<p>Rockymnt:chillax please as the kids say. We don’t hate the president, we love our country. Your son will find when he gets to West Point next summer that there are all kinds of points of view represented along with people of all sizes, shapes, colors and opinions. You need to expand your horizons and broaden your world view.
Bill chime in please as I am sure you can’t let this go by unanswered.</p>
<p>So, in one post I am acknowledged as recognizing the pro-administration, war, or whatever person as being removed. [It was not off-handed, it was a consciously made comment.] In the next post, I am told that I “forgot” to mention the removal of this person. Hmmm. . . .</p>
<p>Boss, I would respond, but I don’t think Rockymt makes any sense.
Is President in charge of the Capitol police? I don’t know; I suppose that rest on whether the Capitol administration is in the executive or legislative branch. What branch of government does the Capitol police work for? I would guess that building administration is part of GSA and that is probably in executive branch and President is head of the executive branch. So, in fact, he may have control over the Capitol police. Does it matter?</p>
<p>Furthermore, what does the MBA from Harvard have to do with my post?</p>
<p>Finally, you are suggesting that the wearing of a T-shirt is an “outward” display? I can understand and agree with flags, banners, signs, and other physical items. I can understand if she stood up and caused a commotion. A T-shirt endangers our Congressmen? This perspective is a dangerous and slippery slope.</p>
<p>What does the last sentence say? Or mean? Or suggest? </p>
<p>As I have previously mentioned, I voted for Bush the first time and would probably do so again, knowing what I knew THEN. However, as this adminstration has governed, I am able to recognize a poor job when I see it and would not vote for this administration again. It has nothing to do with hatred of the Presdent or the unblinking, blind admiration of a President just because he is Republican. * [I would vote for a Republican again as I have previously posted; I am just very disappointed in this administration and the Rat Congressmen–sorry I used a personal invective–that have abdicated their oversight duties for a few pieces of silver.]* It has everything to do with recognizing when a job is not being done very well.</p>
<p>Now what are you boys up to? Stirring the waters again? LOL
I have the flu. I can’t comment intelligently cause of the meds. Trust me…
I do agree with PrayerfulMom that no one can go into the capital building during a function when wearing one’s own agenda. Rules are rules. They didn’t single the women out.</p>
<p>nuthin else to do
or as they might say in the Carolinas</p>
<p>nuttin els ta do</p>
<p>No old grannies for Bill to evict today so he’s bored…ha ha.</p>
<p>Billl…as I wrote before "none’ are allowed, NO outward displays, which included t-shirts too.
I also wrote 8-9 years, that goes back to the previous administration as well.</p>
<p>Jamzmom, that flu isn’t fun. I felt like I was drowning in my own head. My daughter gave me some Airborne and it at least felt good going down. Hope you feel better.</p>
<p>I guess that includes ANY graphical or written display? Including logo’d T-shirts, golf shirts that say Augusta National, any T-shirt that has a promotional statement on it? Is it okay to wear a shirt that proclaims “Nike” but not one that says “Nike s**cks” </p>
<p>Does this mean anywhere on the Capitol complex or just within the hallowed grounds of the Congressional chambers?</p>
<p>If I understand your interpretation, and I have not looked at the regulations, you may only wear plain colored shirts, clothing, etc. within the confines of the Capitol! What about shirts or pants that do not promote a particular cause but only make a factual statement and ask a question? As Sheehan’s did? What about a shirt that states: 435 Congressman! Or, what about one that states: Daddy’s Princess!<br>
What about shirts that only proclaim a singular vulgar word? Too inciteful? [But otherwise protected as free speech, ableit in bad taste?]
