In The Sex- Neutral, Color-Blind society Democrats want so bad, Cynthia McKinney would Be In Jail!!

Originally posted by Odium

People seem to over-look which groups she works with, what bills she has tried to place into power. The whole 9/11 view she holds - this can be used as a fantastic way to discredit her and after all this is meant to be a conspiracy website.

Yeah, its really too bad she comes across as a nut instead of someone who obeys law, and legal orders. But you see... If she wants to represent us, the conspiracy community... we dont want her help, unless she can restrain her anger long enough to avoid hitting a cop...

As it is, she makes us all look bad...
we could have all looked better (even good) if she
hadn't of hit the cop because then she could play the race card, and or the harrasment card...
but she hit a cop end of story... and unfortunatley took away any defense she had, when doing so...

The funniest cops episode i saw, was where a politicians husband claimed that his connection prevented the cop from doing anything...
boy, was he wrong...
Our politicians, should be even more vigiliant in observing laws, and obeying them... not excused from doing so... (with the exception of speeding, while getting to congress/senate- they are legally authorized to do that)

[edit on 7-4-2006 by LazarusTheLong]

They've done it too many times. They've treated her this way too many times...their could be 1,000 Representatives, but if there has been issues with her before please believe they know who she is...Cynthia McKinney is a patroit in a government where patroits are few and far between. She asks all the right questions to all the right people. But, she can be dismissed no matter how logically she speaks--the media has their questions to corner her and the spin is spun...she's black, period, and that's enough to discredit her. Ask a few well placed questions and it all becomes about being black and in america you can't say something happened to you because you are black even if it did!!! The majority won't believe you because they don't wanna believe you.

I like her. I've seen and read her speeches. She's being attacked because she's standing up for the truth. She's not some wild woman punching out cops--she's a very intelligent and driven American. When something like this happens to a person like her it's very sad. It doesn't take much for the media to turn you into a nut. It's all so corrupt.

It's odd though, how the media only distorts things to harm one group when it fits those people to say it. Look at the reporting of this event. At first it starts off with her attacking the man, the initial reports making out as though she caused damage and it was a felony [Battery/Aggrevated Assault.] This then became assault with her only minorly tapping the man on the chest with her phone and then the media changes it to a scuffle.

We are meant to believe that she hit the man, because she was grabbed. However, not once are we told how or where she was grabbed till the third or fourth news story which claimed the arm. Nor are we told the level of force by which she was grabed, furthermore nobody can know for sure if she even heard the security guard. We've been made aware she was on the phone and that she struck the man, however if she heard the man or the level of force he used hasn't been told to us. Instead we're lead to believe she is in the wrong by the media especailly since none of us were at the insident.

This woman, is coming fourth and claiming that the Bush Administration is behind 9/11. The security in front of her have before claimed her [white] aid was the Congress woman and she is known for her behaviour - including not wearing the ID badge. No where has it been displayed the security guard was knew there, the fact her photo is on the wall in their office to stop this sort of event and the fact early reports indicated that she was addressed by the security officer.

This incident is just perfect timing for many members of the Government, especailly since this woman has time and time again made speeches about the corruption within the Bush Administration. The coverage this is getting is drastically taking up time and space in the media, while other things such as Scooter, Iraq, 9/11 Trial, all get down-played.

Originally posted by Saphronia
But, she can be dismissed no matter how logically she speaks--the media has their questions to corner her and the spin is spun...she's black, period, and that's enough to discredit her. Ask a few well placed questions and it all becomes about being black and in america you can't say something happened to you because you are black even if it did!!!

Just remember, it was Ms. McKinney who first brought up the race issue, with her comments about being "a black, female congresswoman". And she said it quite emphatically, I might add.

For you to suggest that she was singled out because she is black is groundless.

I like her. I've seen and read her speeches. She's being attacked because she's standing up for the truth. She's not some wild woman punching out cops--she's a very intelligent and driven American.

Except that she did strike an officer, didn't she? How can you condone that?

originally posted by Odium
The coverage this is getting is drastically taking up time and space in the media, while other things such as Scooter, Iraq, 9/11 Trial, all get down-played.

Maybe if she hadn't done things like hold two press conferences before noontime to try to strike up support for her crime, it wouldn't be such an issue. Maybe if she hadn't brought Danny Glover and Harry Bellafonte with her it wouldn't be such an issue.

How can you condone the fact that she struck an officer? How can you condone all the time she takes away from serving her constituency to parade in front of cameras?

