Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Bad Taste and Disrespect for the Office of the Presidency











That's how I look at it.

The Bush-haters,
feel otherwise. Any surprise there? The fringe left moonbats have a history of abusing their First Amendment priveleges for the purpose of trampling and shouting down views that collide with their own belief system. They lack class and decency and pat themselves on the back while showing their intolerance for dissenting views. cindy Sheehan was in violation of a policy against demonstrations inside the Chamber.

Why are the Sheehan supporters so outraged by it? No Administration would have put up with it.

According to
Michael Moore's website,

"A civil suit will be filed against the federal government first thing tomorrow morning for violation of first amendment rights."

What utter stuff and nonsense. According to the AP report:

"Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said."


And the Washington Post adds:

"She was also boisterous, according to U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer, and after she ignored instructions to close her jacket and quiet down, she was escorted out and arrested. Demonstrating in the House gallery is prohibited."


An update can be found in the comments section, thanks to the visit of an anon Kos Kid.

Update II: I'm not on my computer much today, but I just took a visit over at Sister Toldjah, and she has the best round up I've seen. Including this from Balloon Juice:

"Sorry to disappoint the Bush haters, but any and all kinds of sloganeering or demonstrating is strictly forbidden in the Capitol. A few of my friends and I once tried to have take a group picture (after a rally that had a permit ended) with the building in the background and were shooed away by the Capital Police for violating the rule merely by havign signs in our possession on the steps. As that happened in 1988 (when the other party controlled the Congress), I doubt George W. Bush had anything to do with it."


This appears to be the law in question.

Republican Bill Young's wife, wearing a pro-troop t-shirt, was also "ejected". So the police were equal opportunity enforcers of the law.



UPDATE III- Michael Medved will have on as guest, Lynn Woolsey, the California Democrat Representative who gave Cindy the ticket. 3rd hour.

UPDATE IV- Well...Congresswoman Woolsey made a very brief appearance on the Michael Medved Show (listen to the audio here) and....all I can say is, if this woman can be a member of Congress, then it's no wonder Cindy Sheehan thinks it's possible to run for office, herself. Lynn Woolsey is asbsolutely clueless on everything. No joke. No hyperbole. I think the Kos Kids have more intelligence and more sense than this California Rep.

Speaking of Kos readers, these
two posts are interesting as well.

The Capitol police don't work for the President; they work for Congress. It's ridiculous to conclude that President Bush is being a dictator because of the removal of Cindy Sheehan (and Beverly Young). But I am mystified by the Capitol Police official saying they "screwed up" and that Sheehan didn't "violate any rules or laws" and that "officers should never have approached Young."



And from the AP update:

“The officers made a good faith, but mistaken effort to enforce an old unwritten interpretation of the prohibitions about demonstrating in the Capitol,” Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said in a statement late Wednesday.

“The policy and procedures were too vague,” he added. “The failure to adequately prepare the officers is mine.”

Labels:

6 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

That's oddly different from Cindy's own account.

Someone is lying big, and I have trouble believing it's Sheehan.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/1/31944/23746

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:23:00 AM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Thanks for the visit and the link, anon. I was waiting for a statement like that from Cindy.

I have problems with this:

I wore the shirt to make a statement. The press knew I was going to be there and I thought every once in awhile they would show me and I would have the shirt on. I did not wear it to be disruptive, or I would have unzipped my jacket during George's speech. If I had any idea what happens to people who wear shirts that make the neocons uncomfortable that I would be arrested...maybe I would have, but I didn't.

She just contradicted herself in the space of the same sentence. So she intended to unveil her protest shirt in a room full of suits and ties, and not think that's sticking out like a sore thumb like that is being nondisruptive? Admitting that the press knew she would be there? Hoping the camera would pan to her? And expect to be able to do that for the entire length of the speech? I'm sorry, but name me one country where you could have gotten away with doing that.

Your disgusting attempts at mediawhore-mongering were disrupted because it was at the wrong time, in the wrong place.

Actually, you did succeed to get media attention on this, didn't you? How sly! How slick you are!

Earlier, she wrote:

I had just sat down and I was warm from climbing 3 flights of stairs back up from the bathroom so I unzipped my jacket. I turned to the right to take my left arm out, when the same officer saw my shirt and yelled; "Protester."

I find it hard to believe that you can be so ignorant as to think wearing a protest t-shirt would be anything but disruptive.

I'm also disgusted with Lynn Woolsey, the California Rep who invited her:

Lynn's office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

I don't want to live in a country that prohibits any person, whether he/she has paid the ulitmate price for that country, from wearing, saying, writing, or telephoning any negative statements about the government. That's why I am going to take my freedoms and liberties back. That's why I am not going to let Bushco take anything else away from me...or you.

Um...lady, the fact that you get so much media attention, that you can print your letter at a crass and dissentious blogsite, that you can camp out at Crawford, that you can march and protest in Washington....yeah, your freedom of expression your feelings are really being trampled on.

What the hell did you expect would happen? You knew exactly what you were doing and that it would not be tolerated! It wouldn't have been tolerated under any administration! It'd be as inappropriate as if you were to disrupt him at Church, at his dinner table, while he's taking a dump, etc. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT KIND OF FREEDOM LADY! No one should!

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:35:00 AM  
Blogger Marie's Two Cents said...

I think the idiot that invited Cindy needs e-mail.
Woolsey e-mail form

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Mark said...

I wouldn't pay attention to anything that comes from the daily Kos. They don't have the country's best interest at heart. They want a Communist state. I won't bother to go there and read anything they have to say, I can tell you what they have to say constantly. Hate Bush. That's it.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 7:44:00 PM  
Blogger The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Mark,

I wouldn't agree that they don't have the best interest of the country at heart; my beef is, I disagree with their notion of what constitutes the best interest of this country.

And it's important to pay attention to what the other side is talking about. (Know your enemy) Otherwise, you risk living in your own bubble.

And not everything there is pure BS. If you can stomach some of the vitriol and hate, you can sometimes find useful nuggets. It will also help keep you honest. There's nothing worse and more embarrassing for our side than ignoring facts that support theirs. When that happens, we risk living in our own fantasy bubble.

Good points can sometimes be found on their side of the fence, as well.

Such as the way this story is turning out: I think they may have a point on the legality of the Sheehan arrest; but I disagree with their conclusions on First Amendment rights being under attack.

Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:57:00 PM  
Blogger Gayle said...

I don't want to enter in the arguement of this case. All I want to say is I believe she is a nut job and she knew exactly what she was doing. It's so blatantly obvious!

Friday, February 03, 2006 12:46:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Day By Day© by Chris Muir.

© Copyright, Sparks from the Anvil, All Rights Reserved