Comments on: Ayaan Hirsi Ali hits Dutch government’s stinginess

By: profitsbeard

profitsbeard — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 06:07:00 +0000

If the Dutch would just cut off welfare payments to the illegal Mohammedans within Holland, Hirsi Ali could buy a thousand years worth of security.

Their cowardice is only matched by their stupidity.

By: Darth Executor

Darth Executor — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:24:00 +0000

Are you apposed to paying for the protection of former Presidents?

FloatingRock on October 19, 2007 at 6:30 PM

For the most part yes. Most of them can afford to pay for their own damn security.

By: Darth Executor

Darth Executor — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 05:23:00 +0000

Bryan on October 19, 2007 at 10:14 PM

I don’t see why the distinction is relevant in this case. Are you saying non-US citizens should not be protected by US law enforcement? Even if they’re in the US legally?

By: Bryan

Bryan — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 02:14:10 +0000

Darth Executor on October 19, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Well, she isn’t a US citizen. I know that Harry Reid has a problem distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens. Hopefully you don’t suffer from Reid’s Disease.

By: aengus

aengus — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 23:56:41 +0000

I’m not sure the US should pay for her or anyone’s protection. I’ve followed this story since the beginning, but I’m not kosher with providing private citizens with bodyguards at the tax-payer’s expense. Something about that doesn’t sit right with me. I think it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a slippery slope.

THe phrase “kosher” has officially been replaced with the phrase “halal”. You must not have got the memo.

By: FloatingRock

FloatingRock — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:36:09 +0000

Sorry, I should have refreshed before asking that question. It appears you support the protection of former presidents.

Is the US government “practicing dhimmitude” for not paying for her security as well? Gimme a break. -Darth Executor

Possibly, but that’s not the point. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a prominent former member of the Dutch government.

By: FloatingRock

FloatingRock — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:30:57 +0000

Darth Executor on October 19, 2007 at 6:13 PM

Are you apposed to paying for the protection of former Presidents?

By: Darth Executor

Darth Executor — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:16:05 +0000

PRCalDude on October 19, 2007 at 5:35 PM

It’s there just in case one of the Bushitler’s gestapo elites tries to assassinate him.

On a more serious note, all presidents get protection because, let’s face it, you can’t be president without a huge chunk of people hating your guts, no matter who you are.

By: Bad Candy

Bad Candy — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:15:04 +0000

PRCalDude on October 19, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Ha! Funny!

By: Darth Executor

Darth Executor — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:13:40 +0000

I don’t think a country should foot the bill for someone else’s protection abroad unless they’re there for government business.

posted at 4:56 pm on October 19, 2007 by Bryan

In other words, the Dutch government is practicing dhimmitude.

Is the US government “practicing dhimmitude” for not paying for her security as well? Gimme a break.

By: Speakup

Speakup — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 22:10:41 +0000

Her security bill should come out of Ahmadinejhad’s pocket.

By: FloatingRock

FloatingRock — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:46:41 +0000

PRCalDude on October 19, 2007 at 5:35 PM

Good question. I think the answer may be that they are protecting Jimmy from people who might do him harm based on their generic hatred toward Americans. They might harm Jimmy without realizing that he’s on their side and in all likelihood is partly responsible for inflaming their hatred against the USA.

But I’m only guessing. :)

By: TheSitRep

TheSitRep — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:37:27 +0000

I’m not sure the US should pay for her or anyone’s protection. I’ve followed this story since the beginning, but I’m not kosher with providing private citizens with bodyguards at the tax-payer’s expense. Something about that doesn’t sit right with me. I think it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a slippery slope.

robblefarian on October 19, 2007 at 5:19 PM

I think I see where you are coming from but consider this.
All of us tax payers are under the protection of police. How much protection you get is based on any real threats. She is absolutely under “Clear and Present Danger”

And know this; the forces that would have her head are the same that flew those planes on 9-11.

By: PRCalDude

PRCalDude — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:35:58 +0000

EXACTLY! plus I bet Al Queda would gladly protect Jimmy Carter since he is on their side.

TheSitRep on October 19, 2007 at 5:32 PM

Dammit. Beat me to it!

By: PRCalDude

PRCalDude — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:35:26 +0000

I’m all for transferring Jimmy Carter’s secret service protection over to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Why should we spend all of that money protecting Jimmy, who is not only worthless but actually harmful to our nation, when we could protect Ayaan instead, one of a few stalwart defenders of the modern free world?

FloatingRock on October 19, 2007 at 5:28 PM

FloatingRock,

Why does Carter need protection? He’s firmly in bed with the Islamists. Why would they want to kill their most useful tool?

By: TheSitRep

TheSitRep — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:32:02 +0000

I’m all for transferring Jimmy Carter’s secret service protection over to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Why should we spend all of that money protecting Jimmy, who is not only worthless but actually harmful to our nation, when we could protect Ayaan instead, one of a few stalwart defenders of the modern free world?

FloatingRock on October 19, 2007 at 5:28 PM

EXACTLY! plus I bet Al Queda would gladly protect Jimmy Carter since he is on their side.

By: TheSitRep

TheSitRep — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:30:13 +0000

She is one of the most beautiful women in the world.
Mind, body, and soul(if she had one)
She has made me weep while watching her speeches.

By: FloatingRock

FloatingRock — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:28:47 +0000

I’m all for transferring Jimmy Carter’s secret service protection over to Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Why should we spend all of that money protecting Jimmy, who is not only worthless but actually harmful to our nation, when we could protect Ayaan instead, one of a few stalwart defenders of the modern free world?

By: thuja

thuja — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:23:44 +0000

What would Spinoza do?

By: Califemme

Califemme — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:23:42 +0000

She is my new personal hero, and of course, the greatest Infidel evah!

By: robblefarian

robblefarian — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:19:57 +0000

I’m not sure the US should pay for her or anyone’s protection. I’ve followed this story since the beginning, but I’m not kosher with providing private citizens with bodyguards at the tax-payer’s expense. Something about that doesn’t sit right with me. I think it sets a dangerous precedent and creates a slippery slope.

By: jimwesty

jimwesty — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:15:07 +0000

This woman needs to be protected at all costs. She shines with the truth and clarity of message.

By: TheSitRep

TheSitRep — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:11:44 +0000

New thought.
What ever monies reaped from AQ and terrorist organizations could be earmarked for her protection.

By: TheSitRep

TheSitRep — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:09:37 +0000

I think the US should provide security for her in a big way.
The FBI could actually learn some things about the people trying to kill her and protect her at the same time.
It would be Part of HLS overhead.

When she is in The Nederlands the Dutch should provide security.

By: Nyog_of_the_Bog

Nyog_of_the_Bog — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:08:16 +0000

All I can say is God Speed!