Thursday, April 06, 2006

Play The Race Card and Loose

McKinney...Idiot
Alan Colmes Should Donate Brain to Science Fiction

The recent events regarding Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-GA), striking Capitol Hill Police Officer has turned into a skit that Saturday Night Live could not create. The racist, anti-Semitic representative from Georgia held a press conference today to apologize for last weeks incident. However, she never apologized to anyone. Not to the Capitol Hill police or the cop she has accused of racism. She has changed her tune, claiming that the police did not have to physically touch her. Hey Cindy! If somebody bypasses a security check-point in a government building and refuses to stop when called upon, damn right they have a right to get physical. I strongly advise everyone to check out her interview with Soledad O'Brien on CNN. If you can watch this video and still think McKinney is not an idiot, then you need to put down the "Progressive" Kool-Aid.


Speaking of idiots. Political commentator, Alan Colmes has sided with McKinney from the very beginning. He even defended her claim that Capitol Hill police should be able to recognize all 535 elected officials by face only. Truth be told I expect leftists like colmes to be part of the Blame America and Blame Whitey first crowd. What does bother me is that Colmes is a fellow Jew and watching him defend a blatant anti-Semite makes me physically sick.

My mother forbids my father from watching Hannity and Colmes on the Fox News Channel. The reason being is that my dad has a habit of listening to Colmes and picking up heavy objects and throwing them at the television. I always get a phone call that night or early morning that starts out with "Did you hear what that F##king A##hole said last night." It may sound humorous at first, but it brings back bad childhood memories. His tone reminds me of conversations I heard him have with my Uncle when Jews were figuring out how to deal with the threat of Nazi's marching in Skokie back in 1977-78. I still recall my Uncle and Father cursing the ACLU attorney's, asking the question "If the ACLU has to defend those Mother F##kers, why do the attorneys have to be Jews?" I was only 7 years old, but remember it like it was yesterday.


My Congresswoman's Husband Doing Time
Better Not Drop The Soap

Robert Creamer, husband of congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), was sentenced to 5 months in prison and 11 months home confinement for his involvement in a Check Kiting scheme and Tax fraud. Schawkowsky has been claiming this entire case against her hubby is politically motivated, orchestrated by the Bush administration. What she forgets to inform the public is that the investigation began in 1997 under Clinton. I highly reccommend reading John Kass column in Friday's Tribune.



Paulie

4 Comments:

At 4/11/2006 9:55 AM , Blogger Power 2 The People said...

They should not curse the lead ACLU attorney in that case, David Goldberger, who was my Constitutional Law professor. Lawyers have an obligation to be an advocate for a position. In this case, the position was supporting the First Amendment. It wasn't supporting the Nazis or the Klan or Jew-haters. It was supporting the First Amendment. Anyone too obtuse to recognize that needs to brush up on our constitutional form of government and the role that the law and attorneys play in our society. Advocating a constitutional right is far different than advocating the client's reason to exist or mission statement. Please tell me you can understand the difference.

 
At 4/11/2006 6:57 PM , Blogger Paulie said...

David,

I understand what you perceive as the difference, but before your teacher is an attorney he is a Jew. He may sleep well at night thinking he was defending the constitution, but as he stated in a Tribune article marking the tenth anniversary of the events back in 1988, his family no longer speaks to him and most of his Jewish friends adamantly opposed what he was doing. So obviously people alot closer to him than you didn't believe in the "I'm a lawyer" bullshit either.

I have no problem with the ACLU defending the Nazi's, but why did the lead attorney have to be Jewish? If you worked for the ACLU would you defend a hate group that called for the murder of Jews or Homosexuals? I would like to think you wouldn't. My point isn't that they don't deserve representation, but once again, why does it have to be a Jew?

Finally, I may not be an attorney, but your teacher was wrong. This was similar to yelling fire in a movie theatre. You can spew hate all you want, free country, but when your goal isn't speech, but to cause harm such as mental anguish or to cause a riot, you don't have have that right.

chag sameach
Happy Passover
Paulie

 
At 4/12/2006 8:23 AM , Blogger Power 2 The People said...

You asked me, "If you worked for the ACLU would you defend a hate group that called for the murder of Jews or Homosexuals? I would like to think you wouldn't."

Actually, I would, with a few caveats. The first caveat, of course, is that no other competent counsel would represent them. The second caveat, is that the issue had to be a true constitutional law issue - not an issue of supporting a group and then couching it in terms of the "constitution." Goldberger suffered greatly in his personal life as you state, but it was because people couldn't see beyond Goldberger's client to the greater issue of protecting the First Amendment. I disagree with a lot of people on a lot of things. Again, advocating a constitutional position on behalf of a client does not and never will equal support for that client or that client's worldview. Just ask Chief Justice Roberts about his work on Romer v. Evans.

 
At 4/12/2006 9:26 AM , Blogger Paulie said...

You proved my argument. You would have Caveats, which is you would take thwe case only if there were no one else able to represent them. The Chicago office of the ACLU had plenty of non-Jews who could of taken their case, but Goldberger, for whatever reasons took the job. No reason for a Jew to be defending Nazi's.

There was also no greater first amendment issue here. Day one of your law classes "can't yell fire in a crowded movie theatre". In late 1970's Skokie, there was no difference and Goldberger had to have known that. In 1977-78 it was barely 30 years after the camps were liberated. That is about the same time from now to the Skokie incident. I was 7 and remember it like it was yesterday. Think about what the survivors remember.

Eeryone knew that Goldberger was not sympathetic or agreed with Frank Collins and the Nazi's. In his court testimony he often iterrated how despicable he found Collins. This notion you and many lawyers have that those who disagree with you assume that your taking a case solely because you agree with the message of the client is terribly false.

You should find a copy of the CBS movie "Skokie". If you haven't seen it, you will enjoy it.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Add to Technorati Favorites