37 PM
I support what she’s doing, but providing her with taxpayer funded bodyguards ain’t the government’s job.
Hollowpoint on October 1, 2007 at 2:38 PM
Yes, I remember that Iman from PA making a threating comment, but I haven’t heard of anyone acting on it. If that were to happen, I would think there would be a media firestorm (naivete).
I just think she would be much safer in this country than in Europe.
Kini on October 1, 2007 at 2:38 PM
This is freaking INSANE.
We are willing to provide security and even a speaking platform for a dictator who wishes nothing short of the total destruction of western society and Israel and who is responsible for the murder of our soldiers and untold thousands and Iraqi civilians – all without batting an eye.
But when it comes to providing security for a soft spoken victim and critic of the ‘Religion of Peace’ who is under constant death threats from that alleged peaceful religion we just can’t do it.
Hell take the security detail off Jimmy ‘never-met-a-murdering-thug-he-didnt-love’ Carter and give it to her. At least then it’ll do some good.
CrazyFool on October 1, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Too bad she’s not a captured murdering dictator awaiting trial, then our government could come up with the time and money to protect her.
fogw on October 1, 2007 at 2:40 PM
There’s actually Walid Shoebat who became a Christian after being a Muslim terrorist from the Palestinian territories. Then there’s two brothers whose names escape me at the moment who are both Christian converts (and pastors) from Islam. Their father disowned them after they converted to Christianity. There are actually quite a few critics of Islam who are of other religious faiths (i.e. Jew and Christian), but according to the media, they are automatically disqualified because they are of another religious faith. Islamic critics of any other faith can have at it though.
mjk on October 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM
What I would like to know is, who is paying for the damned footbaths in the airports…? Is it the government? Or a private organization.? Because if it’s the government (i.e. , us) paying for those P’sOS, well then, I think we can certainly afford security for one of our new citizens who certainly deserves that, and more!
4shoes on October 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM
If we can put up small fortunes as rewards on the heads of Jihadists, certainly we can provide security for a prominent personality on the ideological front line against Jihad.
JMHO.
infidel4life on October 1, 2007 at 2:46 PM
Oops, that should say, one of our new permanent residents…
I do tend to exaggerate sometimes!
4shoes on October 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Here’s more from AP via IHT.
forest on October 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM
Good point. Except for the fact that the average citizen in America is not an official target for wacko Islamic death squads funded by Saudi/Iranian oil money, I agree with you.
ScottMcC on October 1, 2007 at 2:49 PM
I’m a little confused here. The left in this nation claims that Islam is a religion of peace circumvented by a few radicals who reside exclusively in the Middle East. Given these parameters, why wouldn’t a critic of Islamic radicalism be perfectly safe in America?
Could it be that all the claims about Islam being a religion of peace are wrong- cooked up to deny that the atrocities of 9/11/01 and the war in Iraq are merely parts of a GWOT?
highhopes on October 1, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Why does she need security?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_van_Gogh_(film_director)
apostle53 on October 1, 2007 at 2:52 PM
Unfrigginbelievable! We give free medical care to people who enter the country illegally but we can’t protect one of the most important voices in America?
She works for the Heritage Foundation, can’t they do something? She makes a lot of money writing books, can’t she afford it? Dammit, she can stay at MY house for FREE if we get Omni’s private funding idea working.
What sad, sad day for Liberty.
Tony737 on October 1, 2007 at 2:53 PM
And don’t think the danger isn’t real. It’s been a problem since at least 1980.
see-dubya on October 1, 2007 at 2:56 PM
Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman without a Country?
Surely there are private citizens who would be willing to pay for her security and give her both the refuge and platform she deserves, and that we all benefit from.
I think there is more to this story than meets the eye (although I couldn’t tell you what it is!) and I am taking it with a grain of salt for now – at least as it is being reported.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Exactly. It’d be -their- job to pay for the security of their employee. The message she delivers isn’t the point.
Federal government isn’t in the business of providing private security to everyone who demands it. I certainly don’t want my tax dollars to pay for it.
If the heritage foundation is making the money from her speaking or is financing her speeches; they should surely provide the security as well.
Come on guys; get past the person and think about the issue at hand.
lorien1973 on October 1, 2007 at 2:57 PM
Whatever. I guess I’m supposed to be filled with outrage over this or something. Talk about a slow news day.
John on October 1, 2007 at 2:58 PM
3,000+ killed at the WTC may disagree.
