In a previous post, I pointed out the work of CAIR in portraying Muslims as victims of civil rights infringements, and linked to an earlier post with some statistics to refute CAIR claims. In the comments section, Farmer seemed to dismiss CAIR's efforts.

Katherine Kersten, in the Minneapolis Star Tribune, presents the reason we should be concerned--legislation to prohibit security personel from paying any more attention to Muslims than to Jehovah's Witnesses. Story here. Link from Little Green Footballs.

Here's a portion of the article:
One piece of legislation in the works is the End Racial Profiling Act. It is an important priority of Rep. John Conyers of Michigan, whose district includes one of the largest Muslim populations in the country. Conyers introduced the bill in 2004 and 2005, but it went nowhere. Now the alignment of forces may be changing. Conyers will probably be chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when the new Democratic-controlled Congress convenes next month. Nancy Pelosi, who called herself a "proud" cosponsor of the Profiling Act in 2004, is the incoming House speaker. And in January, Ellison, who represents the district where the imams incident occurred, will take his seat in Congress. The act, although it doesn't as yet impose large penalties, would bar any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from "relying, to any degree, on race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in selecting which individuals to subject to routine or spontaneous investigatory activities." That would include questioning, searches and seizures.

One of the act's central features is its definition of illegal profiling. Under it, if airport security personnel question passengers who are disproportionately Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent, this alone would constitute a presumptive violation of the law. Law enforcement agencies would bear the burden of proving that discrimination was not the cause.

Get this? Security personel would be forced to regard Muslims as no more likely to bomb anything than Buddhists would be. I must have forgotten how ecumenical the 9/11 terrorists were, or how many Sikhs have flocked to Al Qaeda, or the growing number of Hindus in Hamas. This is politically-correct b*llsh*t that any 5th grader would be able to see through.

So, what will Pelosi and company do? We know where her heart is. She was a cosponsor of this legislation in 04. But, if she has any political sense, she will listen to her head and prevent this legislation from seeing the light of day. If the Dems are not perceived as strong against terrorism, then 08 could be a problem. I suspect that Hillary will not want to see this legislation making headlines, even if it fails.