From
John Grogan at the Philadelphia Inquirer:
Rick Santorum, the Republican senator from Pennsylvania, is not exactly a shrinking violet.
Lobbyists court him and opponents fear him. He has at his disposal what might be the world's most influential and intimidating bully pulpit: the floor of the United States Senate. He doesn't hesitate to use his position to advance his beliefs, which include opposition to abortion rights and homosexuality, and the opinion that mothers are meant to stay home.
And yet, those who handle his affairs apparently don't believe this influential and powerful man is up to the task of defending himself against a few mild-mannered college women.
Good beginning. Here's the meat of the story:
The American Civil Liberties Union filed suit Tuesday on behalf of the young women, who claim their constitutional rights to free speech and assembly were denied when they were ordered to leave the event last August at a Barnes & Noble in Wilmington.
One of the women, according to the lawsuit, wore a gay-pride pin; another wore a T-shirt proclaiming, "Radical feminist." They were overheard discussing their disagreement with Santorum's far-right views. That apparently was enough to win them a one-way escort out to the parking lot.
Dissenters, go home
When two of the women questioned why they were being ejected, the suit claims, Sgt. Mark DiJiacomo told them they were under arrest, took them outside to his car, ran their driver's licenses through a police computer and threatened them with a trip to prison.
All for the crime of showing up for a book "discussion" open to the public.
...and the kicker:
This is democracy? This is free and open assembly? "Public" gatherings opened only to the chosen?
No thanks, comrade.
Haha. Thanks, Rick. Thanks for standing up for the principles the country was founded on.
21 comments:
It was a book signing, not a place to discuss politics. This was obviously a set up by these two women, one wearing a gay pride pin, while the other wearing a radical feminist shirt. Yeah, like they wear those in public all the time. Not. You can be rest assured these women knew what their agenda was, especially with the upcoming election. A liberal set up, to be sure.
And of course, the American Communist Leftover Union is there to defend them.
I don't see you complaining about the right to Freedom of Speech of these people, and they are liberals just like you. Oh...I am sorry, Hillary is a Democrat...doesn't apply here.
http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2006/4/9/apworld/20060409121607&sec=apworld
Or perhaps the "free speech zones" Bill Clinton instituted? No...no complaints from you. And you claim you are not biased. Uh huh, and pigs fly.
The previous anonymous poster is stupid.
He/she/it completely ignores the fact that it was a rouge security guard responsible for the ejection, which is why he is being sued.
i'd like to know what was on that radical t-shirt. hummm?
seems the mother of the one young lady wasn't offened by her daughter wearing it so, what did it say?
besides, if a senator can not handle questions from 2 young women, then how can we expect him to handle much of anything that goes on in the senate?
Not ignoring anything. The facts are clear. It's a liberal set up. Funny how you Ben seem to ignore that when a Democrat does the same thing, liberals turn their cheek. One has to wonder why it is like that? Thou double standard cup runneth over.
Thou double standard cup runneth over.
Anonymous has *got* to be a parody...
And as Ben references, this is definitely going to be spun as a rogue bad-apple security guard, whose anti-free speech actions the open-minded Senator from VA, er, PA emphatically deplores.
Keep ignoring your adherence to a double standard, people. I love how you ignore what's said to you. Keep applying your liberal spin.
I'm assuming all three anonymous posts are from the same coward. So I guess I only need to direct my question at one person.
Why the hell do you have such utter hate and disgust for people who merely have different opinions that you do?
Anonymous - you are such a giant moron. We all see through the republican money machine and the lies. Anyone in this country who is still registered to vote as a Repub is either a cowardly idiot just like Anonymous who can't think for themselves or a traitor who cares more about fulfilling their greedy destiny than the future of America.
You mean the same kind of traitor John Murtha is? Yes, John Murtha; the man who insists on undermining our troops overseas in order to gain political ground - all the while our enemies are watching. Moron? You and your party, sir.
Anonymous you have it all wrong.
First of all , I am not a sir- I am an older woman. Did you assume that because I completed a sentence that I had to be a man?
John Murtha is a great American who stands up for what is right for all of here in the USA.
I am with Murtha - bring them home all in one piece - alive and well is better than what you want for our troops.
Besides, if the war in Iraq is such a just war - why are you home blogging away at all hours of the day and night rather than fighting over there?
