Under the bed


John de Rosier

52 Responses

  1. Albert J says:

    Ignoring the harsh reality that NYC has become THE most significant target for a very real, very determined, very insane fanatical movement that happens to choose hiding behind, and inside, the Muslim religion, would be a suicidal error. NYPD deserves our respect, thanks and admiration for accepting an increased responsibility to protect us from this insideous threat.

    I can also appreciate the difficulties and uncomfortablness the cloud increased scrutiny and monitoring adds to the peaceful Muslim community within our society. However, removing or lessening the safeguards is not the answer.

    The quickest and surest way to lessen, and eventually remove, this cloud is for the peaceful majority of the Muslim community to stand up to the radical elements that exist within their community to actively help remove whatever sanctuary they have been able to establish. There is no question, that these radical elements have no interest or concern in bringing death and destruction down on their neighbors and community to further their objectives.

    To consider that anything other than skepticism, doubt and mistrust can be generated by the Muslim community’s resistance to uncovering declared enemies of our society who have covertly, and unapprovingly, taken refuge within their midst is simply unreasonable.

    Americans, of all religious or historical persuasions, share a common enemy, who happens to be a fanatical minority who has co-opted a version of a religion that is polluting the nature of that religion and ultimately must be expelled, as it is dragging that religion down into pits of despair where it does not belong.

    The monster hiding under the Muslim community’s bed is the jihadist fanatics that have infiltrated the community and are willing and anxious to bring unlimited death and destruction down on their own community to further their maniacal objectives. NYPD may well be the most effective tool within the community’s reach to clean out the danger that is currently hiding there.

  2. Phil says:

    In my working career I had quite a few Muslim friends and acquaintances from Malaysia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt etc. They were all quite religious and some of the kindest, gentlest people you want to see. So I know that there are many moderate Muslims out there.

    The problem is that the radicals have the normal Muslims cowed. That enables the radicals to hide and convert among them. Moderate Muslims have a choice, they can stand up to the radicals or put up with being watched carefully.

    Almost as dangerous as the radicals are the feckless liberals who seem to exist in lala land!

  3. Mickie Lynn says:

    Thanks for this excellent and timely cartoon, John. I’m afraid that the monster is under all our beds when a local police department can profile an entire religious group for no other reason than that they are Muslim.

    Comments 2 and 3 show just how effective Islamophobic campaigns have been at erasing the knowledge that profiling is illegal and unconstitutional in spite of the Mayor’s denial of this fact.

    Here’s a letter by a bunch of educators for civil rights that says it all better than I could:

    “We, the undersigned faculty, call for the resignation of New York Police Commissioner Raymond Kelly and Deputy Commissioner Paul Browne. Under their leadership over the past decade:

    —The number of stop-and-frisks has skyrocketed, reaching an all-time high in 2010 of 600,601 stops, 89% of which were of Black and Latino people. This is up from 97,296 in 2002. While the department claims this is about fighting crime, only 0.13 percent of last year’s stops resulted in the discovery of a firearm, and only 7 percent of the stops resulted in arrests.

    —In the decade since 9/11, with the help of the CIA, the NYPD, according to extensive investigations by the Associated Press, has “become one of the nation’s most aggressive domestic intelligence agencies.” According to the AP’s investigation, the NYPD Intelligence Division and its Demographics Unit engaged in extensive surveillance and mapping of Sunni and Shi’a Muslim communities in New York City, Long Island, and New Jersey.

    —The NYPD monitored Muslim student associations at local colleges—Brooklyn College, City College, Baruch College, Hunter College, Queens College, LaGuardia Community College and St. John’s University— and universities across the Northeast including Yale University, Rutgers University, Columbia University, Princeton University, Syracuse University, and the University of Pennsylvania, going so far as to send undercover detectives to spy on student groups. Such surveillance has a chilling effect on student life and the intellectual freedom necessary for a vibrant academic community.

