Sanity in the World?

Into all lives, a little Sanity must fall.

My Photo
Location: Michigan, United States

See post here: About Me

Tuesday, April 04, 2006

Cynthia McKinney (Part Two) - What kind of Democrat is she?

In my previous post we highlighted her voting record, and if you went to the links provided you would have seen just what her vote meant in regards to what she was voting YES or NO on. We also see by her voting record and chart provided that she is to the Left - a Liberal Democrat.

Now, I wish to highlight the troubles she has faced or been involved with during her Congress years. So let us take a look at Cynthia McKinney, the types of trouble she has faced and how she handles herself when dealing with and confronted with problems.

Let us start with the most recent, the altercation between her and a Capitol Police Officer she 'allegedly' struck. There is some question as to whether she punched, slapped or struck the officer with her cell phone. Whatever one it was, she has admitted to striking the officer:

According to sources on Capitol Hill, U.S. Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) punched a Capitol police officer on Wednesday afternoon after he mistakenly pursued her for failing to pass through a metal detector.


The department faces a difficult task _ protecting 535 members of Congress and the vast Capitol complex in an atmosphere thick with politics and privilege.

The safety of its members became a sensitive issue after a gunman in 1998 killed two officers outside the office of then-Republican Whip Tom DeLay of Texas.


The officers are protecting 535 members of Congress.
To make it easier to identify the Congressmen and Women, they wear special identification pins which allow them the ability to bypass waiting to go through security checkpoints.
Courtesy of Expose the Left.

Supposedly, Congresswoman McKinney thinks she is supposed to be able to be recognized immediately as one of the 535 members and let through. It is not only the Congress personages coming and going but a multitude of others that are being screened. So these officers look for a pin that marks the individual Congressman and women to allow them through. Not seeing a pin, and seeing a woman ignoring security precautions and failing to stop when ordered, the officers did what they thought was right and tried to get her to stop.

Even Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has this to say about the incident:

Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi on Thursday labeled it “a mistake, an unfortunate lack of recognition of a member of Congress.” She added that the police officer was not at fault.


Remember, there are 535 members of Congress, and they all wear pins (are supposed to) that identify themselves as members of Congress to the security checkpoints. Nancy Pelosi has stated this is not the officers fault.

Sources say that the officer was at a position in the Longworth House Office Building, and neither recognized McKinney, nor saw her credentials as she went around the metal detector.

The officer called out, “Ma’am, Ma’am,” and walked after her in an attempt to stop her. When he caught McKinney, he grabbed her by the arm.

Witnesses say McKinney pulled her arm away, and with her cell phone in hand, punched the officer in the chest.


Though not stated by Nancy Pelosi, it is indeed Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney's fault for not wearing the Congressional Identification Pin. The Congresswoman made things even worse by not halting or responding to the officers attempts to get her to stop, and compounding the problem by striking the officer.

On the same day, Congresswoman McKinney makes an official statement after the altercation:

“Earlier today I had an unfortunate confrontation with a Capitol Hill Police Officer. It is traditional protocol that Capitol Hill Police Officers secure 535 Members of Congress, including 100 Senators. It is the expectation of most Members of Congress that Capitol Hill Police officers know who they are. I was urgently trying to get to an important meeting on time to fulfill my obligations to my constituents. Unfortunately, the Police Officer did not recognize me as a Member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID.

“I know that Capitol Hill Police are securing our safety, that of thousands of others, and I appreciate the work that they do. I deeply regret that the incident occurred. I have demonstrated my support for them in the past and I continue to support them now.”

She admits that she was not wearing the Congressional Identification Pin first of all. But reports from other sources have stated that the officer repeatedly tried to get her to stop by calling out to her until she was stopped by the officer taking hold of her arm, at which time she struck the officer.

I am sure she probably did show her Congressional ID AFTER she was stopped, but that does nothing to explain why she was not wearing her Congressional Pin that allows the officers to identify her as such, and failing to stop when a Police Officer asks you to.

By the way it sounds like the officer displayed great courtesy and restraint in dealing with the situation. Too bad Congresswoman McKinney didn't show the same type of courtesy and restraint to those officers that ensure her safety.
(For some reason this brings to mind Democrat attitudes and the Military for some reason.)

I believe this happen March 29th, 2006. So in the small amount of time between then and now, what has changed? Suddenly she, the Congresswoman, is a victim of Racism and Sexual Molestation by the Officer.

McKinney: Race sparked tiff with police

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- As U.S. Rep. Cynthia McKinney, D-Georgia, faces possible criminal charges for a Wednesday altercation with a Capitol Police officer, one of her lawyers said Friday that the real issues were "sex, race and Ms. McKinney's progressiveness."

In a news conference featuring actor Danny Glover and singer Harry Belafonte, McKinney said she would be exonerated and that "this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female, black congresswoman."


During the conference, held at historically black Howard University in Washington, civil rights attorney James Myart said his client was "assaulted" by a Capitol Police officer, whose name the department refuses to release.

