About Cindy’s arrest and the law she broke

Posted by: ST on February 1, 2006 at 9:49 am

(scroll down for updates)

The liberal blogs are abuzz this morning, screaming as loud as their keyboards will let them over the fact that – according to them – Cindy Sheehan was arrested last night for merely “dissenting.” First, a recap of the arrest from the AP:

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

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.

John Cole at Balloon Juice, no fan of Cindy Sheehan but dismayed all the same at the idea of someone being arrested for merely wearing a T-shirt, posted an update written by one of his commenters as to what law Cindy Sheehan broke:

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 is a misdemeanor, according to Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider:

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., was charged with demonstrating in the Capitol building, a misdemeanor, said Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

No doubt this is exactly what she hoped would happen. Afterall, it brings attention to her ’cause.’ (just like this arrest did).

The hype over this bogus ‘controversy’ is only heightened when you have MSM sites like MSNBC posting the following poll question:

Do you agree with the decision by Capitol Police to remove activist Cindy Sheehan from the gallery at the president’s State of the Union speech because she was wearing a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan?

Shouldn’t that have been more like “do you agree with the law that bans demonstrating in the Capitol building?” I guess it was just too much to ask for MSNBC to do a little research on the issue before posting their poll question. Contact MSNBC if you want to express your thoughts on that poll.

Last night I posted a call for people who were upset with the fact that stunt-happy Cindy Sheehan was invited to the SOTU by House Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-6th District-CA) to contact Rep. Woolsey’s office to let her know how they felt about Ms. Woolsey’s serious lack of good judgement with respect to inviting a rabid anti-war type and obvious symbol of the hate-Bush/anti-war movement to the SOTU. I see Michelle Malkin and Rob Port at Say Anything are not pleased with Rep. Woolsey, either.

I’d like to repeat my call for you to let Rep. Woolsey know how you feel. When members of Congress act irresponsibly, the citizens of this country need to do their part to keep them accountable and Rep. Woolsey is certainly no exception to that rule.

More: Jason at Generation Why? gives some background info on Rep. Woolsey. GOP and College notes differing media reports on Sheehan’s arrest.

Others blogging about this: The Jawa Report, Gateway Pundit, Oblogatory Anecdotes

Update I: Florida Rep.’s Wife Says She Was Ejected From State Of Union:

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — The wife of Rep. C.W. Bill Young, R-Indian Shores, told a newspaper that she was ejected during the State of the Union address for wearing a T-shirt that says, “Support the Troops Defending Our Freedom.”

Beverly Young told the St. Petersburg Times that she was sitting in the front row of the House gallery Tuesday night when she was approached by someone who told her she needed to leave.

She said she reluctantly agreed, but argued with several officers in an outside hallway.

In a telephone interview with the newspaper, Young said she told them her shirt wasn’t a protest but a message of support.

Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Young wasn’t ejected from the gallery and she left on her own. She couldn’t provide additional details.

(Hat tip: Blog For All – and Cam Edwards shares some thoughts on this as well)

Also, Newslinker in the comments section here points to a National Review Corner post written by Byron York that notes a similar incident that happened during the Clinton administration.

The Capitol police were just doing their jobs last night with both Sheehan and Rep. Young’s wife in enforcing the law against demonstrating in the Capitol. But don’t expect widespread acknowledgement from the usual suspects that the law was enforced on both sides of the aisle last night (as well as in prior admins), which means that Cindy wasn’t targeted just because she was – well – Cindy Sheehan.

Update II: Newsbusters reports on how CNN got a few of their facts wrong in their story on Sheehan’s arrest.

Update III: A commenter at Patterico’s has noted what looks like the law in question regarding demonstrations in the Capitol.

Update IV: Tammy Bruce weighs in. Heh.

Update V 12:46 PM: Via the SF Chronicle, we find both Woolsey and Rep. Pete Stark (D-Fremont) in support of Cindy and whining about her arrest:

“It stunned me because I didn’t know in America you could be arrested for wearing a T-shirt with a slogan on it,” Woolsey said. “That’s especially so in the Capitol and in the House of Representatives, which is the people’s House.”

Woolsey said she thought the shirt Sheehan was wearing was from Veterans for Peace. Referring to the number of Americans killed in Iraq, the shirt read, “2,245 and how many more?”

Some other members were upset about Sheehan’s arrest. “I’m still trying to find out why the president’s Gestapo had to arrest Cindy Sheehan in the gallery. … It shows he still has a thin skin,” said Rep. Pete Stark, D-Fremont.

Here’s Rep. Stark’s contact info, in case you are interested.

(Hat tip: Rob Port at Say Anything)

Update VI 7:35 PM: The charges against Ms. Sheehan were dropped:

Capitol Police dropped a charge of unlawful conduct against anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan on Wednesday and apologized for ejecting her and a congressman’s wife from President Bush’s State of the Union address for wearing T-shirts with war messages.

“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.”

The extraordinary statement came a day after police removed Sheehan and Beverly Young, wife of Rep. C.W. “Bill” Young, R-Fla., from the visitors gallery Tuesday night. Sheehan was taken away in handcuffs before Bush’s arrival at the Capitol and charged with a misdemeanor, while Young left the gallery and therefore was not arrested, Gainer said.

“Neither guest should have been confronted about the expressive T- shirts,” Gainer’s statement said.

(Thanks to Tom in the comments section for the heads up on this latest update)

Related Toldjah So posts:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Trackbacks

  • The Political Pit Bull trackbacked with More State of the Union Reaction
  • GOP And College trackbacked with Differences In News Agencies
  • Generation Why? trackbacked with About Sheehan's Invititation
  • The Jawa Report trackbacked with Impeach Lynn Woolsey Now!
  • Mark in Mexico trackbacked with Cindy Sheehan's weighty problem
  • Amy Proctor trackbacked with State of the Circus 2006
  • Michelle Malkin trackbacked with SHAME ON LYNN WOOLSEY
  • bustardblog trackbacked with Young Sheehan
  • CatHouse Chat trackbacked with Cindy's latest attempt at grabbing attention
  • PunditGuy trackbacked with Defending Mutha Sheehan
  • The World According To Carl trackbacked with Sheehan's Shenanigans And The Liberal Whinings
  • Jack Patriot trackbacked with Gestapo Arrests Cindy Sheehan
  • Blue Star Chronicles trackbacked with Casey Sheehan
  • Rhymes With Right trackbacked with Sheehan Arrested
  • Rhymes With Right trackbacked with On Cindy Sheehan and Beverly Young And Free Speech
  • 146 Responses to “About Cindy’s arrest and the law she broke”

    Comments

    1. Jim M says:

      This is exactly what the “Crawford Crackpot” wanted and the liberal myrmidons in the MSM are doing exactly what she wanted. The MSNBC poll is showing there are a few more people that understand the law than those who don’t at this point.