LakeRuins on October 1, 2007 at 3:01 PM
And why exactly do my tax dollars have to go to protect her? Just becuase she’s a critic of Islam?
I don’t mean to sound like a jerk(but apparently today I’ve been doing a lot of that), but I don’t want my tax dollars funding security for private citizens, no matter what the cause.
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 3:02 PM
I’m tired of driving to work every day, so maybe I should do a cartoon of Allah or somebody. Can i get a caravan of security to cart me around all day?
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM
mjk on October 1, 2007 at 2:41 PM
I was thinking a little higher, like the Pope or the head of the Anglican Church or the leader of the Southern Baptists.
LakeRuins on October 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM
See-Dubay,
This is interesting:
Hmmmmmm. When I lived in New York (which was pre-9/11) there was a persian rug shop in my building and I never saw a single customer go into that shop to buy anything, but the rent was quite high and would have required a steady stream of business to stay in business.
I have always wondered if it wasn’t just a front of some sort – a place for AQ cells to operate out of, or to use to launder money.
This story does nothing to put my suspicions to rest!
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Woops! I do not mean to call See-Dubya “See Dubay”. One more letter change and it would have evolved to read “See-Dubai”.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I have to agree on this one. I can’t see why the taxpayers in the U.S. have to pay for her protection. This is one time where I see someone in government actually looking out for my tax dollar.
Helloyawl on October 1, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Maybe we could all chip in & buy her a S&W 686 & a Remington 870.
Frantic Freddie on October 1, 2007 at 3:12 PM
Personally, I would find that a more worthy use of my tax dollars than providing free care and benefits to ILLEGAL immigrants.
And a more worthy use of my tax dollars than…..well, quite a few things my tax dollars are being spent on these days. I’d rather my money go to fund the security of an outspoken critic of Islam than wind up in one of Jack Murtha’s legion of pork projects.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 3:13 PM
I have a problem with the government providing around the clock bodyguards. I’m sorry, but that isn’t government’s role. And if our government did, it would be a credible violation of the 14th Amendment.
If she were a citizen, the US government could have put her in the witness protection program. That means she would be given a new identity and the person named “Ayaan Hirsi Ali” would disappear from sight. But, so would the message that Ayaan Hirsi Ali is trying to communicate. She would no longer be able to do what she is doing now.
There is nothing wrong with private individuals or organizations paying for (or providing) her personal security. She has an important message to tell; a message that must be told.
Rather than smother her with guards at government expense, perhaps the answer is to deal with those that threaten her in the United States. There is at least one Imam in Michigan who could (and should) be prosecuted for calling for her death. Arrest, convict, imprison, and upon release, deport this SOB. And then tell the muslim imams in America that they risk imprisonment and deportation themselves unless they call the hit off.
You see, Islamic imams, like Mafiosa capos, don’t actually do the dirty work they advocate. They are supposed to be above getting their hands stained with the blood of their victims. They rely upon others to answer their call. Think about it, when was the last time an imam strapped on a suicide vest and blew himself up as a “holy martyr?” When was the last time that Mookie Sadhr actually picked up an AK47 and personally engaged US troops? Ans to both: NEVER.
These “holy men” are basically cowards. We’ve seen how Mookie will run and hide in Iran whenever we go after him, rather than stand and fight (and die) for his faith. It was pointed out to me a while back, that whenever tensions get high with Iran, certain Ayatollahs “disappear” from sight until the crisis blows over.
We can (and should) start applying the RICO laws against the mosques in America where these threats are originating from. The First Amendment is not absolute when it comes to the guarantee freely practice a religion. The freedom to practice any religion ENDS when it impinges upon the rights of other. I think it is time we start making sure that Islam in America, especially the imams, understand that they aren’t living in their pissant 3rd/4th countries anymore and that Americans won’t tolerate their bullsh*t!
georgej on October 1, 2007 at 3:16 PM
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 3:04 PM\
Yeah, you and John on October 1, 2007 at 2:58 PM and others do sound like jerks. We harbor refugees all the time and if anyone needs and deserves a place of refuge, while providing us with a direct benefit in return, it is Aayan Hirsi Ali.
Granted I would prefer that a private benefactor step up to the plate, but your arguments are quite silly, and leave me to conclude that you really don’t know the first thing about her and are reacting in a knee-jerk and fashion because she is (or was) a Muslim.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 3:17 PM
I understand the outrage, but the comparisons to Ahmadinejad are silly. We provide security to foreign officials because they represent their country. If we don’t, and one of our citizens wantonly murders them, it’s our fault in the diplomatic realm. AHA is nothing but a fugitive from a crazed wing of a religion. We can offer her sanctuary or refuge, and we even offered her a green card. But anything else is impossible, simply because it would establish a precedent. Then any private citizen of another country who thinks someone is out to get them will apply for security– all at the taxpayer’s expense.