    —The NYPD screened for more than 1489 officers the anti-Muslim film The Third Jihad — which claims the “true agenda of much of Islam in America” is to “infiltrate and dominate” the United States. Kelly and Browne cooperated in the production of the film, with Kelly sitting for a 90-minute interview with the producers. The NYPD covered up its involvement in the film until news coverage stemming from FOIL requests forced the NYPD to change its story.
    New York deserves police leadership with integrity that respects and protects the rights of all New Yorkers. We call for Police Commissioner Kelly’s and Deputy Commissioner Browne’s resignation.

    Jeanne Theoharis
    Professor of Political Science
    Co-Founder of Educators for Civil Liberties
    Brooklyn College of CUNY

  4. Albert J says:

    Perhaps the relationships of cause and effect are not considered relevant in either the worlds of Political Correctness or Academia, but it would seem the focus of attention to prevent a repetition of the most catostrophic attack ever on American soil should consider the source of that attack, as well as the sources of previous attacks and ongoing threats as areas of potential focus for serious preventive measures.

    The fact that those identified as potential attackers have relied on infiltration and recruiting of gullible deciples from their native community, it would seem, should highten the focus within that community. Of course the reality that the community itself is far more often the target of wanton, violence and destruction, from radicalization should also contribute to the focus directed at vulnerable points within that community that have proven repeatedly to be chosen recruiting priorities of these same attackers.

    Along the same lines, Professor Theoharis, may have neglected to consider that substantial, although limited police resources in NYC, are consistently assigned in greater proportion to those areas in which the highest levels of criminal activity occur, and it follows that a heavier police presence produces a higher percentage of interactions with the residential population. It should also be noted that consistently, the highest frequency of criminal actions are directed at the law abiding population in communities with heavier representation of Black and Latino populations.

    Considering that over 7,800 firearms (.013% of 600,613 interactions) were confiscated, predominantly in these high criminal traffic areas, seems to underscore the effectiveness of the police concentration, rather than condemn it as being overreach or misguided. Removing the threat of over 7,800 unlicensed firearms from these Black and Latino predominant communities would seem more of a blessing to the residents than an object of complaint, as statistics also underscore that these communities suffer most from criminal activities.

    Since this particular source of threat to NYC has established a clear and consistent history of recruiting assassins and suicide bombers from younger, less experienced, more easily radicalized targets, it would seem logical that student gatherings and associations would be specific targets of interest. Not discounting the, “chilling effect on student life and the intellectual freedom necessary for a vibrant academic community”, it would seem that taking reasonable steps to prevent the radicalization and possible suicidal indoctrination of impressionable students would be a rational counter balance to discourage radicalization up to and including suicidal necessity.

    Apparently Professor Theoharis considers exposing the potential dangers of recruitment to radical and suicidal behavior, through a movie production, more threatening to turning a blind eye to the inherent danger and persuasiveness of trained and successful radical recruitors, who have led countless youngsters in other parts of the world to waste their lives, not to mention the countless lives of others, to further their radical viewpoint.

    On the contrary, common sense clearly suggests that allowing this cancer to spread unabated in NYC would be far greater cause to terminate police officials, and might even be worthy of consideration for eliminating Professors who refuse to acknowledge the potential damage of allowing students, under their charge, to be misled and misdirected towards radicalization and potential suicide.

  5. Mickie Lynn says:

    Comment #5 makes no sense from the stated point of view of “cause and effect.”
    In case you’ve forgotten—a group of Saudi men trained as pilots are the ones who destroyed the twin towers. That doesn’t explain why the NYPD are now working illegally within NYC and in several northeastern states to perform CIA supervised surveillance that includes mapping and spying on all Muslim communities and student associations.

    This is religious and ethnic profiling and is not based on the kind of behavioral profiling that might prevent real crimes. Instead it’s fueled by the kinds of ideas that are expressed in the above comment. Fearmongering and guilt by association, and use of words like jihadists, radicalization, suicide, recruitment, indoctrination, just reveals how biased the commenter is against all Muslims in the US.