Originally posted by jsobecky
How can you condone the fact that she struck an officer?

Where do I say it is fine to strike an officer? However, none of us know the true extent, nobody knows the level of force the officer used, etc, etc. People are assuming she is the victim, because this person is a security guard. That logic is flawed, no evidence by either party has been given other than the routine she has done, every day for years.

Originally posted by jsobecky
How can you condone all the time she takes away from serving her constituency to parade in front of cameras?

I'm not one of her constituency, however it probably has something to do with her voting record. Last time I heard anything about her, she had one of the highest attendence rates of any members of congress. In fact, spending more time working for her constituency.

Here is an interesting artical about the event. Anyone else notice how they all mention "Meant" to where the badges, none say they "have" to wear the badges.

might be true but it might no

I guess we'll never know for sure

Originally posted by Odium
Where do I say it is fine to strike an officer?

Until you defend the officer as staunchly as you defend Ms. McKinney, your words will continue to appear biased and apologetic for her. You are so one-sided that you refuse to look at the officer's position.

People are assuming she is the victim, because this person is a security guard. That logic is flawed, no evidence by either party has been given other than the routine she has done, every day for years.

You're wrong there. She, and her apologizers, are trying to make her the victim. I certainly am not.

She has trivialized the charge of racism by using it so casually. Most people are able to see through the fraud she's trying to pull..

Originally posted by jsobecky
Until you defend the officer as staunchly as you defend Ms. McKinney, your words will continue to appear biased and apologetic for her. You are so one-sided that you refuse to look at the officer's position.

That's a level of false logic, I never expected to come from you. If I am blind to his view-point, you are hers. So by your own admission you're also in the wrong.

However, where do I say a straight view? Where have I even given my own view? The only thing I have done is pointed out the alternative side, which nobody else was. Instead of evaluating it, you do the age old personnal attacks by calling me "biased" for her.

Why did he let her pass and then follow her? Why did he call out to her? Why did he grab her? Why is it being reported passes are only meant to be worn? He didn't do his job properly, because if they're forced to wear them she should have never got passed him. We're being told he grabber her, prior to her striking him, that he came from behind her to grab her. Sorry, but a tap on the chest with a phone isn't a major crime like people are trying to make out. It's barely assault.

She very well may be harrased due to her position of administration critic...
but that has little to do with obeying the law...

If she attacked/hit/tapped with phone instead of went thru the metal detectors, when asked, then she broke the law...

It all could have went the other way, if she wouldn't have touched the officer

then she could be on all the major news media talking about how the capital security is harrasing her, due to her position as 9-11 critic...
Coulda been real good press..

as it is, she is in danger of being convicted of a crime...

I dont know what reality people are living in, but if haven't figured out yet, you can't critisize the party line without being harrased to an extent...
that means that responsibility of critics is to keep their noses very clean
so that dont have their reputations taken out from underneath them...

MLK knew this... Why didn't she?

Firstly, MLK didn't keep his nose clean. The hookers, etc...we just over-look that because what was said was more important.

Secondly, if you go to the article I linked to a rather well known, right-wing newsgroup. The reports are that she wasn't asked, and the man ran up to her from behind. This is rather different to the image everyone else is trying to paint.

Originally posted by Odium
That's a level of false logic, I never expected to come from you. If I am blind to his view-point, you are hers. So by your own admission you're also in the wrong.

No, it is just fact, Odium. I've looked at every reason given for her actions and logic made me discard them as irrelevant.

The only thing I have done is pointed out the alternative side, which nobody else was. Instead of evaluating it, you do the age old personnal attacks by calling me "biased" for her.

You haven't been alone in defending her actions; you've had plenty of company. And there was no personal attack - you are biased in this instance.

]Why did he let her pass and then follow her? Why did he call out to her? Why did he grab her? Why is it being reported passes are only meant to be worn? He didn't do his job properly, because if they're forced to wear them she should have never got passed him.

The only scenario that would support this line of thinking would be if everyone had to pass by him in single file.

He didn't do his job properly? No, she didn't fulfill her responsibility and act co-operatively. Once again, you are too willing to condemn the officer and defend Ms. McKinney.

Sorry, but a tap on the chest with a phone isn't a major crime like people are trying to make out. It's barely assault.

It was wrong. Mortal or venial, it was wrong.

Wait...so in U.S. Government buildings, people don't file in one at a time? I'm sorry, I seriously doubt that in the Longworth House Office Building they do not. That's the whole point of where they place the security guards and also the detectors - to control the flow of people.