If Sheehan violated the law, why was she not ultimately charged?</p>
<p>It’s okay, it’s near the end of the day. I pass the witness.</p>
<p>Bill …you seem so smug…you know very well that I was NOT referring to logo’s such as Nike, Augusta, etc… </p>
<p>My experience is with ENTERING the Senate bldgs. and Capitol…, no problem on the Mall or the Smithsonian, or anywhere outdoors for that matter. As per my experiences if you do not remove any political signs, or article of clothing, or what the guard deems political, entrance is then denied to those two bldgs. If the guard can see it…then off it goes. Our group too did not believe that our signs were “political” …just a statement of fact; nonetheless, the guards believed otherwise.</p>
<p>Concerning Mrs. Sheehan she was asked to leave because of her shirt and so was the other woman …why Sheehan was arrested I suspect had to do more with whatever transpired between her and the police.</p>
<p>I have no experience as regards the acceptability of wearing a shirt with a vulgarity in the Senate bldgs.</p>
<p>I am getting ready to leave my computer, but one comment you make is exactly what concerns me:</p>
<p>“. . . what the guard deems political . . .”</p>
<p>We have reached a point where a hired hand [who I am sure works hard for his money] can determine whether your T-shirt is political. I think that is ridiculous. I have worked too long and too hard against mindless bureaucrats and their minions who think they can decide what is right or wrong for others to wear; by extension that is what this administration seeks to do: Decide for others what is right or wrong for them. I am not speaking of those that disturb the peace or otherwise are a threat to others. Prohibiting people from simply wearing an article of clothing that a “guard deems political” is not fair, in contravention to the Constitution, and smacks of an Orwellian world.</p>
<p>If you are permitting SOME outward displays, why not permit ALL legal outward displays? There is no logical defense [at least not a constitutional one] to prohibiting those displays that offends a guard. </p>
<p>It is my understanding that she was detained simply for the display; not for untoward behavior.</p>
<p>JM: That is my agitation for the day. I will now return to my case d’jour [that would be dajour to you in North Carolina]:</p>
<p>Bill, putting Mrs. Sheenan aside for the moment, why do you bring this issue back to this administration? I have experienced this on every trip to DC for our march, going back to and including the previous administration.</p>
<p>I am sure that the security staff have a protocol to follow, and are not arbitrarily evicting people.</p>
<p>PM & Bill & all others–from painful personal experience, there is always more to the story than that which makes the press…don’t be too hasty to judge…anyone…!</p>
<p>Why was Cindy Sheehan invited except to bring attention? Obviously, she wore the shirt for a purpose. Whether its good or bad, its pretty obvious why she was there wearing the shirt and she was probably also aware of the rules. From the point of good taste, if you are invited to such an important event, a t shirt is seems inappropriate for a 50+ year old woman.</p>
<p>“I became convinced that noncooperation with evil is as much a moral obligation as is cooperation with good. No other person has been more eloquent and passionate in getting this idea across than Henry David Thoreau. As a result of his writings and personal witness, we are the heirs of a legacy of creative protest.” </p>
<ul>
<li>Martin Luther King, Jr.</li>
</ul>
<p>C’mon guys, this is a classic example of civil disobedience, e.g., American Civil Rights protests/boycotts/sit-ins, Gandhi, Vietnam anti-war protests/demonstrations, etc. I only wish I could have been sitting next to Ms. Sheehan and given her a big hug before they hauled her off!</p>
<p>“From the point of good taste, if you are invited to such an important event, a t shirt is seems inappropriate for a 50+ year old woman.”</p>
<p>Same could be said of the MOC’s wife that night as well.</p>
<p>Politics and government…intertwined for all time.</p>
<p>Good taste is trivial and irrelevent when we’re talking about war casualties and malfeasance.</p>
<p>FYI… </p>
<p>TITLE 40 - PUBLIC BUILDINGS, PROPERTY, AND WORKS SUBTITLE II - PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND WORKS PART B - UNITED STATES CAPITOL CHAPTER 51 - UNITED STATES CAPITOL BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS
</p>
<p>Sec. 5104. Unlawful activities</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(2) Violent entry and disorderly conduct. - An individual or group of individuals may not willfully and knowingly -</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(C) with the intent to disrupt the orderly conduct of official business, enter or remain in a room in any of the Capitol Buildings set aside or designated for the use of either House of Congress or a Member, committee, officer, or employee of Congress or either House of Congress;</p>
<p>(D) utter loud, threatening, or abusive language, or engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct, at any place in the Grounds or in any of the Capitol Buildings with the intent to impede, disrupt, or disturb the orderly conduct of a session of Congress or either House of Congress, or the orderly conduct in that building of a hearing before, or any deliberations of, a committee of Congress or either House of Congress;</p>
<p> </p>
<p>(G) parade, demonstrate, or picket in any of the Capitol Buildings.