    That still doesn’t excuse the waste of time, money and personnel on witch hunts and fishing expeditions while real crimes against people and properties are ignored. This is illegal, bigoted and also encroaches on the jurisdictions of other cities, towns campuses and their local and regional law enforcement agencies.

    There is also a lot of ugliness in the threats of “eliminating” Professors who are critical of the violation of the civil rights of their students and their Muslim neighbors and colleagues.

    Right now several members of Congress and mayors of cities that were invaded are calling for investigations of this behavior.
    Here’s a link to a very good article about the profiling and also includes a 25 minute video that provides a panel discussion with a lawyer, a political scientist. and a security analyst:


  6. Albert J says:

    I would think the use of terms like, “jihadists, radicalization, suicide, recruitment, indoctrination” are direct efforts, perhaps insufficient to some, to separate rational, Islamic American citizens and guests from the lunatics that are creating trouble all over the world. The reality is that there are bad individuals hiding within, and under the umbrella of, the Muslim religion, who are a self serving cancer to both the Muslim community and American society as a whole. Isolating and eradicating that cancer will benefit both the Muslim communities in America and the American society.

    As with most anarchists, hiding behind and trying to co-opt, a regognizable organization, religious or secular, to obfuscate their purely personal and often maniacal ambitions of power and domination of other individuals, States or Regions, is nothing new.

    As we’ve all seen played out almost daily across the globe, the most suffering, death and destruction caused by these fanatics, has been directed at and endured by Muslims, who are subject to intimidation and coercion far more than any other group.

    Exaggerated concern, over what amounts to prudent precautions and rational efforts to protect citizens against real and present dangers directed at logical sources, seems to suggest accepting a far greater, unnecessary risk, than common sense or logic should accept.

    Unfortunately, there is a far greater level of “ugliness” in courting the potential disaster of allowing “Professors” indoctrinating students with ignorant notions that are intended to persuade students to ignore potential threats, that are both real and deadly. Advancing “Civil Rights” should not, and thankfully does not, require practicing suicidal avoidance of reasonable and prudent precautions against real and obvious threats and dangers.

  7. MoonSword says:

    #5: 0.13% of 600,601 searches would be 780 firearms, not 7,800. That ratio is far too low to be a justifiable indicator that such profiled searches are effective at deterring crime.

  8. Tea Party Like a Rockstar says:

    Well, add the Brooklyn College of CUNY to the list of colleges I won’t be sending my kids. I like professors who live in the real world, not the cocoon that is academia.

  9. Phil says:

    I am amused by liberals, who have no qualms about shredding the Constitution when it suits them, citing the Constitution when it suits their ideology.

    By the way, this link is kind of germaine.


  10. Mickie Lynn says:

    Albert I see that you haven’t yet read the article from Religious Dispatches or watched the video, [which by the way has one discussant who echoes some of your point of view about security--- without your blanket condemnations of Muslims as gullible at best and complicit at worst.]
    That’s probably why you have nothing new to add to the conversation except for justifying your hostile and fear mongering language.

    What part of against the law, guilt by association, collective profiling, overstepping legal mandates, warrantless surveillance and invasion of privacy, don’t you understand?

    Muslims ask NJ Gov. to investigate NYPD monitoring

    SAMANTHA HENRY, Associated Press [2/16/12]




    Read more: http://www.timesunion.com/news/article/Muslims-ask-NJ-Gov-to-investigate-NYPD-monitoring-3335750.php#ixzz1nQzyXHgs

    Report: NYPD Employed Snooping Tactics for Criminal Organizations in Muslim Spying [2/24 Headlines from DN!]

    New details have emerged on the New York City Police Department’s spying on Muslim residents across the Northeast.

    The Associated Press reports the NYPD targeted Muslim mosques with tactics normally reserved for criminal organizations, including collecting the license plates of worshippers, monitoring them on surveillance cameras, and cataloging sermons through a network of informants.

    The disclosures follow the news this week NYPD agents monitored mosques and Muslim businesses in Newark, New Jersey, unbeknownst to local officials.