If you've evaluated it form every angle, why have you not mentioned the fact not every member of congress uses the Longworth House Office Building? Only 251 officers for them are given - one of which is hers. Instead people try to make out like every member of congress has an office there...

Why does nobody speak of the fact, he came from behind and grabbed her arm? That has a massive amount to play, if she is on the phone there is a chance she didn't hear him and the reaction to lash out with her free-arm is a logical one.

Source: Linked above
This incident happened in the Longworth House Office Building, where members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors. The officer purportedly neither recognized Rep. McKinney nor saw her credentials, then tried to catch up with her from behind calling out “Ma’am, Ma’am.” When he touched her arm, she turned and “allegedly hit him,” reported The Hill newspaper, “before identifying herself as a member of Congress.”

I am going to wait until I can get more information about the case to make a decision. But in the meantime here is a good way to make sure every politician follows the proper protocol when entering any capital building. If the politician in question does not show proper identification the security officers should have the right hit them about the head and/or torso a couple of times with a billy club. Just try not to do too much damage. No matter what race or gender. I bet that it would only take one instance before they start to follow the trend, so to speak. Also to anyone that compares this woman to a fifth grader or "ghetto trash" that is just unfair. I trust the actions and emotions of a child or the downtrodden far more highly than a politician.
I don't put any credit to the "race" card what so ever. And that is because of the use of it so freely. Just like the "threat level". I give both of them the same credit, none.

Would it be considered RACIST to automatically assume that white security guards are RACISTS?

Thats what happened, in My opinion. He did his Job, and she assumed that he only did HIS job in that manner, because he is a racist.

SHE sterotyped HIM!

I'd also like to add, that throwing the term "racist" around such a reckless manner, will eventually dilute the meaning. There are still REAL racists around.
Ignorant folks, who think the crayola box should only contain one color..

[edit on 7-4-2006 by spacedoubt]

Flyer's Fan, I have given some time and thought to your post. I decided to answer the post using logic. Namely, yours.

Originally quoted by Flyer's Fan
She had no right to complain. SHE is the one who didn't follow the
rules. SHE is the one that 'forgets' her ID. Others who forget their
ID have no problem walking through a metal detector. It's no big
deal. She could have done it. AND as far as her complaining about
'not being recognized' .. facial recognition isn't the only criteria for
entrance to the Capitol without going through the metal detectors.
ID is required. It's the law. She shouldn't be above the law simply
because she's a black woman.

I have said it in three posts that I do not condone her behavior. But somehow, you seem to remind me again and again that just because she's simply Black does not mean that she is above the law.

You're right. But remember to keep those same standards until after the post--especially for White politicians. I'm sure you will.

Originally quoted by Flyer's Fan
Where did you see 'all black women are nutz'?? No where. This is
about McKinney alone. That is obvious.

Of course, this thread is about Ms. McKinney. That was not my point. I said that I felt like wanting to ask if that was the "racial stereotype" that other posters were thinking of all Black women, if not Black people in general. I never said anyone commented all Black people acted that way in any of the posts. Never in that statement did I refer to Ms. McKinney. But your failure to understand my point seems hypocritical.

Originally quoted by Flyer's Flan
She claims she was grabbed inappropriately. However, when questioned
on TV by reporters she refuses to say exactly how she was so
' inappropriately' grabbed. The Capitol security guard said that when
she refused his order to stop and come back to go through the metal
detectors that he grabbed her arm to stop her. That's minimal
restraint and has nothing to do with 'buttocks' as you brought up.

I know that--which means that you had a second failure to understand my point. I posed the question as a hypothetical situation. Such as, "What would Skippy do?"

I said:

How would you feel if some officer grabbed you inappropriately(No one ever said how he grabbed her.)? Let's say the cop, feeling his oats, grabbed your buttocks while trying to catch you. He's thinking, "You're no better than me. How dare you walk past me thinking that you're 'uppity'. I'm going to teach you a lesson."(After all, who knows what he was thinking?) Would your "fight or flight" instincts take over? Would you swing around to hit him? Or would you just smile, and say, "Thank you, may I have another?"

BTW, you didn't answer what you would do. But maybe, you'd say, "Thank you, may I have another?"

Originally posted by Flyer's Fan
She's not 'one little african-american woman'. She's a member of congress
who did not follow security rules in our nation's Capitol building. She is
a member of congress who struck a Capitol security guard for no good
reason. What other experiences she may or may not have had with
other law enforcement are not relevant. Her 'color experience' is not
relevant either.