    2. Newslinker says:

      Blast from the past:

      LINK

      New York Daily News:

      WASHINGTON A Pennsylvania school teacher was yanked out of a VIP Senate gallery and briefly detained last week during the impeachment trial for wearing a T-shirt with graphic language dissing President Clinton.

      Dave Delp, 42, of Carlisle, Pa., and a friend had just settled into their seats last Saturday when four Capitol security guards approached them. Delp said yesterday he was ordered to button his coat and follow the guards. Outside the chamber, he was told “several people felt threatened by your shirt,” which said, “Bill Doesn’t Inhale He Just S—s.”

      Even after establishing that Delp was a guest of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), the guards wouldn’t let him back in and escorted him to a basement security area, where they questioned and photographed him.

      After being given one of the photos as a souvenir, Delp said he was banned from the Capitol for the rest of the day. “They were polite and professional,” Delp added, “but they really did scare me. I think I should have been given the chance to cover up.”

      Capitol police declined to comment.

    3. SAHMmy says:

      I just called and spoke to Woolsey’s D.C. office to register a complaint against her. They first asked me if I was a constituent, and to their credit when I told them No, they took my complaint anyway. I told them I thought it was irresponsible and cruel for her to use Cindy Sheehan the way she did last night. He thanked me for the call.

    4. Pam says:

      If it is any consolation, she isn’t doing well in the poll!

    5. Rob says:

      Cindy Sheehan totally screwed up by wearing that shirt and refusing to cover it up when asked. Both Sheehan and Young deserved to be thrown out…and they were.

    6. Baklava says:

      My question is what did Young look like? Maybe she could’ve just taken the shirt off… [-o< Lord I ‘pologize for that one (little Larry the Cable guy humor there)

    7. Brad says:

      It’s Bush who should be hauled out of the house in cuffs. That liar has done so much harm to your country, it’s almost unbearable. His acknowledgement of the sacrifice of the troops in Iraq was necessary. His public display of the dead soldier’s family was pure manipulation. You think Sheehan uses her son’s death for publicity? Look what your President did last night. Shameful.

    8. Jim M says:

      Then we have Brad a void surrounded by a sphincter. Brad is one of Cindy “The Loon” Sheehan’s myrmidons.

    9. J Rob says:

      This was nothing more or less than another in a long line of stunts designed to let Cindy play martyr. Only this one was aided and abetted by a member of congress.
      Woolsly knows damn well what the rules of the house are. Quite frankly I believe she was in on the whole stunt.
      The SOTU is a condtitutionally mandated event. It is not the place for the sort of cheap theatrics practiced by Sheehan and Beverly Young. The difference is that Young removed herself without incident because she is not trying to make herself into a cause celebre.

    10. Baklava says:

      Brad, Instead of calling names and using “double-standards” how about coming up with some real good constructive criticism which conservatives here have done…

      Every president for a long time has acknowledged the military in various places including Clinton. It is a respectful thing to do as Commander in Chief. To not do so shows so much disrespect. Everyone in the nation (except for you) felt heartfelt thanks and sorrow at the same time for such a wonderful family. People were clapping/admiring/respecting (except you) and it is a wonderful opportunity that the President gave for us to do that.

    11. SAHMmy says:

      Brad,

      “he’s done so much to harm YOUR country”? I take it you’re not American?

      If not, have a heaping cup of STFU, sir. We’ve really no interest in your POV on our POTUS.

    12. It amazes me how many Bush supporters are willing to use details of the law to support their opposition to people or ideas, while at the same time this administration is rife with corruption, our pResident himself flagrantly violates law after law simply because what he wants to do is something nobody’s been jailed for yet, and he has people in his administration who endanger the nation by ratting out CIA agents for purely partisan reasons.

      Cindy of course expected to be arrested. It’s called “Civil Disobedience” in case you don’t know, and it’s what got us Civil Rights, and an end to VietNam and the sudden deaths of political opponents under Nixon. (Yeah, check it out. About two dozen opponents died suddenly from things that weren’t health problems the day before.) But when she was escorted out of the gallery, she was taken to a WAITING police car. Does that not indicate that her arrest was planned on BOTH sides of the issue?

      It’s a publicity game for them both. Bush didn’t dare have the cameras go to Cindy and her T-shirt in the middle of his talking about Iraq, or after the family of the dead Marine either. She would clearly have upstaged the entire speech if that had happened. Arresting her was second best, but its still a publicity win for Cindy, and I’m sure she knew in advance.

    13. wordsmith says:

      Linked this to my post. Great stuff, as usual.

      If Cindy would have sat with class in dignified silence, dressed appropriately, it would have been more powerful as a statement of protest, since everyone knows her position on the war.

      And it’s ridiculous to believe that ANY administration would have tolerated protests in any form, within the building. She knew exactly what she was doing, and shame on Woolsey for poor judgment and using Sheehan for political bad taste.

    14. Adam says:

      I’ve reported on the ejection of the Republican woman as well. The police weren’t necessarily pro-Bush, just anti-Freedom.

    15. Severian says:

      Geez, has DU suddenly gone down? What else could explain such a sudden influx of moonbats?:-?

    16. SAHMmy says:

      Nostradamnthem and Brad prove that some people are incapable of being educated.

      What a country!

      And Adam, there is a time and a place for everything and last night wasn’t it. So spare me the anti-freedom riff.

      Please make sure to address fellow posters by their actual username instead of a demeaning variant –Thanks! –ST

    17. Baklava says:

      Nostradamn,

      Your first paragraph was the typical leftist laundry list of disdain and contempt. We are conservatives here not “Bush supporters”. Heck Bush is to the left of center to me. But I just wanted to say it is OFF TOPIC and I’ve already spent too much time on it.

      You asked, “Does that not indicate that her arrest was planned on BOTH sides of the issue?

      Planned by who? Planned by the police who were maybe already there to enforce the law as that many politicians in one building probably has a LOT of law enforcement “ALREADY” there in case of terrorism. Logic… and I answered your speculation.

      You wrote, “Bush didn’t dare have the cameras go to Cindy and her T-shirt in the middle of his talking about Iraq

      Did you READ update 1 that ST wrote? Did Bush DARE to have the cameras go to a t-shirt that supported him? More speculation dealt with. You can only deal with facts not your wild speculations about what Bush thinks or dares..

    18. Severian: “Geez, has DU suddenly gone down? What else could explain such a sudden influx of moonbats?:-?

      ST: LOL … this usually happens when I get linked up at Salon’s Daou Report, which happened today (I think you have to log in to see where I’m linked now as it’s now off the ‘free’ page).