  11. Albert J says:

    You are correct Moonsword, I misread the number as 1.3%. However, 780 illegal firearms could cause a lot of problems in any City.

  12. MoonSword says:

    #12: I’m not trying to diminish a celebration of small victories. Even a single firearm can cause enormous misery. But as had been noted, law enforcement resources are limited. Seems to me that profiling has proved to be an inefficient use of law enforcement resources.

    Weighing in on the core discussion: I do agree there is cause for concern that our nation’s enemies recruit among Islamic culture, but I’m not sure I’m ready to agree with the proposed Protect-Muslims-From-Themselves style of reasoning. That certainly wouldn’t fly among Christians or Catholics had any city police dept. decided to investigate churches because of the terrorist actions of Timothy McVeigh. Either way, it is religiously discriminatory.

    Add on that NYC police have no jurisdiction outside of NYC, I think it is very compelling as to why they are engaged in government duties at colleges outside NYC. If this wasn’t framed as a national security debate and more importantly, if it were churches involved instead of colleges, I suspect more conservatives would be decrying this as an overreaching government activity infringing on civil rights. And I would agree — regardless if it was churches, mosques, or colleges.

  13. Mickie Lynn says:

    Albert, I would think that illegal spying, interrogation of innocent people, intimidation of Muslims at their places of business and worship, religious and ethnic profiling, characterization of whole communities as a threat because of their religion or their country of origin could also cause “a lot of problems” in any city, town or college community.

  14. Albert J says:

    You’ll forgive me, MoonSowrd, but I did not intend to suggest a, “Protect-Muslims-From-Themselves style of reasoning”, other than to imply that, throughout the world, the single most group suffering from Jihadist extremes has been Muslims.

    You seem to be missing an important distinction, NYPD is not alledged to be “investigating churches” or religions. I’m not aware that there was any evidence that Mr. McVeigh conducted any recruiting activities, or propoaganda sessions at any churches, so there seems to be no possible connection, much less probable cause, to be overly concerned about church activities.

    Clearly and repeatedly the opposite has a long history relating to jihadist radicals interacting and recruiting young volunteers from Muslim Youth Groups, that regularly and normally gather in Mosques, so sadly concern about activities in these settings seems logical, if not prudent. Suggesting that similar problematic actives are not fairly common on University campuses is a simple denial of reality.

    Without direct knowledge, I would suspect selection of which University gatherings deemed worthy of further observation would, at least partially be attributed to public postings on social networks, websites and public blogs, which again, seems like an appropriate and prudent monitoring effort.

    Sadly, many of the new technologies currently available provide opportunity to use these advances for illegal and/or truly dangerous purposes. Those changed with protecting the public would be seriously derilict in their sworn duties not to adjust their protection responsibilies to include full use of all technologies added to the general marketplace.

    Nobody has a right to privacy in activities designed to plan, or in any way further, the aims or objectives of terrorist interests planning mass destruction.

  15. Albert J says:

    Sorry, Mickie Lynn, but your censor’s hammer does not carry as much weight beyond your own yard. Your characterization of appropriate observations as “illegal spying” is subject to uncensored challenge as being hyper critical and grossly exaggerating reality.

    Your suggestion of, “intimidation of Muslims at their places of business and worship” is more likely little more than your biased assessment of circumstances as is your blanket assessment of, “interrogation of innocent people”.

    In any of these discussions or reportings I’ve seen, heard or read about YOU seem to be the only voice of, “characterization of whole communities as a threat because of their religion or their country of origin”. The general, if not universal, consensus of opinion readily agrees that those Jihadist fanatics, causing so much trouble so many places, are a distinct minority that is hiding under the umbrella of the Muslim religion.

    The rational, prudent and appropriate “profiling” you rail against is both practical and rational considering the consistent characteristics so often displayed openly by those who have been caught, or held responsible for the type actions NYPD is committed to preventing. Ignoring those similarities would be absurd.

  16. Oates77 says:

    Profiling an entire religious group for national security?

    Sounds like Germany from 1933-45.