Yes, you told me once again. But to say that her other experiences with law enforcement are irrevelant strikes me as being a tad bit arrogant. So, you're saying that if Ms. McKinney had good experiences with law enforcement that doesn't mean anything? Oh, of course not. You only assume that she didn't have any good experiences with law enforcement. Thank you. I stand corrected by the expert of all things legal concerning the Congress. After all, you're going by your logic.

BTW, what on earth did you mean by "color experience"?

Originally quoted by Flyer's Fan
WE THE PEOPLE deserve to have members of congress who will follow
the security rules that are in place. WE THE PEOPLE deserve to have
our security officers treated with dignity and to be obeyed. If the
TV is treating Ms. McKinney like a laughing stock, she has only herself
to blame.

I guess WE THE PEOPLE do. And yes, police men and women do deserve dignity and respect. But, also by your logic, "racial profiling" doesn't exist. Crooked cops don't exist. Of course, cops who use excessive force do not exist. So you're saying, even if they beat you to death with their billyclub, you have to obey them. Tell that to all the protesters who were hosed down by cops and bitten by dogs, while they were trying to campaign for their right to vote in the 1950's and 1960's South. I'm sure some of them are still alive.

But that's not all.

That's why I decided to save the best for last. Because I think you said by your logic that no one should be above the law. Well, you meant that for Black people, but until you say otherwise, I am going to assume that you meant White people too. And going by your standards, I am just going to list a series of articles that talk about the certain "Congressional shenanigans" of members of Congress. After all, you are the EXPERT. Don't let little old me get in your way.

Here goes:

I couldn't forget Mr. DeLay. What a rule-follower, he is. Here he is at his finest:

Reliable Source
House Majority Leader Tom "The Hammer" DeLay is a tobacco-chewing, meat-eating Texas Republican who likes to drink red wine and smoke cigars.We're told that during a recent dinner with about 30 political supporters at a downtown Washington steak house, DeLay walked out on his guests before dessert when the manager told him he could eat and drink but not puff.

The dinner was organized by the leader's daughter and campaign manager, Danielle DeLay Ferro, as a fundraiser for Armpac, Delay's political action committee, at Ruth's Chris Steak House on Ninth Street NW. But because the restaurant leases space in a building owned by a federal agency -- in this case, the Smithsonian Institution -- the law forbids smoking. The prohibition is posted on numerous signs inside and outside the restaurant. But after the main course, DeLay went into "hammer" mode, trying to compel manager Tom Khandker to flout federal regulations and lift the ban. We hear the conversation went something like this:

Khandker: "I'm sorry, sir, but this is a federal building, and it's against the law of the federal government."

DeLay: "I am the federal government."

GOP Members indicted, investigated or convicted. And it has your favorite, Tom DeLay.
Not to forget,Jack Abramoff's Campaign Donations List
Abramoff's Allies Keeping Distance. A neat little article that talks about all his ties to congress people.

Citizens for Ethics Memo. This lists all the "kickbacks" that certain Congress people received from Abramoff.

And what about Katherine Harris? Is she held up to your standards? After all, I assume from your posts you know what's right as the expert of all things Congressional--including their security habits:

Wikipedia.org
Controversy from the MZM Scandal

In 2005 and 2006, Harris faced political controversy when a major corporate campaign donor, defense contractor MZM, Inc., was implicated in a bribery scandal that resulted in the criminal conviction and resignation of California congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham and conviction of MZM founder, Mitchell Wade. Wade bundled together contributions from employees of MZM, and reimbursed those employees for their contributions. (Also see Riscorp above). [20].

Harris has maintained she had no personal knowledge that her campaign was given illegal contributions. For its part, Wade admitted that the donations to the Harris campaign were illegal and were part of an attempt to influence her to MZM's benefit. [21]. Documents filed with Wade's plea say that he took Harris to dinner early in 2005, where they discussed the possibility of another fundraiser and the possibility of getting funding for a Navy counterintelligence program in the member's district. [22].

After meeting with Wade, Harris sent a letter on April 26, 2005, to defense appropriations subcommittee Chairman C.W. Bill Young, in which Harris sought $10 million for a Navy project backed by Wade. [23]. In the letter, Harris emphasized the importance of the project, asking that it be added to her list of five priorities and identifying it as her new No. 3. (Harris has released the April 26 letter, but neither she nor Young would turn over the standard request form used for the proposal.) [24]

Mona Tate Yost, an aide to Harris, left to work for MZM during the time Wade was pressing Harris to secure federal funding (April or May of 2005). [25]

Notwithstanding these controversies, Harris has developed a reputation for prompt constituent service, due perhaps to her insistence on a close liaison between her district and Washington offices.