    19. steve says:

      Instead of the Republicans worrying about what someone is wearing in the People’s House, why don’t you all pass a Universal Health Care Bill and make birth control free to anyone who would like it? That would bring the number of abortions in this country down to almost zero. Your against abortion correct? Peace

    20. Baklava says:

      Off topic….on most of what you said.

      Republicans aren’t worrying. Both a Supporter and a protestor were asked to leave. Cindy was unresponsive. And therefore forced to leave. How does that have anything to do with Republicans worrying only? Read UPdate 1 on ST’s post.

    21. Demonstrating in the Capitol building is a misdemeanour, not wearing a t-shirt.

    22. Severian says:

      Hey, steve’s calling for mandatory sterilization!!!:d

    23. Tom in Texas says:

      But Sister, in Bynum vs Capitol Police Bd the Capitol Police Board regulations already state that, as the Bynum court explained: “Believing that the Capitol Police needed guidance in determining what behavior constitutes a ‘demonstration,’ the United States Capitol Police Board issued a regulation that interprets ‘demonstration activity,'” and that regulation specifically provides that it “does not include merely wearing Tee shirts, buttons or other similar articles of apparel that convey a message. Traffic Regulations for the Capitol Grounds, § 158″ (emphasis added). So Sheehan was not demonstrating and broke no laws.

      link via Glenn Greenwald

    24. PCD says:

      steve doesn’t realize that in the US Planned Parenthood, NOW, NARAL, and the Democrats consider any form of abortion at any point of the pregnancy to be birth control.

      steve, if you like the mess that Communism made of the Soviet Union, why don’t you move there?

    25. Nice try, Tom. You guys are so desperate to spin this into some evil WH conspiracy to shut Cindy Sheehan up. It’s hilarious to watch. This happened in the prior admin, and it also happened to a Republican last night as well as your flavor of the month Ms. Sheehan. Don’t let the facts stand in the way of your little rant, though, ok?

    26. Tom in Texas says:

      Actually Sistah you are correct it did happen in the prior administration, which brought on that court case I so kindly linked for you earlier (brought by a reverend threatened with arrest for leading a prayer group). And the courts decreed that, forevermore or until the laws are changed, you can wear whatever T-Shirt you want in our nation’s capitol. I have made absolutely no attempt to spin this into a WH conspiracy against Sheehan, I am simply saying that, according to the Capitol Police Board regulations, what Sheehan and Young did were not crimes. The police had no right to question either woman, or to force them to leave. I never said and will never say that it was specifically against people Bush disagrees with politically. But if it makes you feel better to screech “MOONBAT” at every person who doesn’t agree with every utterance you make, well then by all means go ahead. And then remember to scream about how divisive they are while you are at it ok?

    27. Severian says:

      I am all for enforcing a dress code for anyone of any stripe who wants to sit in the gallery of the US Congress. You have to wear better clothes to get into most good restaurants, why shouldn’t the institutions of our government be worthy of the same respect? Dressing sloppily shows a lack of respect for both the institutions, and for yourself. It is perfectly reasonable to require a certain decorum in both dress and actions when visiting DC. I remember well not being allowed into DC unless we were wearing dress uniforms, standard daily uniforms were not acceptable.

    28. “I never said and will never say that it was specifically against people Bush disagrees with politically. ”

      You didn’t have to, Tom. The fact that you neglected to include Mrs. Young (wife of a Republican) in your rant about “Mrs. Sheehan broke no laws” spoke volumes to me on that front.

      “But if it makes you feel better to screech “MOONBAT” at every person who doesn’t agree with every utterance you make, well then by all means go ahead. And then remember to scream about how divisive they are while you are at it ok?”

      And if it makes you feel better construct strawmen to deconstruct, feel free. This isn’t about me believing everyone who disagrees with me is a moonbat so stop trying to make it about me, ok?

    29. Baklava says:

      TiT,

      There could’ve been another way to make your last post. It wasn’t very nice no matter how ST responded you didn’t do so well.

    30. ADI says:

      Perhaps someone should verse Sheehan in the laws regarding the capital building. After all a candidate for senator should have a basic understanding of these things.
      Oh what was I thinking? Then there would be no blown out of proportion media coverage for the liberals. Shame on me.:o

    31. Tom in Texas says:

      I apologize if i reacted too defensively in my last post sister :((, I tend to react defensively when someone states that “You guys are so desperate to spin this into some evil WH conspiracy to shut Cindy Sheehan up.” You see, I am no liberal. I voted Bush in 2000, and must admit I voted Bednarick in ’04, but only because my state was never in doubt and I am truly concerned over where this country is heading. I am not a member of any political party, but I have never voted for a Democrat in my life.

      I did not mention Young because frankly, it bore no relevance to my original post. All I stated originally was that Sheehans right to be there, and her right to wear whatever T-shirt she chose, was protected. No mention of Bush hatred for her, not a whisper of strawmen or any type of rant. All of that appeared, sister, in your response.

      I am quite capable of civil discourse, I assure you — I would appreciate the same in response.

    32. mkultra says:

      Tom in Texas posted above the Capitol Hill Police Board regulation that says a t-shirt with a message is not a “demonstration.”

      Now, would one of you brilliant wingers care to tell us why you think Sheehan nevertheless broke the law? Or – like Bush – are the police just free to ignore the rules?

    33. mkultra says:

      Hey Sister – please explain why the quoted regulation does not conclusively establish you are flat wrong.

      I’m going to hazard a guess that rather than doing your legal research and knowing what the law was, you simply assumed that she did.

      So the real question is: Do you have the integrity to admit you ARE WRONG?

    34. mkultra: “Hey Sister – please explain why the quoted regulation does not conclusively establish you are flat wrong. ”

      ST: Um, last I checked, you didn’t have to speak to demonstrate.

      mkultra: “I’m going to hazard a guess that rather than doing your legal research and knowing what the law was, you simply assumed that she did. ”

      ST: You can “hazard” all you want to – the relevant research has been done and the law posted in one of my updates. I guess you missed that. And BTW, it wasn’t my “assumption” that she broke the law. She was arrested by the Capitol police, and so would Mrs. Young had she not left on her own – if you have an issue with it, why don’t you air out your grievances with the Capitol police?

      mkultra: “So the real question is: Do you have the integrity to admit you ARE WRONG? ”

      ST: No, the real question is: do you even have a clue what you are talking about? Selective reading really is a negative trait. You ought to read what I’ve said in full before you comment on what I say in the future.

    35. Tom in Texas says:

      And Severian, a dress code wouldn’t stop an enterprising and wealthy liberal — what about when Sean Penn gets a tuxedo custom made to read “STOP THE WAR”. (Though something tells me Michael Moore would never lose the hat — how bad is THAT guy’s bald spot:).

    36. Severian says:

      Michael Moore won’t lose the hat because it’ll let you see the tinfoil he wears underneath! :d

    37. McQ says:

      Sis … MKUltra is known far and wide for his selective reading. We at QandO have often recommended a remedial reading course for the poor lad, alas, to no avail.