  17. Phil says:

    Oates, your comparison is inappropriate. Fanatical Jews were not killing people or blowing up things in Germany during that period. Oh wait a minute, there were no radical Jewish groups.

  18. MoonSword says:

    #15: I do apologize, but I believe it is you, Albert J, who is missing the point. I do not deny that enemy forces need to be dealt with under strict terms. I’m trying to demonstrate a glaring inconsistency in the arguments being presented, which has consequences probably not considered.

    But first I want to address the college issue… How is it that Universities are the prime recruiting ground for terrorism? As a local student myself, I have seen nothing that can be used to promote radicalism of any stripe. I also note that my college has an ecumenical chapel with the proper fixings for Muslims to pray in the direction of Mecca.

    But this reasoning that Universities must be overseen by NYPD because… why? Because the NYPD sent officers to investigate outside of their legal jurisdiction? Classic post hoc. Because the radicals recruit young people in the middle east (where social morale is much lower)? Hasty generalization. Wait — it’s gotta be the Internet because they’re all interconnected!

    Woah there — as a student of computer science, not only am I aware of how well interconnected the world has become, I also know a bit about how that interconnected technology actually works.

    Yes, the Internet can be a vehicle to promote radicalism. The Internet is a vehicle to promote ideas of all kinds. But combining that possibility with NYPD’s questionable investigations outside its jurisdiction is no more than a correlation without causation relationship.

    In the end, all these reasons are just jumping to conclusions. Until I hear about true probable cause, I’m not buying any of this.

    Now back to my original point: Timothy McVeigh committed the worst terrorist act against America prior to 9/11, and he did so on religious grounds. He was about as radical to Christianity as the current radical elements are to Islam. And Timothy McVeigh did try to spread violent, anti-government propaganda. He just grossly lacked the resources of our current enemies to be as effective. So, had the government began investigating churches for reasons of public safety because who knows –? I mean, who knows who else is hiding among these otherwise nice and peaceful (naive?) Christians to recruit and plot more violence?

    Besides being totally absurd, this kind of scenario of a government investigation without probable cause is also a grave injustice to freedom. Conservatives would not stand for it (and they shouldn’t).

    But my God, who knows? Now put this in the 9/11 context and replace “church” with “mosque” or now “college.” The pattern I proposed is exactly the same (who knows where those radicals are lurking among Muslims), but now it’s all of a sudden acceptable? And there lies the fundamental problem with this reasoning.

    Muslim American citizens do have rights. As has been stated, the constitution protects all American citizens. Not just liberals. And I will also amend: not just conservatives, either. So that means until probable cause can be established, NYPD is treading a line they ought not to — on constitutional grounds. Operating as a government agent outside of their jurisdiction, as has been reported, is just plain illegal. And say nothing for NYC taxpayers who got jipped over this. NYPD is supposed to provide security in NYC, not write up intelligence reports at Yale, which is in Connecticut. Maybe those officers can improve that abysmal unlicensed firearm confiscation rate if they returned to NYC? Now there’s an idea…

    And the remaining arguments about fighting crime (terrorism) where crime (terrorism) is found… Sure, it sounds good on the surface, but it often incurs collateral damage of violating the freedoms of some, all in the name of protecting freedom for all. And that is insane. It damages our country’s credibility which as a consequence lends strength to our enemies. Certainly don’t want that.

    He’s had off days before, but I really do believe Mr. DeRoiser hit the nail right on the head with this cartoon.

  19. Mickie Lynn says:

    Comments #17 and #19 have made many of the points that I would have liked to make but from somewhat different perspectives.

    Comment #18 missed the point entirely about what such illegal profiling and scapegoating of an entire religious group can lead to without restraint and limitation of such activities.
    Do we need to wait for the US equivalent of Kristalnacht or perhaps mass internment like what we did to the Japanese and now regret?

    So the story continues to unfold:
    I’m definitely not the only person disturbed by this sordid story of NYPD warrantless (and unwarranted) spying and extra-jurisdictional overreach. Here’s a link to a couple of stories from this week.