Are you a chicken and a coward?
the republicans are good at smearing those that served, murtha, kerry, my god, they attacked a vet in a wheel chair, said he got his wound playing with a granade, they even said that mccain couldn't be trusted to be president because he had been a POW and might flip out! remember that??
no, we have a dry alcoholic ex coke user frat boy! yeah, and you see where THAT has us! get a clue!
"Anonymous you have it all wrong.
First of all , I am not a sir- I am an older woman. Did you assume that because I completed a sentence that I had to be a man?
John Murtha is a great American who stands up for what is right for all of here in the USA.
I am with Murtha - bring them home all in one piece - alive and well is better than what you want for our troops.
Besides, if the war in Iraq is such a just war - why are you home blogging away at all hours of the day and night rather than fighting over there?
Are you a chicken and a coward?"
Sorry Ms. Feminist Nazi, you don't have to take the "sir" so personally. Of course, you're a lib so I won't expect anything more from you.
Mr. Murtha is a great American? How? By showing the rest of the world that we're a country who cannot finish a job? Mr. Murtha wants to turn this war into another Vietnam, and so do all the liberals like you; that's what it is ALL about. How can Mr. Murtha be a great American by demonstrating to the rest of the world that we're a bunch of cowards who will turn around, stick our tail between our legs and go home. Yeah, that shows we're a strong nation huh? You could care less about this country, you could care less about what our purpose in Iraq is, and you could care less even more about our troops over in Iraq. All you liberals are interested in is getting your power back in Washington D.C., and you're say and do anything to achieve that very goal; and it shows.
I've heard your "why aren't you fighting over there?" argument before and that's one of the most ignorant arguments in regard to this war I've ever heard. By me being over here has NOTHING to do with my positive support for our troops over in Iraq. Only your ignorant, grotesque, liberal-bias mentality would cause you to make such an insane, idiotic comment such as this: "Besides, if the war in Iraq is such a just war - why are you home blogging away at all hours of the day and night rather than fighting over there?
Are you a chicken and a coward?"
How dare you call me a coward. Here I am supporting our troops efforts in Iraq, standing behind our President in our fight against terrorism and support of cleaning up a country that was run by a hideous, grotesque dictator who killed millions of his own people, and you have the audacity to sit there and call me a coward, all the while you want to show the rest of the world that this entire country is a bunch of cowards by not finishing what we started by turning around and going home from Iraq. How dare you.
Funny, I don't remember hearing those like you complaining about the following speech (and it sounds awfully familiar doesn't it?), did you have our troops' backs then? Did you stand behind our President then? Or were you marching in the streets in protest?
Transcript of President Clinton's speech on Bosnia
November 27, 1995
Web posted at: 11:25 p.m. EST
Last week, the warring factions in Bosnia reached a peace agreement as a result of our efforts in Dayton, Ohio, and the support of our European and Russian partners. Tonight I want to speak with you about implementing the Bosnian peace agreement and why our values and interests as Americans require that we participate.
Let me say at the outset America's role will not be about fighting a war. It will be about helping the people of Bosnia to secure their own peace agreement. Our mission will be limited, focused, and under the command of an American general.
In fulfilling this mission, we will have the chance to help stop the killing of innocent civilians, especially children, and at the same time, to bring stability to central Europe, a region of the world that is vital to our national interests. It is the right thing to do.
From our birth, America has always been more than just a place. America has embodied an idea that has become the ideal for billions of people throughout the world. Our founders said it best: America is about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In this century especially, America has done more than simply stand for these ideals. We have acted on them and sacrificed for them. Our people fought two world wars so that freedom could triumph over tyranny. After World War I, we pulled back from the world, leaving a vacuum that was filled by the forces of hatred. After World War II, we continued to lead the world. We made the commitments that kept the peace, that helped to spread democracy, that created unparalleled prosperity and that brought victory in the Cold War.
Today, because of our dedication, America's ideals -- liberty, democracy and peace -- are more and more the aspirations of people everywhere in the world. It is the power of our ideas, even more than our size, our wealth and our military might, that makes America a uniquely trusted nation.
With the Cold War over, some people now question the need for our continued active leadership in the world. They believe that, much like after World War I, America can now step back from the responsibilities of leadership. They argue that to be secure, we need only to keep our own borders safe, and that the time has come now to leave to others the hard work of leadership beyond our borders. I strongly disagree. As the Cold War gives way to the global village, our leadership is needed more than ever because problems that start beyond our borders can quickly become problems within them. We're all vulnerable to the organized forces of intolerance and destruction, terrorism, ethnic, religious and regional rivalries, the spread of organized crime and weapons of mass destruction and drug trafficking. Just as surely as fascism and communism, these forces also threaten freedom and democracy, peace and prosperity. And they too demand American leadership.
But nowhere has the argument for our leadership been more clearly justified than in the struggle to stop or prevent war and civil violence. From Iraq to Haiti; from South Africa to Korea; from the Middle East to Northern Ireland, we have stood up for peace and freedom because it's in our interest to do so, and because it is the right thing to do.
Now that doesn't mean that we can solve every problem. My duty as president is to match the demands for American leadership to our strategic interests and to our ability to make a difference. America cannot and must not be the world's policeman. We cannot stop all war for all time but we can stop some wars. We cannot save all women and all children but we can save many of them. We can't do everything but we must do what we can. There are times and places where our leadership can mean the difference between peace and war and where we can defend our fundamental values as a people and serve our most basic strategic interests. My fellow Americans, in this new era there are still times when America and America alone can and should make the difference for peace. The terrible war in Bosnia is such a case. Nowhere today is the need for American leadership more stark or more immediate than in Bosnia.
For nearly four years a terrible war has torn Bosnia apart. Horrors we prayed had been banished from Europe forever have been seared into our minds again. Skeletal prisoners caged behind barbed-wire fences, women and girls raped as a tool of war, defenseless men and boys shot down into mass graves, evoking visions of World War II concentration camps and endless lines of refugees marching toward a future of despair.
When I took office, some where urging immediate intervention in the conflict. I decided that American ground troops should not fight a war in Bosnia because the United States could not force peace on Bosnia's warring ethnic groups, the Serbs, Croats and Muslims. Instead, America has worked with our European allies in searching for peace stopping the war from spreading and easing the suffering of the Bosnian people. We imposed tough economic sanctions on Serbia. We used our air power to conduct the longest humanitarian airlift in history and to enforce a no-fly zone that took the war out of the skies. We helped to make peace between two of the three warring parties -- the Muslims and the Croats.
But as the months of war turned into years, it became clear that Europe alone could not end the conflict. This summer, Bosnian Serb shelling once again turned Bosnia's playgrounds and marketplaces into killing fields.
In response, the United States led NATO's heavy and continuous air strikes, many of them flown by skilled and brave American pilots. Those air strikes, together with the renewed determination of our European partners, and the Bosnian and Croat gains on the battlefield, convinced the Serbs, finally, to start thinking about making peace.
At the same time, the United States initiated an intensive diplomatic effort that forged a Bosnia-wide cease-fire and got the parties to agree to the basic principles of peace. Three dedicated American diplomats -- Bob Frasure, Joe Kruzel and Nelson Drew -- lost their lives in that effort. Tonight, we remember their sacrifice and that of their families, and we will never forget their exceptional service to our nation.
Finally, just three weeks ago, the Muslims, Croats and Serbs came to Dayton, Ohio, in America's heartland, to negotiate a settlement. There, exhausted by war, they made a commitment to peace. They agreed to put down their guns, to preserve Bosnia as a single state, to investigate and prosecute war criminals, to protect the human rights of all citizens, to try to build a peaceful, democratic future. And they asked for America's help as they implement this peace agreement.
America has a responsibility to answer that request, to help to turn this moment of hope into an enduring reality. To do that, troops from our country and around the world would go into Bosnia to give them the confidence and support they need to implement their peace plan.
I refuse to send American troops to fight a war in Bosnia, but I believe we must help to secure the Bosnian peace.
I want you to know tonight what is at stake, exactly what our troops will be asked to accomplish and why we must carry out our responsibility to help implement the peace agreement.
Implementing the agreement in Bosnia can end the terrible suffering of the people, the warfare, the mass executions, the ethnic cleansing, the campaigns of rape and terror. Let us never forget a quarter of a million men, women and children have been shelled, shot and tortured to death. Two million people, half of the population, were forced from their homes and into a miserable life as refugees, and these faceless numbers have millions of real, personal tragedies, for each of the war's victims was a mother or daughter, father or son, a brother or sister. Now the war is over. American leadership created the chance to build a peace and stop the suffering.
Securing peace in Bosnia will also help to build a free and stable Europe. Bosnia lies at the very heart of Europe, next door to many of its fragile new democracies and some of our closest allies. Generations of Americans have understood that Europe's freedom and Europe's stability is vital to our own national security. That's why we fought two wars in Europe; that's why we launched the Marshall Plan to restore Europe; that's why we created NATO and waged the Cold War, and that's why we must help the nations of Europe to end their worst nightmare since World War II now.
The only force capable of getting this job done is NATO, the powerful military alliance of democracies that has guaranteed our security for half a century now. And as NATO's leader and the primary broker of the peace agreement, the United States must be an essential part of the mission. If we're not there, NATO will not be there. The peace will collapse; the war will reignite; the slaughter of innocents will begin again. A conflict that already has claimed so many victims could spread like poison throughout the region, eat away at Europe's stability and erode our partnership with our European allies. And America's commitment to leadership will be questioned if we refuse to participate in implementing a peace agreement we brokered right here in the United States, especially since the presidents of Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia all asked us to participate, and all pledged their best efforts to the security of our troops.
When America's partnerships are weak and our leadership is in doubt, it undermines our ability to secure our interests and to convince others to work with us. If we do maintain our partnerships and our leadership, we need not act alone. As we saw in the Gulf War and in Haiti, many other nations who share our goals will also share our burdens. But when America does not lead, the consequences can be very grave, not only for others but eventually for us as well.
As I speak to you, NATO is completing its planning for IFOR, an international force for peace in Bosnia of about 60,000 troops. Already, more than 25 other nations, including our major NATO allies, have pledged to take part. They will contribute about two-thirds of the total implementation force, some 40,000 troops. The United States would contribute the rest, about 20,000 soldiers.
Later this week, the final NATO plan will be submitted to me for review and approval. Let me make clear what I expected to include and what it must include for me to give final approval to the participation of our armed forces: First, the mission will be precisely defined with clear realistic goals that can be achieved in a definite period of time. Our troops will make sure that each side withdraws its forces behind the front lines and keeps them there. They will maintain the cease-fire to prevent the war from accidentally starting again. These efforts, in turn, will help to create a secure environment so that the people of Bosnia can return to their homes, vote in free elections and begin to rebuild their lives. Our joint chiefs of staff have concluded that this mission should and will take about one year.
Second, the risks to our troops will be minimized. American troops will take their orders from the American general who commands NATO. They will be heavily armed and thoroughly trained. By making an overwhelming show of force, they will lessen the need to use force. But unlike the U.N. forces, they will have the authority to respond immediately and the training and the equipment to respond with overwhelming force to any threat to their own safety or any violation of the military provisions of the peace agreement.
If the NATO plan meets with my approval, I will immediately send it to Congress and request its support. I will also authorize the participation of a small number of American troops in a NATO advance mission that will lay the groundwork for IFOR starting sometime next week. They will establish headquarters and set up the sophisticated communication systems that must be in place before NATO can send in its troops, tanks and trucks to Bosnia.
The implementation force itself would begin deploying in Bosnia in the days following the formal signature of the peace agreement in mid-December. The international community will help to implement arms control provisions of the agreement so that future hostilities are less likely and armaments are limited while the world community -- the United States and others -- will also make sure that the Bosnian Federation has the means to defend itself once IFOR withdraws. IFOR will not be a part of this effort.
Civilian agencies from around the world will begin a separate program of humanitarian relief and reconstruction, principally paid for by our European allies and other interested countries. This effort is also absolutely essential to making the peace endure. It will bring the people of Bosnia the food, shelter, clothing and medicine so many have been denied for so long. It will help them to rebuild -- to rebuild their roads and schools, their power plants and hospitals, their factories and shops. It will reunite children with their parents and families with their homes. It will allow the Bosnians freely to choose their own leaders, it will give all the people of Bosnia a much greater stake in peace than war so that peace takes on a life and a logic of its own.
In Bosnia, we can and will succeed because our mission is clear and limited and our troops are strong and very well prepared. But my fellow Americans, no deployment of American troops is risk free, and this one may well involve casualties. There may be accidents in the field or incidents with people who have not given up their hatred. I will take every measure possible to minimize these risks, but we must be prepared for that possibility.
As president, my most difficult duty is to put the men and women who volunteer to serve our nation in harm's way when our interests and values demand it.
I assume full responsibility for any harm that may come to them, but anyone contemplating any action that would endanger our troops should know this: America protects its own. Anyone -- anyone who takes on our troops will suffer the consequences. We will fight fire with fire, and then some.
After so much bloodshed and loss, after so many outrageous acts of inhuman brutality, it will take an extraordinary effort of will for the people of Bosnia to pull themselves from their past and start building a future of peace. But with our leadership and the commitment of our allies, the people of Bosnia can have the chance to decide their future in peace. They have a chance to remind the world that just a few short years ago the mosques and churches of Sarajevo were a shining symbol of multiethnic tolerance, that Bosnia once found unity in its diversity. Indeed, the cemetery in the center of the city was, just a few short years ago, the magnificent stadium which hosted the Olympics, our universal symbol of peace and harmony.
Bosnia can be that kind of place again. We must not turn our backs on Bosnia now.
And so I ask all Americans, and I ask every member of Congress -- Democrat and Republican alike -- to make the choice for peace. In the choice between peace and war, America must choose peace.
My fellow Americans, I ask you to think just for a moment about this century that is drawing to close and the new one that will soon begin. Because previous generations of Americans stood up for freedom and because we continue to do so, the American people are more secure and more prosperous. And all around the world, more people than ever before live in freedom, more people than ever before are treated with dignity, more people than ever before can hope to build a better life. That is what America's leadership is all about.
We know that these are the blessings of freedom, and America has always been freedom's greatest champion. If we continue to do everything we can to share these blessings with people around the world, if we continue to be leaders for peace, then the next century can be the greatest time our nation has ever known.
A few weeks ago I was privileged to spend some time with His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, when he came to America. At the very end of our meeting, the Pope looked at me and said, "I have lived through most of this century. I remember that it began with a war in Sarajevo. Mr. President, you must not let it end with a war in Sarajevo."
In Bosnia this terrible war has challenged our interests and troubled our souls. Thankfully, we can do something about it. I say again our mission will be clear, limited, and achievable. The people of Bosnia, our NATO allies, and people all around the world are now looking to America for leadership, so let us lead. That is our responsibility as Americans.
Good night, and God bless America.
Gee Anonymous you are a bigger douchebag than I originally thought. (And no I did not read your crazy rant)
"Gee Anonymous you are a bigger douchebag than I originally thought. (And no I did not read your crazy rant)"
Translation = I have nothing intelligent to say in response, so I'll resort to profanity. There's your model liberalism at it's finest. You people never fail to follow the pattern. So much for the liberal model of tolerance.
Douchebag is not profanity in your case Anon. It's the closest thing to a real description of you I can use without swearing. Why don't you write your own batshit crazy blog and then you can write your long love letters to Jim Quinn and people closer to IQ level might actually take the time to respond to you.
I think you must secretly have a crush on David and that is why you can't stay away from 2PJ.
LOL! You want to know what's funny about this? You have the audacity to sit there and claim the right is filled with hate, when people on the left like yourself spew it out in full force. LOL! Can someone say big, fat hypocrite? Correction: OLD hypocrite? Keep it up. Keep projecting that so-called philosophy of liberal tolerance. I love it. You're just the model liberal, and that very truth ticks you off way past your boiling point. And you know what? It shows. Please, keep it up.
For someone who claims to have a higher IQ than myself, you sure do not act it. Look at everything you just said to me in your most previous comment to me. You know what? People who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Oh, and by the way: If you cannot respond to me intelligently, then please don't even bother responding at all. Save your energies for next anger management session. LOL!
Braden!
That is you!
But you posted here sometime ago that you were never going to comment at this blog ever again.
Were you lying or just acting childish when you wrote that?
Anonymous III
My guess? Both.
Of course what he fails to realize (or, more likely, did realize and had to figure out a way to rationalize around) was that the people in that Hillary story he linked were disrupting her speech.
If you did that for anyone else, political or otherwise, you'd be carted off, too. And the crowd would cheer your absence.
However, showing up and simply having a conversation while waiting in line (the article made no mention of heckling) isn't against any law that I've ever heard of.
Braden's website somehow lost the 'Democrats Lie' tag and his last post/crazy ass podcast was last Tuesday. Same time this new Anonymous started spewing hate on 2PJ. Could it be that Braden got in trouble at CMU and wants vent his anger anonymously? Where is the blow up doll wife when you need her?
Anon II
hey, anonymous sounds a hell of lot like jim quinn.
Sean, I'll take that as a compliment. Thanks!
Post a Comment