It’s a shame that those in D.C. do not want to uphold the Constitution When DHS/ICE/INS, or whoever is in charge of knowing who is in the U.S. that should not be and Also responsible for seeing that they are deported, get their act together to uphold to Constitution that they take an oath to support and defend.

Only then will green card holders, such as Hirsi Ali, feel safe.

mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 7:00 PM

Good show! That seems to answer the question.

to be seen giving this woman official protection would be a huge slap to muslims and would probably cause them to go on yet another rampage
It might also sweeten her as a target, hastening her death. How many jihadis would salivate at the opportunity to kill a woman under the nose of the great satan? What Martyrdom! Hero

Umm, the only response to this is “grow a pair”. Gee, if only we can just keep our head down and not catch their eye, maybe they leave up alone…..cringe, cringe. The very embodiment of dhimmitude.

The website still doesn’t have PayPal. I don’t like writing checks and sending a wire costs $$.

I’d like to see W make her a citizen by executive order. The U.S. Marshals protect scum and give them new identities. I’d rather see my tax dollars going to protect her until the threat against her is neutralized, than going to fund things like welfare and NPR.

all the netherlands has to do is make her an ambassador to the USA/UN and then the US State Department MUST provide security AND has funds to provide her with security.

I have blogged this before.

No special rules/allocations, no special US status or new citizenship from any nation is required.

In fact, ISRAEL or France or even the VATICAN could make her a special ambassador and she’d qualify.

QUOTE: The United States has the responsibility under international law to protect visiting foreign dignitaries and resident foreign diplomats in this country. There is an equally serious obligation to protect foreign missions in Washington, New York, and other cities in the United States.

http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/inman/part09.htm

wiki on inman panel reprt:

The Inman Panel’s recommendations received strong support from Congress, and on August 27, 1986, Ronald Reagan signed H.R. 4151, the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986, which codified the recommendations of the Inman panel. [1] The new Bureau had a clearly defined mandate outlined in legislation and structured along the lines of other Federal law enforcement, security, and intelligence agencies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bureau_of_Diplomatic_Security

REPEAT: The United States has the responsibility under international law to protect visiting foreign dignitaries and resident foreign diplomats in this country.

here’s a link to my original post on this matter:

http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2007/10/solution-to-ayaans-security-problem.html

OH HELL… HERE’S THE POST:

Thursday, October 04, 2007
A SOLUTION TO AYAAN’S SECURITY PROBLEM
LGF:

the claim published by Expatica that the United States had “refused” to pay for her security was not correct; as a Dutch citizen, she does not qualify for protection under US law. It’s the Dutch government who has refused to pay for her security.

According to corrected reports,

they’re [ the US Gov't] legally unable to do so for anyone who isn’t a citizen. Which prompts the question: Why didn’t they grant her citizenship instead of permanent residency?

I GOTTA BETTER SOLUTION:

I suggest that the PM of Holland appoint her a special Ambassador to the USA, then the Diplomatic Security Service (DS) Service MUST provide her security – as they did for Ahmadinejad. This might be easier than granting her citizenship – or it could be a bridge until she gets US citizenship.

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE WEBSITE:

In the United States, Diplomatic Security personnel protect the Secretary of State and high-ranking foreign dignitaries and officials visiting the United States,

WILL SOMEONE CALL AYAAN AND THE DUTCH PM AND CONDI RICE AND TELL THEM THIS, PLEASE.

Permalink – Posted by Reliapundi

Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Abortion doctors don’t have 24/7 police protection provided by the friggin’ federal govt. They sometimes get local police escort, to and from their clinic, in response to a specific threat made upon them. They don’t get friggin’ 24×7 security details provided by the feds. Ali was talking about a million $ + security detail, in perpetuity.

I’m not a Paultard, just a regular conservative who voted for Mitt down here in Florida and will vote McCain in the general. I just don’t think the feds should give Ali protection finance by the rest of us. Private funds, personal funds, funds from her employer etc should be used, plus her own personal care. If that doesn’t work, Europe awaits; sorry.

LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Well since you ask, it seems that Hamilton had a broad view about that:

It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.

TheSitRep on February 11, 2008 at 6:48 PM

Exactly.

This is absurd nitpicking of how to spend taxpayer dollars. We also spend money in the D.O.D. on propaganda P.R.

Gerard on February 11, 2008 at 6:47 PM

Good point. We also have people in the witness protection program who are mostly a bunch of crooks who got caught but we need them to convict other crooks.

The Feds have hundreds of private citizens under protection from the mob.

One of the myriad jobs of law enforcement is to protect and serve the general public.

What part of this concept are you Pauliacs failing to comprehend?

RW Wacko on February 11, 2008 at 6:26 PM

We are not at war with abortionists or anti-abortionists. We are at war with Islamofascists and that is not “libtard” thinking!

Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 6:15 PM

What other “credible options”? Private financing? I already said that we could collaborate with private groups and contribute to her protection.

As for the “umbrella”, all people struggling against Jihad are not in the public eye and are not under clear and present danger like Ali is. Nor do they all have green cards.

Ali is an articulate spokesman who speaks like few can about the horrors of radical Islam and as such she is an ally in this war.

Buy Danish on February 11, 2008 at 6:09 PM

Because given other credible options, you not only call for the government action, but claim that umbrella should extend to all people struggling against jihad. Perhaps I’ve not read enough of your comments previous to these, but you are exhibiting a view of the USA as a tool for an end, not an end of itself. That’s why I’m surprised.

Danish, you surprise me.

Spirit of 1776 on February 11, 2008 at 6:02 PM

Why? We give asylum to people who are not the objects of fatwas by those we are directly at war with. Surely someone like Ali should be a priority in that regard.

This is not about “hugs” it’s about winning a war, and we can’t do that exclusively through military means. We cannot allow those who are on our side be intimidated into silence.

The nose under the camel’s tent arguments strike me as being very silly.

What is exactly the ‘general welfare’?

Ask the people that wrote it. Plenty of texts to help you out with that.

Anyways, my point was that simply because a power is not EXPLICIT in the constitution, it doesn’t mean that the federal government doesn’t have it.

My point is that you are wrong. Horrendously wrong. directly-contradicting-the-text wrong.

So while the words of the Constitution do not change over time, the meaning of the words and principles behind it need to adapt to our reality

Shabby handwaving and flabby language do not justify evading the actual meaning of the constitution in favour of what you would prefer it to mean. Voice your objections clearly and suggest an amendment, that’s the correct way to go about things.

Maybe it includes protecting people like Ali so that all of us feel more secure in using our 1st amendment?

Heh. I’m glad I checked this thread again for that nugget. That’s right, Madison did all that work for your feelings. Personally I’m looking forward to the founding of the department of hugs. Though when Hillary gets done with promoting the general welfare by state health care, we’ll all need it.

Anyone who is threatened by our common enemy at a time of war deserves protection.

Danish, you surprise me.

What is exactly the ‘general welfare’? Maybe it includes protecting people like Ali so that all of us feel more secure in using our 1st amendment?

mycowardice on February 11, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Exactly right.

I’d be far more worried about a contract than a fatwa. Now I feel differently if this were Europe where I couldn’t protect myself and the police were inept.
Again, if code pinkos were looking for special police protection for life you’d all be outraged.
TheBigOldDog on February 11, 2008 at 5:10 PM

Whatever. It is totally irrelevant whether one is more threatening than another. If the code pinkos get threatened by IslamoNazis I’d be all in favor of protecting them. Since they are Useful Idiots who work to enable the Islamist’s cause and get joined by all sorts of Islamist groups whenever they turn out for a “peace rally” it’s not going to happen. Anyone who is threatened by our common enemy at a time of war deserves protection.

As wonderful as I am sure she is, Ali’s death will not hand victory to the IslamNazis. We defeat these goons every time we say “NO” to their medieval backwards culture. We defeat them every time we do not sell out our principles for some vain cosmetic political gesture. We win simply by being American. Time will tell.
LimeyGeek on February 11, 2008 at 5:11 PM

Kerisit you’re thick. We are saying no to the goons by helping out Hirsi Ali!

As for the constitution which you claim precludes us from giving protection to Ali, here’s the preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

If they want you, they will have you. A CCW permit is pretty useless against a suicide vest.

Quite so. I am not a trained special forces hardass. If they really want me, I’m probably a dead man.

Now what do you think will happen when they start murdering Joe Shmoe (me) and his all-American wife and baby daughter in the name of jihad?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

To which I will reply:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxing_and_Spending_Clause

What is exactly the ‘general welfare’? Maybe it includes protecting people like Ali so that all of us feel more secure in using our 1st amendment?

Anyways, my point was that simply because a power is not EXPLICIT in the constitution, it doesn’t mean that the federal government doesn’t have it.

The problem is that once you go down the literal path, you get tons of problem, like cases that fall in black holes or cases where the outcome is horrible. So while the words of the Constitution do not change over time, the meaning of the words and principles behind it need to adapt to our reality.

At the risk of repeating myself, I’m not the anarcho-capitalist whose misreading of The Constitution leads me to believe that the government can’t offer protection to public figures whose lives are endangered, now am I?

The fact that you don’t care about her, or anyone else whose life is threatened by the contemporary avatar of Nazism, is evident.

Granted, you’re probably correct in your assessment that you’ll never merit enough publicity to warrant multiple Islamist assassins, but I hope you don’t complain when the government decides that something you write or say offends TROP and you’ll have to put a sock in it.