    As the story continues to unfold we find out that the NYPD surveillance of innocent Muslims is just another aspect of the Federal bait and switch necessary to keep the “War on Terrorism” going. This kind of fishing expedition amounts to trolling for new victims.

    Thanks to the AP and the Poughkeepsie Journal for bringing this out. It’s also been reported in the NY Daily News and you can link to that article here:


    White House Helps Pay For NYPD Muslim Surveillance




    There’s more. You can just follow this link: http://www.poughkeepsiejournal.com/viewart/20120227/NEWS03/120227002/White-House-helps-pay-NYPD-Muslim-surveillance?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|PoughkeepsieJ

  20. Albert J says:

    Forgive me MoonSword, but you enthusias may have pushed your focus and grasp somewhat beyond the reach of you headlights.

    I’m reassured that, as a college student, you have not been exposed by any radical political leanings and would commend your University, as that is not the general circumstance in most University settings. It’s my understanding that NYPD’s interest in certain Universities, as reported by NYPD, is in direct response to explicit indications, suggestions or other probable causes that such activities are taking place. As with any investigative action there is a dual possibility of confirming illegal or improper behavior as well as exonerating those where such behavior and activity is found to be non-existent.

    Sadly, human nature, dictates that many conspiratorial activities deliberately conseal their intentions, some quite effectively. You, unfortunately, have to accept the reality that you, and all the rest of us, being pre-notified of potential probable cause before initiating any investigation is, regretably, impractical and counterproductive.

    As a student of Computer Science, I must assume you are far more aware of the new communication possibilities created by recent technological developments, and must also be aware of the growing problems of these technologies being used for inappropriate, illegal, immoral and even dangerus purposes. As much as guns don’t kill people, computers nor the internet harms people, which unfortunately doesn’t hold true, always, for either those holding guns or manipulating keyboards.

    Perhaps your history instruction is not as comprehensive, or accurate, as possible, but I might remind you that there was absolutely no connection, reference or inference connecting the terrorist acts committed by Tim McVeigh and any religious denomination, principle of belief. None whatsoever, so prompting any logical investigative follow up to specific religious gatherings would make little sense, then or now.

    I don’t think our difference is related to understanding the necessity of probable cause to investigative follow up, but I’m not as confident our respective definitions of what comprises “probable cause”might match.

    Sarcasim can be an effective tool in demonstrating a point, but it can also be overly used as an attempted defense to try and cover inadequate substance. It’s effectivness can be quite different, depending on why it’s used, how often it’s used and when it’s used. When allowed to flow, excessively, back and forth it can dominate and ruin any otherwise serious discussion, and doesn’t prove anything of actual value.

    As previously suggested the notion that attention to conspiratorial behavior beyond a geographic border is somehow rendered illegal or improper, when probable cause is present, is just silly.

    As your education and maturation continue, you may come to realize how few things in life are specifically quantified, with any degree of consistency. Garlick provides a workable analogy; in the right amount Garlick can serve to enhance a wide variety of dishes, conversely, applied in the wrong amount it can ruin just about anything. Applying that observation to the collateral damage possible to personal freedoms from the application of security concerns is not a finite formula that can be applied to all circumstances.

    Determining our nations credibility, and how best to enhance or maintain it, is largely, like beauty, “in the eye of the beholder” and subject to interpretation. Sometimes staying within the reach of your headlights can be frustrating and seem limiting, but assuming you can see beyond their reach can prove embarrassing and even dangerous.

  21. Mickie Lynn says:

    Well, let’s see where to start on the last comment, #21m that was addressed to MoonSword.

    First the talking down to someone perceived as a college student was offensive to me. Even though the insults were mild they were still insults.

    Then there these inaccurate statements, unaccompanied by facts:

    1. “… It’s my understanding that NYPD’s interest in certain Universities, as reported by NYPD, is in direct response to explicit indications, suggestions or other probable causes that such activities (“radical political leanings”) are taking place…



    4. …Determining our nation’s credibility, and how best to enhance or maintain it, is largely, like beauty, “in the eye of the beholder” and subject to interpretation…”

    Until Albert can supply official statements or evidence that the information gathering by the NYPD was based on “probable cause” as opposed to blanket profiling, such statements are not credible. As far as “radical political leanings” are concerned — have you ever heard of academic freedom?