It’s not something we should be providing. Unfortunately, her security in America can only come from private sources.
But if she sticks around for Hillary to become PotUS, she can pick up $5,000 for any babies she might have.
Nethicus on October 1, 2007 at 3:21 PM
We have no control over our immigration policy.
Alex K on October 1, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Do we really want our government protecting everyone who speaks out against Islam? It would be at total cross-purposes with what we are trying to do because it would give others who might speak out the idea that they need protection in order to do so. And if a person who was protected by the government was assassinated, whose fault would it be? Slippery slope that I don’t want to go down.
She could use private security, but it is up to her to figure out how to pay for it just like all other outspoken personalities in our country do.
Connie on October 1, 2007 at 3:30 PM
State is our national embarrassment, only after the embarrassment to all thinking people worldwide that is Jimma Carter.
I don’t favor frivolous Federal spending by any means, but we should have been providing this woman with security. She is effectively part of the war effort, although dhimmi nitwits like Bush probably don’t see it that way.
Jaibones on October 1, 2007 at 3:31 PM
You’re right, it obviously comes from that little pond of muck that was created on that planet called Earth, which is heated by the Sun, which was created by that gigantic explosion of gas and dust, that came from …
Oh wait. Never mind.
Gregor on October 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Because we’ve let in so many Islamists, and regular Muslims for them
to hide amongst, we can’t let in anti-islamists even if we want to.
Alex K on October 1, 2007 at 3:33 PM
I am a former Catholic and thus disagree greatly with the Pope. At least I acknowledge that he was in trouble a few months ago because of some statements he made regarding Islam.
Most Anglicans (but not all) are straight out liberals that deny much of the Christian doctrine.
As far as Southern Baptists are concerned, (and I am one now) I can say that we have neither a self-appointed nor elected leader. The convention is a group of local churches with similar beliefs (particularly the Baptist Faith and Message) that claims scripture our sole infallible rule of faith.
Many Southern Baptists have voiced their disdain for events like this; e.g. Al Molher President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Your statement shows enormous ignorance. Get your facts straight.
shick on October 1, 2007 at 3:35 PM
…a fluxuation in the primordial vacuum.
even if you include a “god,” he/she/it likewise came from nothing
albo on October 1, 2007 at 3:39 PM
Hold on a minute. This is America!
If you want a body guard, pay for one, two, ten. Just because the Dutch Government is a bunch of suckers doesn’t mean ours is.
Don’t get me wrong – I LOVE HER. I would gladly donate to help out. However, THIS IS AMERICA. Find a foundation, or some supporters, or a job.
That being said – someone at the State Department should have called some rich folks to hook her up. No wait, let the State Department off the hook. Doesn’t she work at a think tank. You telling me they don’t know any rich people?
Agrippa2k on October 1, 2007 at 3:44 PM
I understand your question, and agree, but doesn’t it beat the hell out of any of the other unconstitutional earmarks that get passed daily?
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:48 PM
I don’t think the govt should pay for her “personal security measures”. Maybe her employer, maybe herself, maybe from privately raised funds, but not taxpayer $s.
RW Wacko on October 1, 2007 at 3:49 PM
Exit answer: Hire Blackwater Security.
locomotivebreath1901 on October 1, 2007 at 3:51 PM
That’s my argument.
I’d rather pay for her security than have my money funneled into one of Murtha’s numerous shady pork deals, or go to a bridge in Alaska that goes nowhere.
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Unfortunately, as a private citizen she does not qualify for security protection beyond that of anyone else. Now, if our government wanted to do the right thing it would appoint her to some sort of official of Ministerial position (a la Angelina Jolie and the U.N.) and then maybe we could give her the protection she so rightly deserves….
max1 on October 1, 2007 at 4:02 PM
samuelrylander on October 1, 2007 at 3:48 PM
Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 3:58 PM
Exactly. It’s a bit hard for me to get worked up about this as a taxpayer dollars issue.
I could understand if Leftists were outraged since they do nothing but appease Islamists, but I find it a bit odd that so many conservatives are objecting, or worse, yawning.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 4:08 PM
Actually, it’s the American Enterprise Institute. She may not make as much as you think…she’s only sold 1 book and doesn’t appear to have a ton of public speaking engagements (I’ve looked into attending one, and haven’t caught much going on).