      BTW, he’s also rather fond of fish. Red herring seems to be his favorite. Usually cooks them over a strawman or two.

    38. LOL … thanks for the heads up, McQ! :d

    39. bobq says:

      I doubt most sensible on the left or the right were surprised that she was asked to leave the proceedings. It’s mostly fringe dwellers on both sides who are squabbling over this: Kos meet Michelle Malkin. Sister Toljah meet Atrios.

      Two sides of the same coin.

    40. Tom in Texas says:

      McQ!!! How odd that I am currently on both these comment threads at once.

    41. Tom in Texas says:

      Or rather, that we both are.

    42. mkultra says:

      ST: You can “hazard” all you want to – the relevant research has been done and the law posted in one of my updates. I guess you missed that. And BTW, it wasn’t my “assumption” that she broke the law. She was arrested by the Capitol police, and so would Mrs. Young had she not left on her own – if you have an issue with it, why don’t you air out your grievances with the Capitol police?

      YOU DIDN’T do your research. Research includes not just the statute, but the case law and regulations interpreting the statute. And not once have you cited either. I am going to assume, rather safely I would say, that you are not a lawyer.

      Oh – and in case you don’t understand – being arrested does not mean one broke the law. If you want to say she was arrested, then say that. But the question of whether she broke the law is decided in court, not on the street.

      ST: No, the real question is: do you even have a clue what you are talking about? Selective reading really is a negative trait. You ought to read what I’ve said in full before you comment on what I say in the future.

      Ah – yes. Again, until you acknowledge the relevant regulations and case law, I will just laugh at your silliness.

    43. Severian says:

      ” I am going to assume, rather safely I would say, that you are not a lawyer.”

      Nah, Sister Toldjah has a soul…:x

    44. Baklava says:

      She doesn’t need to. The Capitol Police did what they thought they needed to do to “enforce” the law.

      The left in Monday morning quarterbacking incessant fashion would like to paint this as Bush not wanting to see dissent. [Reference Pete Stark’s comments – Democrat as well as Lynne Woolsey]. This is what ST’s post referenced. You can simply add to the discussion by sharing information with us but trying to badger ST into agreeing with what you think versus what the Capitol Police thought is unnecessary.

    45. bobq says:

      I’ve got soul, but I’m not a soldier.

      :)>-

    46. mkultra says:

      The left in Monday morning quarterbacking incessant fashion would like to paint this as Bush not wanting to see dissent. [Reference Pete Stark’s comments – Democrat as well as Lynne Woolsey]. This is what ST’s post referenced. You can simply add to the discussion by sharing information with us but trying to badger ST into agreeing with what you think versus what the Capitol Police thought is unnecessary.

      ST said Sheehan broke the law. (Read her header.) That is a statement of opinion, not fact. If you are going to offer your opinion on something, expect to be challenged on it. Jesus.

      Now, if ST said Sheehan was arrested, then I would have no beef at all.

      Imagine if some lefty said “Bush broke the law” He would of course be challenged on that assertion because that issue has never been ajudicated.

      ST started the Monday morning quarterbacking. Actually, it’s worse; she said Sheehan broke the law before the issue of whether she broke the law ever came before a court.

    47. mkultra: “YOU DIDN’T do your research.”

      ST: That’s a lie. I cited the relevant law that the Capitol police thought both Cindy Sheehan and Mrs. Young were breaking.

      mkultra: “Research includes not just the statute, but the case law and regulations interpreting the statute. And not once have you cited either.”

      ST: Hogwash. I don’t have to cite “case law” to be able to determine why the Capitol police asked Sheehan and Mrs. Young to leave. That’s like me saying I have to cite case law and regulations interpreting the statute for murder after asserting that I thought OJ Simpson was guilty. Get a grip!

      mkultra: I am going to assume, rather safely I would say, that you are not a lawyer.

      ST: And I’m going to assume, rather safely, that you have difficulties with reading comprehension. Scratch that. I don’t have to assume it. It’s rather obvious.

      mkultra: “Oh – and in case you don’t understand – being arrested does not mean one broke the law. If you want to say she was arrested, then say that.”

      ST: Thanks, but I don’t need your persmission to say anything. The Capitol police arrested Ms. Sheehan (and asked Mrs. Young to change or leave) on the grounds that they thought she/they was/were breaking the law. End of story.

      mkultra: “But the question of whether she broke the law is decided in court, not on the street.”

      ST: Wow – I’m impressed!

      mkultra: “Ah – yes. Again, until you acknowledge the relevant regulations and case law, I will just laugh at your silliness.”

      ST: And until you acknowledge your inability to comprehend what I (and others) have said on this, I’ll just sit back and laugh as you watch from the sidelines while the adults debate this issue. Comprende?

    48. Jeff says:

      Hopefully the next time any members of the Capitol Police see Pete Stark, they’ll break into a nice goosestep.

    49. Severian: “Nah, Sister Toldjah has a soul…:x

      ST: Thanks ;;)

      Baklava: “The left in Monday morning quarterbacking incessant fashion would like to paint this as Bush not wanting to see dissent. [Reference Pete Stark’s comments – Democrat as well as Lynne Woolsey]. This is what ST’s post referenced. You can simply add to the discussion by sharing information with us but trying to badger ST into agreeing with what you think versus what the Capitol Police thought is unnecessary.”

      ST: mk seems to have ignored the content in my many posts in this thread that I used to make the case for my opinion. Surprise surprise.

      mkultra: ST said Sheehan broke the law. (Read her header.) That is a statement of opinion, not fact. If you are going to offer your opinion on something, expect to be challenged on it. Jesus.

      ST: Answered many times over. You just refuse to get it because you don’t want to believe Mother Sheehan can do any wrong, do you? Take it up with the Capitol police if you have an issue with it. This isn’t a Bush conspiracy. The Capitol police acted within the law based on their interpretation of it. So why are so many on the left trying to turn this into some Bush conspiracy to squash dissent? The arguments on that front might have some validity if Mrs. Young hadn’t also been asked to leave for wearing a Tshirt with a pro-troop slogan on it.

      Once again, the left trumps up a phony issue in order to milk it for all its worth in hopes that it’ll look like a negative against the President. Hey, it’s an election year and desperate people do desperate things.

    50. Baklava says:

      MKultra wrote, “ST said Sheehan broke the law.

      Reasonable opinion after you see someone being arrested. Someone pulled over and not merely given a ticket but cuffed as well, you’ll see plenty of people offering their opinion that “he broke the law”. Not many people are as lofty as you and waits till the courts decide. This is silly stuff to me.

      This kind of quibble is foolish…. Movin’ on.

