WebsterGroves's posts about:
Political
See all posts with this tag
Just when one begins to think there is nothing left in politics that has the ability to shock, something does.
The Christian Science Monitor is reporting that Cindy McCain has been lying about repeatedly about meeting Mother Teresa and how she convinced her to bring home two Bangladeshi babies. The McCains have told this story for years:
The McCain campaign had also put out the story that Mother Teresa
“convinced” Cindy to bring home two orphans from Bangladesh in 1991.
Mrs. McCain, it turns out, never met Mother Teresa on that trip.
(Once contacted by the Monitor, the campaign revised the story on its
website.)...
The story about Mother Teresa “convincing” Mrs. McCain to bring home
two children from an orphanage in Bangladesh has been retold many
times. Initially, the “About Cindy McCain” page on the McCain campaign
website read: “Mother Teresa convinced Cindy to take two babies in need
of medical attention to the United States. One of those babies is now
their adopted daughter, 16-year-old Bridget McCain.”
The media picked up the theme. A story earlier this year on ABC’s
“Good Morning America” stated, “With Mother Teresa’s encouragement she
brought her fourth child, Bridget, home.” An April 2008 Wall Street
Journal profile states that Mother Teresa “implored” Cindy to bring the
girls to the United States. Other articles say Cindy did it “at the
behest” of Mother Teresa.
But a source who was with McCain on that 1991 trip, and who asked
that his name not be used because of prior legal dealings with the
McCain family, says that Mother Teresa was not at the orphanage when
Cindy decided to bring the two girls home.
She also lied about being an "only child":
The latest embellishments come from the McCain camp. Cindy McCain has
repeatedly referred to herself as an “only child.” This week came news
that she actually has two half sisters, although apparently she had
very little contact with them.
John McCain used the Mother Teresa story most recently in the Saddleback forum.
What odd things to lie about.
Wow...Is
this America?
An 80-year-old church deacon was removed from the
Smith Haven Mall yesterday in a wheelchair and arrested by police for refusing to remove a T-shirt protesting the Iraq War.
Police said that Don Zirkel, of Bethpage, was disturbing shoppers at
the Lake Grove mall with his T-shirt, which had what they described as
"graphic anti-war images." Zirkel, a deacon at Our Lady of the
Miraculous Medal in Wyandanch, said his shirt had the death tolls of
American military personnel and Iraqis - 4,000 and 1 million - and the
words "Dead" and "Enough." The shirt also has three blotches resembling
blood splatters.
Police said in a release last night that Zirkel was handing out
anti-war pamphlets to mallgoers and that mall security told him to stop
and turn his shirt inside out. Zirkel refused to turn his shirt inside
out and wouldn't leave, police said. Security placed him on "civilian
arrest" and called police. When police arrived, Zirkel passively
resisted attempts to bring him to a police car, the release said.
So some mall cops didn't think he should be allowed to peaceably protest the war so they forcibly removed him. In my understanding of the legal implications, the Supreme Court has upheld that malls are private property and they are within their legal rights to do this. However, there are arguments that this is the proverbial "public square" and Zirkel was practicing free speech.
There will be some knee jerk reactions saying this man "doesn't support the troops". This is a specious argument. The troops didn't send themselves there and it is indeed "supporting the troops" to not want them to die for lies.
And, really, arresting people because we disagree with their political views? Is that really the kind of country we want to live in? That sounds more like Iraq than the USA.
Here is some background on why malls are allowed to limit freedom of speech from 5 years ago:
Last week, 61-year-old Stephen Downs was arrested
for refusing to remove a T-shirt with the words "Peace on Earth" and
"Give Peace a Chance" in a shopping mall in Albany, N.Y. Why don't
citizens have the same free speech rights in shopping centers that they
do on city streets and parks..
Because malls are private property, and our constitutional rights are
triggered only when the government (and not a private citizen) tries to
limit our freedoms. As malls expand to include outdoor boulevards,
movie theaters, and coffee houses, many contend that we should have
free expression rights in these "private forums." Their argument is
that malls play the same role city streets and town squares once played
in our democracy.
The first cases asserting free speech rights in privately owned shopping centers were successful. In the 1946 case of Marsh v. Alabama,
the Supreme Court held that the business district of a privately owned
"company town" was the same as a public street for First Amendment
purposes, finding that "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up
his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights
become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of
those who use it." A 1968 case—Amalgamated Food Employees Union v. Logan Valley Plaza—held that a privately owned mall was the "functional equivalent" of the business district in Marsh.