+++++++++++</p>
<p>Note also, that displays are covered in some more detail with this language later:</p>
<p>++++++++++
(2) display in the Grounds a flag, banner, or device designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement.
++++++++++
Source url:</p>
<p><a href=“http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt[/url]”>http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/40C51.txt</a></p>
<p>You didn’t include the earlier subsection:</p>
<p>Sec 5104(c): Sale of articles, display of signs, and solicitations. A person may not carry out any of the following activities in the Grounds:
(1) offer or expose any article for sale.
(2) display a sign, placard, or other form of advertisement.
(3) solicit fares, alms, subscriptions, or contributions.</p>
<p>I think a t-shirt that has “NIKE” in bold letters on it could be considered an “other form of advertisement.” Somebody better tell those guards to get on the stick and stop people from entering that are displaying advertisements. Obviously terrorists [and illegal aliens] are likely to be wearing discarded American t-shirts, this would be a good way to protect our members of Congress.</p>
<p>Also, consider that
Sec. 5104(f)(2), as written, prohibits a person from "display[ing] in the Grounds a flag, banner, or **device[/ib] designed or adapted to bring into public notice a party, organization, or movement. [emphasis added]. Properly applied this woulld seem to prohibit the wearing of a crucifix, star of david, veiled women, etc. in a public way that “bring into public notice” the Christian/Jewish/Muslim movements.</p>
<p>In part, this statute was enacted in response to court rulings that its predecessor, 40 USC 193g, was overly broad as stated. * See, e.g. U.S. v. Nicholson, 263 A2d 56.; see also Rankin Brigade v. Chief of Capitol Police, 342 F. Supp. 575, affd 409 US 972.* The Capitol Police it seems thought the statute prohibit ALL gatherings on the Capitol grounds. Thankfully, the courts were a bit more mindful of the Constitutional guarantees for peaceable assembly.</p>
<p>The revised statute was passed in 2002; during the Bush administration. I say this, not so much to blame the Bush administration, but, rather, to point out that this is all a part of the systematic tightening of freedoms in this country. While each administration reads the law in a manner favorable to their mission, this administration has been particularly egregious about doing so. [See its interpretation of the “Use of Force” authorization as permitting the wiretaps of citizens w/out court order.] Further, the administration has a clear record of prohibiting persons with opposing views from getting close. [See the bar of those with contrary t-shirts from the few public appearances, i.e. other than Republic party gatherings, that the President made during the campaign. ] </p>
<p>Wearing a t-shirt that is contrary to your position is not disorderly conduct; at least not from a legal standpoint.</p>
<p>did anyone happen to watch Jim Lehrer’s interview with Dick Cheney on Wednesday evening? If so, what was your impression of Cheney’s responses to Mr. Lehrer’s questions?</p>
<p>I really enjoyed the interview. It was very civil and both parts. Jim Lehrer is one of the few newsmen that seems capable. Also, Cheney’s skin looks great and it doesn’t look “doctored”. I wish mine looked that good!</p>
<p>On a separate note, if the moc wife wore something that was against the rules, then she it was correct that she be escorted out as well. In my extremely humble opinion, we were all supposed to be watching the State of the Union to listen to the president. If you didn’t agree with what he had to say, discuss those issues and then do something productive.</p>