Lest we forget, the Katherine Harris 'W' Files

All right then. I will hold these people in the same esteem you hold Cynthia McKinney. After all, we are going by your rules of justice. I'll be waiting to see whether they end up as laughing stocks or not. At least, I have that decency about me.

One more thing. When I said that Ms. McKinney deserved dignity, I asked for that dignity on the behalf that she is a fellow human being. Of course, it was nice of you to mention the fact that she was a Congresswoman--many times in fact. But, I now know that you don't even think of Ms. McKinney of even worthy of humanity.


Ceci

P.S. I do commend the line of reasoning that Odium and jsobecky are following so far since my post. They are both treating Ms. McKinney's situation with seriousness and reasoning as would any other case. I also commend Saphronia's comments as well.





























[edit on 8-4-2006 by ceci2006]

[edit on 8-4-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by Saphronia

This incident is just perfect timing for many members of the Government, especailly since this woman has time and time again made speeches about the corruption within the Bush Administration. The coverage this is getting is drastically taking up time and space in the media, while other things such as Scooter, Iraq, 9/11 Trial, all get down-played.

You're joking, right? How many posts are there on this website alone concerning Capital Hill Leaks, The Iraq War, and 9/11 Conspiracies?? Where is ABC Nightline's Fifteen-minute-long Ode to Cynthia McKinney?? They sure did one on Bush supposedly leaking Iraqi WMD secrets!! (Which is quite legal, if you're the President and let the CIA "scrub" it first.)

[edit on 8-4-2006 by Toelint]

Toelint, I din post that...another member did but I can't be bothered to find out who posted it...twasn't me doh.

She's being railroaded by the right...I saw Juan "the pawn" Williams on Fox news doing his "I'ma blackman and I'm offended too" routine. He pretends like racial profiling doesn't exist. Then this fool said, that if a cop snatched him up he'd curl up in the fetal position cause he's a blackman and he knows what's up. Come on! Which is it Juan? racial profiling doesn't exist or do black people have a reason to be a lil petrified of the police? I'm law abiding and I got horror stories and I'm sure "the pawn" has a few too.

Now that Ms. McKinney has apologized (which I don't think she should've) the issues is more or less closed (for me, not the right of course, they've got more character assassination to do.)


edit: fix code

[edit on 9-4-2006 by Saphronia]

I’m starting to realize the truth of when coming closer to resolving an issue such as 911 or the defense trillion dollar losses of funds that one can be easily labeled an anti-Semite or a racist. I know this may make some elite people happy and secure in their positions, because one is never challenged on facts, the government and corporations use racism and anti-Semitism as “key words” and “catch phrases” to demonize even black women such as is currently being done by Tom Delay.

It seems the goal maybe not to talk about 911 or offer an Independent investigation or acknowledge the existence of another point of view, let alone a meticulous examination of the loss of trillions of dollars by the defense dept. These are smokescreens that are being puffed about to hide the facts about people that question the authorized 911 theory. The fact that a theory that was put together almost a year after the event tells so much in and of itself of a conspiracy to ignore the issue by many at the top levels of government and business.

Anyone that dare criticize the theory may be quickly called a democrat, racist, anti-Semite, bush hater, socialist, communist, leftist, Looney, wacko, fringe, liberal, Nazi, America hater, peace activist, mentally ill and last but not least conspiracy theorist. The charges are knee jerk reactions that befit a tyrant’s court. They are the words of people that discount information and declare anything contrary to their judgment as wrong; or it must be some wacko’s scheme.

In this dogma of hate no discussion of the issues and facts takes place, citizens who ask questions are brow beaten by snobby right wing and left wing pundits that “know the truth”, and decree enlightenment that neither you or I can ever envisage. They clamor for first place in burying the story and misinforming the public about specifics and choose instead to protect the ill-mannered environment they have created. Anyone questioning these standards may be simply out of touch “with the people”, or an “operative of the democratic party”.

It sounds to me like a war on information sponsored by the DOD and centralized by the corporate media organization, to keep facts out of sight. If one were merely to explore claims then one would actually have to account for inconsistency and problems. Both of which connote one would have to constantly modify their mindset, thus creating cognitive dissonance that leads to ignoring all that contradicts a predetermined concept, chauvinism would be an accurate description of such a preset guiding principle.