    51. Tom in Texas says:

      “I cited the relevant law that the Capitol police thought both Cindy Sheehan and Mrs. Young were breaking.”

      And I cited the court case wherein the Capitol Police regulations expressly permit T-shirts. I eagerly await your response to this.

    52. “And I cited the court case wherein the Capitol Police regulations expressly permit T-shirts. I eagerly await your response to this. ”

      I have responded time and again that they acted towards both Ms. Sheehan and Mrs. Young based on the law as they interpreted it. What part of “take it up with the Capitol police” are you guys not getting exactly?

    53. Baklava says:

      It’s an addition to the conversation…

      My feeling? The Capitol Police were probably preemptive and asked a Bush supporter to leave to be equal in treatment. When Cindy was unresponsive she brought her own arrest on herself and when Democrats use this as a point of you can’t “dissent” it shows the level of their being “extreme”. The SOTU is not a forum for dissent and if Cindy planned on having attention brought on herself, I’m glad the Capitol Police acted responsibly.

      Hip Hip Hooray for the Police !

    54. DG says:

      Umm, what about all those purple fingers at Bush’s last state of the union? Wouldn’t that count as a “demonstration”? Why weren’t all of those senators arrested? Also, isn’t it interesting that the police are asking the attorney general to release Sheehan, because they can’t find any laws that she broke?

    55. Tom in Texas says:

      Oh look, the charges were dropped. Guess she really didn’t break the law after all huh?

    56. Tom in Texas says:

      My favorite quote :

      “They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed,” Hanley said today. “The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested.”

    57. Gee, you mean there actually wasn’t any conspiracy on the part of the Capitol police and the President to hold Cindy Sheehan? GASP!

      Capitol Police did not explain why Sheehan was arrested and Young was not. However the unlawful conduct charge against Sheehan was being dropped, according to Deputy House Sergeant of Arms Kerri Hanley. And in a private meeting Wednesday, Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer apologized and planned to issue a statement, Rep. Thomas told reporters.

      “They were operating under the misguided impression that the T-shirt was not allowed,” Hanley said Wednesday. “The fact that she (Sheehan) was wearing a T-shirt is not enough reason to be asked to leave the gallery, or be removed from the gallery, or be arrested.”

      And let’s see, what did I say earlier about the Capitol police’s interpretation of the law? Thank you very much.

    58. Tom in Texas says:

      Once again, I never claimed there was a grand conspiracy. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

      The Capitol Police did not follow their own regulations in arresting these women, a fact they acknowledged before you would. How on earth you believe the fact that no charges were brought against Ms. Sheehan vindicates you I have no idea. It simply shows that the police were wrong to do what they did, something I’ve maintained since the start of our discussion.

    59. DG says:

      The bigger issue here is the dissent-free bubble that Bush is constantly placed in by his handlers to protect him from hearing contrary opinions. This lack of contact with reality is precisely what led to many of his mistakes from Iraq to New Orleans.

    60. Tom in Texas says:

      Corrections: They arrested one woman, not two, and charges were brought against Sheehan and later dropped. All about accuracy, you know.

    61. “Once again, I never claimed there was a grand conspiracy. Please stop putting words in my mouth.”

      I didn’t put any words in your mouth. Take a look around you at a few liberal blogs who *have* in so many words claimed some grand conspiracy (as they so often have in the past) about the President and dissent. This issue isn’t just about your opinion, but the opinion of the majority of the people who protested what happened.

      “The Capitol Police did not follow their own regulations in arresting these women, a fact they acknowledged before you would.”

      Huh? Who was the one saying that they arrested her based on their interpretation of the law? Yes, that was me.

      “How on earth you believe the fact that no charges were brought against Ms. Sheehan vindicates you I have no idea.”

      It vindicates my position that the Capitol police arrested her based on their interpretation of the law in question. I’ve said that at least twice. Go back up and read for a recap.

      “It simply shows that the police were wrong to do what they did, something I’ve maintained since the start of our discussion. ”

      And I’m perfectly willing to go along with their statement on it, but I was no more willing to take your word on it anymore than you have been willing to take mine on anything I’ve said in this thread. It’s not really a crime to wait for a higher authority to confirm or deny something, last I checked.

    62. “Corrections: They arrested one woman, not two, and charges were brought against Sheehan and later dropped. All about accuracy, you know. ”

      Who are you correcting? Yourself?

    63. DG: “The bigger issue here is the dissent-free bubble that Bush is constantly placed in by his handlers to protect him from hearing contrary opinions.”

      ST: Thank you. I knew that’s what this was about, which was why none of the usual suspects seemed to be too uptight about Mrs. Young being asked to leave.

    64. Baklava says:

      TiT wrote, “a fact they acknowledged before you would.

      ST is not their spokepeople… There is something basic you are missing here. You seem to think that ST should explain herself or the Capitol Police’s actions…

      What was being commented on mostly by ST and myself is what is EXEMPLIFIED by the next post here by DG… Shear extreme leftism making inaccurate accusations over and over. Why not comment against people here like DG and others? Why are you insisting on making those who support the Capitol Police explain themselves….

    65. Bak: “My feeling? The Capitol Police were probably preemptive and asked a Bush supporter to leave to be equal in treatment. When Cindy was unresponsive she brought her own arrest on herself and when Democrats use this as a point of you can’t “dissent” it shows the level of their being “extreme”. The SOTU is not a forum for dissent and if Cindy planned on having attention brought on herself, I’m glad the Capitol Police acted responsibly.”

      ST: Good point, especially considering the last time she was arrested.

    66. Tom in Texas says:

      Yes, sister, I realized upon rereading my post that I had misstated the facts, and since you’ve already accused me of liberalism by proxy for neglecting to post anything about Young, I thought I would make clear that this error was not intentional.

      And you didn’t have to take my word for it that the Police were violating their regulations — it was in the court case I cited. You refused to discuss this and instead attacked me.

    67. Tom in Texas says:

      “Why are you insisting on making those who support the Capitol Police explain themselves”

      Because those who support the Capitol Police here are ignoring posted case law which defended Sheehan and Young when I cited it.

    68. Tom in Texas says:

      And to comment against DG — the problem with this case is that the Police violated their regulations. It is not a symptom of any insulkation on Bush’s part, since there is no evidence that Bush ignored others advice and listened only to his cabinet, ordered the police to violate their rules, or played any role whatsoever in this.

    69. Tom: “And you didn’t have to take my word for it that the Police were violating their regulations — it was in the court case I cited.”

      ST: Which doesn’t really matter, because neither you nor I are lawyers (or are you?) and I’ll take the word of someone with experience in law over a layman – no offense.

      Tom: “You refused to discuss this”

      ST: That’s not true – go back and read through my comments. I kept saying that the Capitol police were acting on their interpretation of the law. Again, I have said that at least twice.

      Tom: “and instead attacked me.”

      ST: What?? You considered the below (my initial post to you) an “attack”?

      Nice try, Tom. You guys are so desperate to spin this into some evil WH conspiracy to shut Cindy Sheehan up. It’s hilarious to watch. This happened in the prior admin, and it also happened to a Republican last night as well as your flavor of the month Ms. Sheehan. Don’t let the facts stand in the way of your little rant, though, ok?

      Sheesh. Talk about sensitive.

    70. Baklava says:

      TiT, You had a different opinion. Is it often that you have to badger others to the point of agreement or do you allow disagreement in your world?

      Being right can be an opportunity for being humble still or give you more opportunity to say, “see I told you so”, but if you were in ST’s shoes I’m sure you’d not be perfect and might actually have a reaction to the 10th moonbatter coming to this blog making the comments like DG and mkultra and Nostradamnthem. Why do you focus like a laser beam on ST’s when they are perfectly reasonable statements [by the way hooray Capitol Police] instead of those extremists I mentioned? They were part of the problem that led people to believe you were one of them [especially when you only mentioned Sheehan in your first post].

      Take a time to reflect and be humble. Gear up and spend time helping conservatives try to cut government. This government has grown every year for over 6 decades and look at us…

    71. Tom in Texas says:

      I find it far more telling that the above was the only response you had to my original citation. It is a transparent attempt to go into attack mode rather than respond to the issue I raised. You only responded to it an hour and a half later in response to a different commentator.

      To quote yourself: “Sheesh. Talk about sensitive.”

    72. Tom: “I find it far more telling that the above was the only response you had to my original citation. It is a transparent attempt to go into attack mode rather than respond to the issue I raised. You only responded to it an hour and a half later in response to a different commentator.”

      ST: LOL. So you’re admitting that it wasn’t true when you said to me “You refused to discuss this” – Thank you.

      Tom: “To quote yourself: “Sheesh. Talk about sensitive.” ”

      ST: No sensitivity at all on my part. Just very passionate about the issue.

    73. steve says:

      Cut government? Conservatives? You must be kidding? The Defense budget has gone up 50% under bush. You conservatives have spent $340 billion on Iraq and you now have an $8 trillion debt and a $400 billion deficit for 2006. Conservative, you Republicans give the word a bad name. Peace

    74. Baklava says:

      She’s shared the posts that are held back in the moderation queue and the emails she gets. You need to give ST a break until you walk in her shoes getting 100’s of this stuff to respond to daily. I ALSO thought “oh no not another lefty when I saw your post”. You only mentioned Sheehan and after getting 10’s of messages from lefty’s like DG thinking it was W’s inability to face dissent. SINCE that time it seems you were only interested in badgering someone to the point of agreement and then rubbing it in with a subsequent news story instead of just sharing it and being humble.

      BTW, Hooray Capitol Police. It’d be an entirely different conversation had they not acted responsibly and preemptively. :)

    75. Baklava says:

      Steve, Republicans in general are ALSO left of center. We have both parties to the left of center. Conservatives are not Republicans. We only vote for Republicans and try to share our message with Republicans.

      Sorry to stray off topic ST.

    76. Tom in Texas says:

      Baklava sir I quite obviously allow disagreement into my world. I am doing so now, as you can see. I feel no need to attack or defend other commentators on this board, since I was attempting to stay on issue. If they comment upon something I said, I will respond, but I haven’t gone out of my way to attack anyone on this thread. I never called anyone a koolaid drinking wingnut or anything extreme, and I don’t condone anyone that does. The closest I’ve come to an attack is my comments regarding a deflection away from my original post. I felt that I was marginalized as a moonbat and sarcastically pointed this out.

    77. Pam says:

      Thanks for the updates on this throughout the day Sister…It is now 7:54 p.m. and I am still glad that they removed Cindy from the room! I tuned in to watch the POTUS, not Cindy! Have her handlers get her a spot on Al’s TV station….

    78. Lorica says:

      Ok 1st things 1st. I have been thinking about Rep. Woolsey. This woman was fully aware of what Sheehan would do if she got an invite to this speech. All she did was set up Sheehan to do something she didn’t have the guts to do herself. It is amazing how Cindy is such a pawn of the fringe left like Woolsey. I don’t know how this woman keeps falling for this. I hope that Cindy wakes up one day to realize that she was being used in this fashion.

      Now 2nd Steve. We were attacked, we presently have troops on the ground, not just in Iraq. OF COURSE the defense budget is going to increase. It is only common sense.

      Lastly, I have to admit I have not read most of these posters, cause there seems to be a startling amount of repetition. It doesn’t seem like either side is getting thru to the other. As far as what Ms. Sheehan and Ms. Young were wearing. There is such a thing as decorum, and a T-Shirt is not the appropriate thing to wear at such an august gathering. – Lorica

    79. Severian says:

      Funny Steve should mention the defense budget, that, providing for the common defense, is just about the ONLY thing the government spends money on nowadays that it is constitutionally REQUIRED to spend money on.

    80. Tom in Texas says:

      Thank you, sister, for mentioning me in your update.

    81. AkaDad says:

      The title “About Cindy’s arrest and the law she broke” is factually wrong.

      We now know that she didn’t break the law.

      Maybe a more appropriate title would be “Cindy Sheehan wrongfully imprisoned”.

    82. Bullgator says:

      Somebody needs to tell this woman her 15 minutes are up.

    83. Observer says:

      How about an apology to Cindy Sheehan, ST?

      I think it pretty well established now that she did no wrong. Nor does it seem that she had any expectation of being arrested (she certainly didnt do anything to provoke it), so the charges ST leveled against her were false. Perhaps a case of “trump[ing] up a phony issue in order to milk it for all its worth”?

      How about one for Woolsey as well?

    84. Red Tory says:

      Have to side with you on this one. I am fed up with this lady. Check out my post regarding this http://snipurl.com/m5ko.

    85. Observer: “How about an apology to Cindy Sheehan, ST?”

      ST: It’ll be a cold day in hell before I do so.

      Observer: “I think it pretty well established now that she did no wrong.”

      ST: I don’t think it has been. But even if it had, I’m not apologizing for an opinion I have (and still have) on the matter. So save your bogus call for an apology, because I hardly think that the left – who tells us everyday how Tom DeLay (for example) is guilty before the guy has even stepped foot in a courtroom, has any room to talk in terms of asking someone to apologize for stating they thought someone was guilty before they really knew for sure if they were or weren’t.

      Observer: “Nor does it seem that she had any expectation of being arrested (she certainly didnt do anything to provoke it),”

      ST: LOL. Uh huh.

      Observer: “so the charges ST leveled against her were false. Perhaps a case of “trump[ing] up a phony issue in order to milk it for all its worth”?”

      ST: Yeah, Ms. Sheehan getting arrested was a “phony issue.” LOL.

      Observer: “How about one for Woolsey as well? ”

      ST: No. She should have never invited Cindy Sheehan to the SOTU. Why would you invite someone who’d already been arrested in DC once before to the SOTU? You may think it’s cute because you and the others like you seem to think Mother Sheehan is the patron saint of the anti-war movement who can do no wrong, but I think it was disgraceful of her to invite Ms. Sheehan, knowing the kind of publicity she attracts. So no, I won’t apologize to Rep. Woolsey, and no I won’t apologize to Ms. Sheehan, either. I will not apologize for my opinion.

      RT: “Have to side with you on this one. I am fed up with this lady. Check out my post regarding this http://snipurl.com/m5ko. ”

      ST: Good post. I had no idea Ms. Sheehan had been interviewed in Vanity Fair. There goes breakfast.

    86. AkaDad says:

      When are you going to retract the factually wrong and misleading title?

    87. Severian says:

      Everyone is still missing a primary point, that you shouldn’t wear a t-shirt, regardless of what is says, to an important government event like the SOTU address. For Pete’s sake, show some dignity and class. Sheehan’s lack of judgement is to be expected, she’s a nutcase, but I have even less sympathy for the wife of the congressman. A congressman’s wife should realize the position she is in, as part of the family of an elected representative of the people, and dress appropriately. This isn’t a tractor pull or anti-war coffee clutch, this is the only presentation the president gives that is mandated by the US Constitution.

      Wearing a t-shirt to such an event just shows your mama didn’t raise you properly. Perhaps that’s just my old school Southern upbringing showing, but there’s a reason for decorum, and such events deserve some attempt at dignity.

    88. “When are you going to retract the factually wrong and misleading title?”

      Read this post.

      There’s nothing “misleading” about my title. At the time Ms. Sheehan was arrested it was presumed she was arrested because she broke the law. In fact, I cited the relevant law the Capitol police thought she broke. End of story.

      I’ll retract my “misleading” title when you start demanding your pals on the left start retracting titles that truly are misleading en masse, ok?

    89. Great points, Severian – I’ve read quite a few stories in the last couple of days of people who were told they couldn’t wear certain things in the Capitol. It makes you wonder now that the Capitol police have reversed on this what they’ll allow in the future.

      I have a sneaky suspicion this had to do with the Republican Congressman making a stink about it, more than anything else.

    90. AkaDad says:

      I don’t care if you leave the title up. I was just trying to help you keep your credibility. ;)

    91. andrew says:

      “Somebody needs to tell this woman her 15 minutes are up. ”

      Nobody told the blogs that.

    92. AkaDad: “I don’t care if you leave the title up. I was just trying to help you keep your credibility. ;)

      ST: Thanks, but I really don’t need your ‘help’ in that regard.

      andrew: “Nobody told the blogs that. ”

      ST: Nor the media, for that matter.

    93. PCD says:

      AkaDad,

      Uh, worry about your own credibility. Lefties have little credibility because they play Chicken Little too much and cry wolf too much.

    94. sanity says:

      Cindy Sheehan confirms Woolsley invited her purely as a publicity stunt:

      After the PSOTU press conference, I was having second thoughts about going to the SOTU at the Capitol. I didn’t feel comfortable going. I knew George Bush would say things that would hurt me and anger me and I knew that I couldn’t disrupt the address because Lynn had given me the ticket and I didn’t want to be disruptive out of respect for her. I, in fact, had given the ticket to John Bruhns who is in Iraq Veterans Against the War. However, Lynn’s office had already called the media and everyone knew I was going to be there so I sucked it up and went.

      Woolsley is co-chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus, founded in 1991 by socialist Bernie Sanders.

      She once intervened in the murder trial of a man accused of “soak[ing] a rag in toilet bowl cleanser and Ajax and us[ing] it to smother 17-year-old Tina Phan while she was sleeping” and “rap[ing] and brutaliz[ing] her” and said of the perpetrator:

      “Pearson is a young man from a supportive family. I believe he has a promising life ahead of him, and I urge you to consider these factors when deciding on a suitable sentence.”

      “In my mind, he is not a criminal.”

      It just so happens Pearson is the son of one of Woolsey’s aides and had worked on her political campaign as well.

      Her anti-war stance is in line with Sheehan as well. In August, 2005, she actually said Saddam Hussein was better for Iraqi women than the new Consitution, ratified by Iraqis themselves.

      This information brought to you by the letter S and by Generation Why?

    95. benning says:

      Sister, have you had as much comments on any other posting? This is a lot!

      Just reading the back-and-forth is taxing, much less trying to think of anything relevant to say.

      Anybody who would wear – and unveil, as Mama Sheehan did – a T-shirt in the Capital building, needs to be disciplined by a real adult. Children shouldn’t be allowed into adult proceedings if they aren’t prepared to behave.

    96. sanity says:

      ack!

      Sorry ST didn’t see a post containing the link I reposted here…lol

      My Bad.

    97. Observer says:

      Well ST, you certainly do need to do something to maintain whatever credibility that you might have.

      Your response to my suggestion about an apology tells me that you have no integrity whatsoever – that although you would be among the first to demand accountability from the left or from the MSM, you have no intention of holding yourself accountable for your screw-ups.

      We all get to define ourselves in this world – this was an opportunity for you to “lead by example”, and you flunk.

      *Yawn.* As if I give a hoot what you think – I’ll take advice about leading from a real leader and advice about integrity from people who actually have it, and certainly not from the likes of you. Buh bye. –ST

    98. bobq says:

      so the Sista’s apparently wrong

      LINK

      And the cops have apologized to Cindy Sheehan

      I don’t have a dog in this race; just sayin’

    99. And? I still believe Clinton was guilty of any number of things in addition to perjury that he got off on (no pun intended) and don’t intend on apologizing for my opinion on that, either.

      It’s absolutely hilarious to see the lefto blogosphere calling for ‘apologies’ when they routinely each and everyday declare that the President, DeLay, etc guilty of any number of things when they haven’t even set foot in a courtroom in front of a jury of their peers in order to determine that ‘guilt.’ So forgive me if I’m not rushing to post any ‘apology’ on something I still believe to be true.

    100. bobq says:

      And?

      Well, as I said earlier:

      I doubt most sensible on the left or the right were surprised that she was asked to leave the proceedings. It’s mostly fringe dwellers on both sides who are squabbling over this: Kos meet Michelle Malkin. Sister Toljah meet Atrios.

      Two sides of the same coin.

    101. “fringe dwellers”

      Fringe? You think I’m on the fringe? =))

      “Kos meet Michelle Malkin. Sister Toljah meet Atrios.

      Two sides of the same coin. ”

      I don’t think so.