She’d have to do alot more than I’ve seen to afford these guys. Security is expensive, especially given it’s 24/7.
Although I understand the laws & why our hands are tied, I’d rather my government “waste” my tax dollars on her than all that other crap.
Miss_Anthrope on October 1, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I blame George McHitlerBurtonBush.
pabarge on October 1, 2007 at 4:13 PM
As sarcastic and insulting as you’ve been on this thread, surely you read more than the first line of that comment.
Obviously you didn’t though, because if you had, you would have read…
Of course, but religious people are expected to make that irrational leap of faith. Scientific people who claim to be above that sort of supernatural thinking, are not supposed to be making that leap.
Really, you’re not going to win your argument by saying “religious people believe something similar too.”
I don’t really understand this mentality. When people live in this country and there are known threats made against that person, we protect them. We’d do the same for anyone. If a celebrity is being stalked, we provide security.
Celebrities who think they need security but have no tangible threat get their own body guards, but otherwise we do protect them.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 4:15 PM
Maybe this is AP’s attempt at satire?
A) She is not being “forced” out, she’s leaving because the “American authorities” refuse to pay for her personal security detail.
B) What exactly in our Constitution provides for Federally-funded security for a private citizen from another country?
I respect AHA and applaud her bravery in standing up to Islamic radicalism but, for reasons enumerated throughout these comments, she is not entitled to any more (or less) protection than any other American citizen speaking out against radical Islam. (And there are plenty of those.)
kjspeedial on October 1, 2007 at 4:21 PM
What do you expect from our lumbering beaurocracy?
unamused on October 1, 2007 at 4:26 PM
So you are saying if I don’t want to spend tax dollars on protecting someone who criticizes the Muslim religion than I am a Muslim hating bigot?
Vincenzo on October 1, 2007 at 4:27 PM
I’m inclined to agree it would be inappropriate for the government to fund a special security detail for her. If she were facing a specific threat, I could see placing her in protective custody or expanding police presence around her temporarily until the threat was resolved. But as much as I sympathize with her, I think extraordinary private security should be paid for privately, no matter what its motivation. (Then again, I’m not even particularly comfortable with extending Secret Service protection indefinitely to ex-Presidents and their wives.)
Blacklake on October 1, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Which is turning out to be a double-edged sword for her.
Lawrence on October 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM
I’d gladly volunteer for the duty, we could pull the guys from the Clintonistas as well.
Viper1 on October 1, 2007 at 4:37 PM
I speak pretty good Dutch (jazeker, hoor) and live near an integrated small city (where she wouldn’t seem at all out of place as a fine Ethiopian black lady) on the edge of a semi-rural area, and have a few furnished spare rooms, excellent library, plus two tenaciously-defenive dogs, so she’s welcome to stay here free.
My shotgun and handguns aren’t much in the way of Blackwater-level security, but if she keeps a low profile in the neigborhood she’ll be fine.
Bel ons, Hirsi.
(I’ll throw in meals, too, although not halal.)
profitsbeard on October 1, 2007 at 4:39 PM
She IS facing a specific threat.
Esthier on October 1, 2007 at 4:40 PM
Why not take some of the security detail from Hillary, the Breck Girl, and B. Hussein Obama to protect her.
dalec on October 1, 2007 at 4:47 PM
come to think about it how about the NAACwhacallit.
dalec on October 1, 2007 at 4:50 PM
How about Ann Coulter’s bodyguard Floyd?
Alternatively, she could come on down to Alabama. Like to see those Islamo-assholes try to take on a few Alabama state troopers. If they want World War IV, we’d be happy to give it to them.
Ali-Bubba on October 1, 2007 at 4:51 PM
I am saying that you probably don’t know very much about her, as evidenced by this resentful comment which makes Hirsi Ali’s situation sound frivolous and unimportant:
I could understand your animus completely if we were talking about the President of C.A.I.R., but we’re not.
Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 5:02 PM
It’s a sad day when our government can’t protect those individuals who seek to protect us. To me, this issue raises a big red flag.
KCtheKat on October 1, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Could this be Jorge making a point about Shamnesty?
srhoades on October 1, 2007 at 5:08 PM
Wait this is a best selling author. why can’t she get her own security and pay for it. Does everyone have a welfare mind anymore?
unseen on October 1, 2007 at 5:21 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »