michellemalkin.com

According to Anne Applebaum, courageous Islam critic Aayan Hirsi Ali is now back in the US after being forced to leave briefly when the Dutch government moved to revoke funding for her guards unless she returned there. […] Rea…

1. She is not Mexican

2. She is not illegal

She should have taken sanctuary in that church in Chicago and protested the abuse of illegals. That would have given her a year of absolute safety

We do not owe her personal protection. However she is an important figure in the movement to fight islamo fascist oppression. She is a witness to the behaviour threatening all of us.

State Department characters helped leverage the movement that caused our involvment in Kosovo and the susequent muslim dominance of that region; they have no problem getting involved when it something they want.

Obviously she is not their favorite poster child

unseen on October 2, 2007 at 8:18 AM

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…you don’t understand that as an individual, a family, a neighborhood, a city, a state, or a country? You think only “society” is protected. How many society’s have you met and had over for dinner?
What a strange way of looking at the constitution…as if it was not created for each individual to live out their lives in peace.

unseen on October 2, 2007 at 8:18 AM

What part of providing for the general welfare is lost to you? The government is there to protect us, that is all (and about the only thing it should do). We are not a “posse” with guns strapped to our sides to protect us.
I have a family to work for, I don’t want to go to work, shooting it out as I walk down the street. I am afforded freedom, and that freedom is defended by the Constitution.
Read the constitution, or read my posts. The founders were willing to give their lives to protect all…you are willing to take a life to protect yourself. There is a difference.

So how many guns to you take to the schoolyard when you pick up your kids?

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.

WE didn’t invite Mr. Terrorist to our shores – why should we pay for his security? Have the UN pony up the dough and if he gets bumped off because the blue helmets were not up to it then its the UN’s problem.

Now paying for OUR security from Mr. Terrorist is another matter. He should have been escorted, under heavy guard, to and from the UN’s front door and that’s it.

There aren’t any security details attached to restraining orders; as arule, the police start paying attention after you’ve actually been attacked. Getting personal police protection, regardless of specific threats, is almost impossible unless you’re a high value witness in a high profile case, and even that doesn’t last. Police may provide some form of celebrity security at public events, but that’s about it.

JM Hanes on October 1, 2007 at 7:09 PM

They also start paying attention when the threat is realized, which is was when the man she worked with was murdered.

Honestly, it’s in the country’s best interest to protect her. The people after her are the people we’re after.

Re: Tax-payer dollars being spent on security. Can you say FBI witness protection program? Can you say comparatively a drop in the bucket?

work”, I mean, like, I think I’m actually a little in love with her. Vyce on October 1, 2007 at 2:19 PM

Let he whose heart has not fluttered cast the first stone.

The constitution provides for individual protect by its 2nd amendment. The rest of the document is for society as a whole. Freedom not only means freedom from the government but also the freedom to protect yourself. Personal freedom requires personal responsibility. Buy a gun, learn to shoot, hire a private security firm. I wish people would stop looking for the government for all their problems. What has happened to this country.

We are as a country offically now a bunch of wussies cowering in the basement. The wussification of America continues. I blame feminists and liberals.

There is nothing in the founding documents to suggest that it is the government’s responsibility to protect an individual. Only that they protect society as a whole. If due to your own actions you increase your risk of harm to yourself you should take responsibility for those actions and DEFEND YOURSELF. That is the reason for the 2nd amendment. We live in a country that makes it not only a right but a duty to see too your own protection. That is what is called FREEDOM.

You can have FREEDOM or SECURITY you can not have both. The government should be in the business of protecting my FREEDOm not my security. I ccan take care of myself.

From this thread it appears that America is no longer the land of the free and the brave but the land of the frightened and the insecure.

That being so, if they weren’t prepared to guarantee her security themselves, why did they issue her a green card six days ago?
Its the “Government”.

Can we expect anything less?

.

GT on October 1, 2007 at 2:16 PM

Is this the same agency that gave Mohammed Atta a student visa… six months after 9/11 ?

JM Hanes on October 2, 2007 at 12:21 AM

You and I interpret the constitution differently. You think we should provide for our own security, I think the government is bound by the constitution to do that. Ali would be a good test of the commitment to constitutional application.
Why have a constitution if we are afraid to apply it because we can’t ever “choose” the right person to defend? That is what the elected leaders are for, that is what congressional debate is for. That is how we find out who wants to defend us and who wants others to defeat us. You are afraid to make a decision as to how to apply the law, you would not be a good leader,you would probably make a good beauracrat or a good politition. You can argue a point from both sides, but are afraid to make a decision because it can’t help everyone, and everyone won’t agree.

Astounding but true (via Hot Air):…

What they said.

This woman has made herself more an ally of America than most members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

To argue tax money and nickle and dime her to death — literally — is an obscenity.

“To each according to their danger, from each according to their sense of duty.” – Karl Marx The Rugged Individual

JM Hanes on October 2, 2007 at 12:21 AM

Good idea.

Shame on us.

I, personally, believe that Ali both needs protection and more than deserves it. Aside from funding, the real problem I see is that when you assign that task to the government, what you & I think about who is worthy will end up factoring into the decision-making process for about 10 seconds. I really don’t want a Congressionally mandated bureaucracy (lobbied heavily by both usual & unusual suspects) deciding who is high value and who is not. I’d rather send my money directly to a Hirsi Ali Foundation where, assuming she’s as valuable I believe her to be, others will doubtless ante up as well. She’ll end up getting more of the actual money I send in than she would if it were routed through the Feds — and I’ll have more left to send to other folks of my own choosing.

I pretty much agree with you across the board on your post.

I see no evidence in any of today’s reportage that Hirsi Ali demanded that the US government pay for her security. Even Pipeline doesn’t make that claim in their smear piece on Hirsi Ali.

Who cares what the IslamoFascists think?

Buy Danish on October 1, 2007 at 9:50 PM

They do.

When people like Ali have the courage to speak up we have to be willing to protect them and give them the freedom to speak freely.

I agree, but the whole concept of America is that one is free to say what they want here without needing protection.

Think what kind of message it send to “moderate Muslims” if we aren’t willing to defend them, when their lives are in danger too.

Defending someone is different than offering round-the-clock bodyguards.

Look, I am with you in spirit on this and if our government covertly watched out for her welfare, I don’t have a problem with that. They may have been doing it anyway. If I was able to help protect her, I would do that.

I’m just trying to consider the bigger picture. We are trying to make it about them, rather than about us. We are trying to convince them that freedom from fear can exist in a democratic society.

I’m not going to argue with you. Who knows? I might change my mind, but these are my thoughts right now.

If the federal government were to supply protection for her, it would be making an official statement.

Connie on October 1, 2007 at 9:42 PM

I have to disagree with you on this one.

Who cares what the IslamoFascists think? That’s very Ted Kennedy-esque, worrying about inflaming the passions of Muslims.

When people like Ali have the courage to speak up we have to be willing to protect them and give them the freedom to speak freely.

Think what kind of message it send to “moderate Muslims” if we aren’t willing to defend them, when their lives are in danger too.

This is war, and we cannot ever lose sight of that fact.