    102. bobq says:

      Fringe? You think I’m on the fringe?

      Your obsession with this story and your contempt for cindy Sheehan speak for itself.

      I think most of us in the mainstream see Cindy Sheehan as a woman who lost wo son in the war and think that though her grief is understandable, she’s gone a little overboard in her protesting.

      The far left have lionized her. The far right have vilified. Two extremes. Two sides of the same coin.

      I calls ’em as I sees ’em.

      Of course, extremists never *think* they’re extremists. Nonetheless.

      And when your heroes are Michelle Malkin and Anne Coulter, your extremism speaks (yells, in fact) for itself.

      Cheers.

    103. You’re a liar. Earlier, you made a claim that you “had no dog in this race.” Clearly you do, or you wouldn’t have chosen to paint me as an extremist because of my viewpoint (which is actually quite mainstream amongst conservatives and a growing number of liberals) nor would you have posted the link to the apology from the police when I had very clearly in my last update posted a similar link about the police releasing Ms. Sheehan. Also, for you to clarify my blogging about this incident as an “obsession” is laughable considering you made sure to come back here after posting yesterday to update us (not that we needed it, considering I had already updated with the info).

      Furthermore, about the only people I’ve seen classify Malkin as an “extremist” are people who can’t stand her aka the left. Even further, where you get that Ann Coulter is my ‘hero’ is beyond me, as I’ve never cited Ann Coulter to back up anything. So you’ve just taken the ad hominem route and not only that, attacked me over something I’ve never done. Yeah, you “don’t have a dog in this race” – and I’m Queen Elizabeth.

      Thanks for showing your true colors. Your attack on me was unwarranted but what’s worse was your dishonesty about not having a dog in this race. You clearly do. So you can take your phony claim about “no dog in this race” and – well, you figure out what to do with it. Have a nice life.

    104. Severian says:

      Sheese bobq, stop humping that straw man will ya?

    105. sanity says:

      Sheehan puts herself out to be vilified first of all. She relishes in the attention and has in the past wanted to be arrested (see big smile on her face on pic when it happened) for the publicity, just as this was a publicity stunt staged by the Democrat Senator who invited her.

      I also see everyone concentrating on sheehan herself and berating, but not bringing up the other Republican Senator’s wife that was removed also.

      I also know that the same thing happened during teh Cliton administration, so would that be the Cliton Gestapo everyone is blaming Bush for now also? That is sarcasm if you couldn’t tell, since that is what people are calling them is the Bush Gestapo.

      I think most of the mainsteam now sees sheehan as a woman no longer grieving the death of her son, but politicing his death, calling those he worked with terrorist, ect ect. A little overboard on her protesting hmm? I would not mind her protesting, but those she has become attached to by the hip and those she meets and has photo-ops with are extremely questionable, and the information she passes as the truth in many things are asinine.

      It was a political stunt as usual, this one perpetrated by a democrat (Woolsley) and sheehan again has let herself and her son be used. It is no longer about the death of her son, sometimes I wonder if she even remembers that is supposedly why she is doing this, since it has become more and more about cindy.

    106. jeff says:

      It’s amazing how many people on this site hold up the “no protesting in the capitol” law as if it were written on a stone tablet, but have no problem with W ignoring the 1978 FISA law because it’s “old” or “outdated.” Nice selective priorities. If only you held our elected officials to the high law-abiding standards you hold gold-star mothers to.

    107. PCD says:

      If there were no such things as lies, the left would be silent.

    108. jeff says:

      If there were no such thing as campaign finance laws, republicans would rule forever.

    109. sanity says:

      Campaign finance laws has what to do with sheehan? Nothing. So that is best put on another comments section.

      But to give you something to think about, go to Political Money Line:
      http://www.fecinfo.com/

    110. PCD says:

      If campaign finance laws and Vote fraud laws were enforced, would there be any Democrat activists and politicians not serving time?

    111. andrew says:

      “If campaign finance laws and Vote fraud laws were enforced, would there be any Democrat activists and politicians not serving time?”

      Yes.

    112. Chris says:

      Cindy Sheehan did not break the law and was unjustly removed. You Republican followers admit you were wrong and repent for following and enabling a party of criminals. If you read the Bible and truly love God, you’d understand that Cindy Sheehan is moral and doing what Jesus would do and you are all currently enabling evil. Repent and ask God for forgiveness.

    113. PCD says:

      How few? Check Bouncing Boxer would be put away as well as Reid. The governor of Washington State would be in jail. Rep Ford from TN would be in jail.

      How many ballot box stuffing Chicago area democrats would be out? The answer is zero.

      Tom Harkin would run to his home in the Bahamas rather than serve time for falsely claiming to be an Iowa resident.

      Need I go on?

    114. benning says:

      Chris, you need to take a breath. It’s obvious you have no idea what’s going on. Nary a clue.

      Sheehan is simply an unhinged person who lies. She has lied in the recent past about the President. She speaks vile things about this nation while abroad. She is deserving of nothing but contempt. Christ might have healed this horrid woman, I doubt he would have cited her as some sort of exemplar.

      It is you who are enabling evil, Chris.

    115. Michele says:

      US Capitol Police Chief Gainer doesn’t seem to agree with you:

      “On Wednesday afternoon, U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer said neither woman should have been removed from the chamber. “We made a mistake” he told CNN.”

      How about posting a correction?

    116. “How about posting a correction? ”

      Repeating:

      And? I still believe Clinton was guilty of any number of things in addition to perjury that he got off on (no pun intended) and don’t intend on apologizing for my opinion on that, either.

      It’s absolutely hilarious to see the lefto blogosphere calling for ‘apologies’ when they routinely each and everyday declare that the President, DeLay, etc guilty of any number of things when they haven’t even set foot in a courtroom in front of a jury of their peers in order to determine that ‘guilt.’ So forgive me if I’m not rushing to post any ‘apology’ on something I still believe to be true.

    117. Severian says:

      U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance Gainer needs to grow a pair…

    118. Baklava says:

      Michele, She posted update 6.

    119. Severian says:

      You know, some of the recent posters around here remind me of someone who comes into a party where friends and old acquaintances are enjoying themselves, discussing a variety of things, and then farts loudly and long, looking around expectantly for cooing sounds of approval. And then gets PO’d that the regulars don’t automatically praise them for the odorifousnous and volume of their emissions.8-|

    120. jeff says:

      Clinton? I thought for sure this was one thread that couldn’t possibly be linked to Bill Clinton, even by the most obsessed of the Bubba-haters. Is there any topic that conservatives can’t leave Clinton-free? Does he haunt your dreams, or something? Is Bill going to have to take a cue from ST and write a post titled “To Obsessed Conservative Bloggers?”

    121. jeff says:

      Severian, leave Benning alone. He’s trying as hard as he can.