Can you say that media pundits and government officials sustain such prejudices in the light of alternate data? If that is the case then one must ask what may be the intention for the criminal behavior of camouflage. Ethics is not something that applies to being friendly in the companionship of murderers, because one would not wish to affront them, ethics can be described as exposing them for their offense, exposing the ones that steer clear of bumpy facts as having participated in the events that have taken place, their evasion of this information in such a vigorous manner implicates transgression in and of itself.

Cynthia McKinney may be no more racist than you or I. She has gone on open record asking for the families of 911 sufferers the right to bring a claim and find out the facts, she has also gone on record asking Donald Rumsfeld frankly about over a trillion dollars in vanished defense expenditure capital. These two facts must be present in any dialogue of her handling by capitol police, regardless of how one views her demeanor; one must understand the demeanor of a capitol police officer that fails to be on familiar terms with the only person on record stating such facts as she has done.

A black woman in the house should be pretty hard to miss, in the midst of the many white males. To pay no attention to these details in essence ignores the surroundings in which this affair has taken place. Many on the right have called her a “black hooker”, but the beloved term is to call her the “racist”.


Mod Edit to break into paragraphs.

[edit on 9-4-2006 by masqua]

Originally posted by Saphronia
Toelint, I din post that...another member did but I can't be bothered to find out who posted it...twasn't me doh.

She's being railroaded by the right...I saw Juan "the pawn" Williams on Fox news doing his "I'ma blackman and I'm offended too" routine. He pretends like racial profiling doesn't exist. Then this fool said, that if a cop snatched him up he'd curl up in the fetal position cause he's a blackman and he knows what's up. Come on! Which is it Juan? racial profiling doesn't exist or do black people have a reason to be a lil petrified of the police? I'm law abiding and I got horror stories and I'm sure "the pawn" has a few too.

Now that Ms. McKinney has apologized (which I don't think she should've) the issues is more or less closed (for me, not the right of course, they've got more character assassination to do.)

Saph, no one is railroading any one but Cynthia herself. She could have deescalated this by apologizing to the officer at the time, promising to wear her badge and that may have been that?...calling any black guy who appears on Fox a tom (especially when he is employed by the NPR!) is the same type of escalation. Throw gas on the fire. Maybe revolution is what you desire?
Cynthia apologized because she realized the officer and Chief of Cap police were pursuing assault charges against her and that a grand jury was to take up the matter.
Open your eyes to the plain and obvious. She first claimed racism, abuse, improper touching. Then she paraded the notables out in her presser, then she apologized for reckless behaviour and backed down on the improper touching when witnesses came forward rebuffing her story- one a congressmans' intern.............................................................. If I am innocent, I do not apologize or back down. Think on this logically.......please.............

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
She has gone on open record asking for the families of 911 sufferers the right to bring a claim and find out the facts, she has also gone on record asking Donald Rumsfeld frankly about over a trillion dollars in vanished defense expenditure capital. These two facts must be present in any dialogue of her handling by capitol police, regardless of how one views her demeanor; one must understand the demeanor of a capitol police officer that fails to be on familiar terms with the only person on record stating such facts as she has done. A black woman in the house should be pretty hard to miss, in the midst of the many white males. To pay no attention to these details in essence ignores the surroundings in which this affair has taken place. Many on the right have called her a “black hooker”, but the beloved term is to call her the “racist”.

I deleted the vegatables of your post to get to the meat you seem to want to chew on....

One. Assuming this particular officer was aware of her voting record lends one to some very serious conspiracy theory. And I do mean theory. How in hades do you assume a security officer would note the voting rec of a congresswoman as part of his daily life- he may, yet this is absurd reaching. Silly. Silly.

Two. Having been affiliated with law enforcement (hey, T.!!!) Officers are told to be familiar with those they are tasked to protect, they cannot be held to task for having a doubt as to the identity of one such person. This is Security. You do not get complacent and just wave people through you THINK you know from yesterday. No one person is exempt from security protocols base line.

We are talking about the Capitol building after September 11, 2001..why not hypothesize that this officer may not be veteran and honestly did not reckognize Ms M.

It may not matter to some here, but in military life, if a General comes to a check point without ID and demands entry into sensitive areas, he is DENIED. I have been in similar scenarios in military life and LAW ENFORCEMENT life................all follow the rules.

Please get in line.