    Law enforcement and security agencies have very specific jurisdictions and clearly defined separate missions, and permissions by law and by custom. For instance the CIA is not allowed to spy on or gather information from people within the USA.

    As for statement #4: If each policy was left to the “eye of the beholder:” we would have what’s generally called “anarchy” which is a belief system that Albert has used as an epithet in past comments about the Occupy Movement. That’s why we have rules, laws and regulations to define what is and is not legal and constitutional behavior

  22. Albert J says:

    I’m afraid this “horse” is long past dead, Micky Lynn. You are more that welcome to live in your fantasy world and believe that the US is one of the “Bad guys”, While Al Qaede, The Taliban, the Iranian Mullahs and all the other crack pots who continually throw fuel on any fire they can find are just poor misguided souls, who just need to be understood.

    I’m comfortable, and will stick with, going in a different direction that considers dealing with the threats and challenges reality chooses to place in our way rather than retreat from reality behind a very pourous curtain of wishful thinking.

  23. Troy Taxpayer says:



    This debate is not about ‘Al Qaede (sic), The Taliban, the Iranian Mullahs and all the other crackpots’

    It’s about whether American Citizen’s federal and state constitutional rights are being violated, and whether a police force that celebrates itself as ‘the sixth largest standing army in the world’ overstepped it’s mandate and jurisdiction.

    No more, no less.

  24. Albert J says:

    Aside from some journalistic leaning, a lot of speculation, unproven allegations and a lot of questionable legal impressions there doesn’t seem to be much of a case that anyone’s Constitutional rights have been threatened, much less violated.

    Although this particular segment of the overall “debate” may not be about, “Al Qaeda, The Taliban, the Iranian Mullahs and all the other crack pots who continually throw fuel on any fire they can find” they and the precautions that are deemed appropriately necessary to protect our citizens is the matter at hand.

    The nature of a specific threat is what should determine the level and intensity of the response to that specific threat, rather than some vague generic perception of what some routine response to a general threat might be.

  25. Phil says:

    Here we are again. Leftists decrying constitutional rights while Obama shreds them right and left. Albert wins!

  26. ReepDaggle says:

    “Here we go again.” Rightists accusing Obama of shredding Constitutional rights, while providing NO examples. Other than the insurance issue, where their argument is flimsy at best, what else have you got?

  27. BSmeter says:

    To Albert J, re: # 21, 23, 25. Put down the shovel and stop digging. You are already at the bottom of the barrel…

  28. Albert J says:

    Without giving it too much thought, there’s:

    The Contraceptive Mandate threatening the 1st Ammendment.

    The Health Care Mandate threatening the limits of the Commerce Clause

    The establishment of a new layer of Administrative management (Agency Czars) designed clearly to circumvent Congrsssional oversight.

    Abusing the separation of powers by engaging the States in lawsuits for engaging in protective responsibilities to protect against illegal immigration activities, clearly under the mandate of Federal Responsibility, but for which the Federal Government refuses to effectively support.

    But I suspect there are several more.

  29. ReepDaggle says:

    1) In many people’s eyes, yes. And in many other people’s, no. The jury is out on the original version. The revision is most likely quite constitutional. Try again.

    2) Jury still out, but in the opinion of MANY legal analysts, highly likely to pass constitutional muster. Try again.

    3) If czars are unconstitutional, then it was shredded several Presidents ago. Obama is by no means the first to use them. If memory serves me, that was a Republican. Try again.

    4) Whether the federal government is meeting its obligation effectively is irrelevant. Lawsuits to stop the states from addressing issues that they aren’t consitutionally allowed to address may or may not be unwise, but they aren’t unconstitutional. Try again.

    Oops, we ran out. I guess your opening six words were the most accurate ones in the post.