"Because she was assaulted and placed in impending fear of her safety, she responded," he said. "This case has just begun and we're going to fight, and we're going to use the U.S. Constitution."


Myart said McKinney would seek a criminal investigation against the officer, and a civil lawsuit against both the officer and the Capitol Police is being explored.

However, McKinney's other attorney, Michael Raffauf, downplayed the possibility of pressing charges against the officer, saying, "Not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted."

Myart further called the incident racial profiling and said there was "no excuse" for Capitol Police not recognizing his client, and Raffauf said she was stopped solely because of her race, gender and politics.

"It is the job of the Capitol Police to protect members of Congress. As a part of that job, they are to know who those members are," he said. "Whenever you put a police officer out on the street, he is supposed to know his job."


"The pin is not the issue," the six-time congresswoman said. "The issue is face recognition."


First of all Congresswoman McKinney failed to observe proper procedure for Congress entry by not wearing her Congressional Identification Pin. The Pin is used to determine the Identity of each member of Congress, that is why they wear them. The Congresswoman is a fool if she thinks someone walking around and bypassing security checkpoints, moving quickly (she stated she was late for a meeting) and not wearing the identification pin should not be stopped. She believes within those scant few moments the police officer is supposed to recognize her face out of 535 members of Congress and not deter her?

And what the heck is this statement:
downplayed the possibility of pressing charges against the officer, saying, "Not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted."

She believes that this Racial, Bigoted, Woman-hating Officer 'inappropriately touched' her and assaulted her, and suddenly "not every assault deserves to be criminally prosecuted"? This statement alone strikes me as foolish and ignorant. It also shows me that McKinney does not want this played out in Court, possibly because she would have to give statements under Oath.

That officer did his job. It is too bad Congresswoman McKinney did not do hers, and instead assaulted an officer that ensures hers and other members of Congress safety.

Now we come to the cusp of the issue with her statement:

"this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female, black congresswoman."

It is interesting that now it has come to 'inappropriate touching', which normally means a sexual assault and she managed to let everyone know that she is a FEMALE and a BLACK Congresswoman. Making it seem like the Police Officer sexually assaulted her and was racists because she is black, and discriminating against her because he was a male and she was a female. I am waiting for the next step of calling this an illegal procedure by the Police and this was a Hate Crime.

So within less than a weeks time why the change from your below statement of just an unfortunate misunderstanding, to a sexual assault based on racism and discrimination?

Unfortunately, the Police Officer did not recognize me as a Member of Congress and a confrontation ensued. I did not have on my Congressional pin but showed the Police Officer my Congressional ID.

She has been really hammering away at the Race issue also, so this was not a slip of the tongue. She repeated her remarks about this being a race issue with an interview with Wolf Blitzer:

When Wolf Blitzer would ask about the incident she would immediately turn it into a race issue, even if it had nothing to do with it. One time she answered that school children who visited McKinney were being eyed on by police, simply because they were black. Or perhaps it could have been because they were in the Capitol building and it is the police’s job to keep a watch on everyone.

When one of her lawyers, James Myart, was asked if there was a physical altercation he too immediately turned this into a race issue. Later in the interview, Blitzer asked the lawyer if he thought the officer acted appropriately to being stopped. Myart turned the question around and rhetorically asked Wolf if the congresswoman reacted and acted appropriately.

From Expose the Left. Watch the Video of the Interview there.

It seems to be a natural deflection when pressed on the issue that it is redirected and becomes a racial issue instead of answering the questions.

She seems to make race an issue on a lot of things she talks about:

During a nasty 1996 congressional campaign with racial tension on both sides, she called supporters of her Republican opponent "holdovers from the Civil War days" and "a ragtag group of neo-Confederates." Never mind that her opponent was Jewish.

And during the 2000 presidential campaign, she wrote that "Gore's Negro tolerance level has never been too high. I've never known him to have more than one black person around him at any given time." Never mind that Gore's campaign manager was black.


After the majority-black district that first elected her to Congress was struck down by the Supreme Court as unconstitutionally gerrymandered, she lashed out at the court as racist. She compared the verdict to Dred Scott, the decision that declared slaves were nothing more than chattel, and Plessy v. Ferguson, which legitimized separate-but-equal American apartheid. (Never mind that she was re-elected in a white majority district two years later.)


During her next election, she declared that Georgia's kaolin industry engineered the case that eliminated her district, as payback for her fights against the industry in Congress. (Kaolin is a white clay that is used in a number of products, including porcelain.)


And last fall, she tried to solicit money for black Americans from a Saudi prince who said U.S. policy in the Middle East was partly to blame for the Sept. 11 attacks, then she wrote in a Washington Post op-ed, "Why such a negative reaction to my letter? I believe that when it comes to major foreign policy issues, many prefer to have black people seen and not heard." (To which the National Review's Jonah Goldberg retorted that "she needs to explain why I keep finding these quotes in my morning paper by Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell.")


And by disseminating her more fanciful messages in obscure media outlets, McKinney insulates herself somewhat from the chunk of her constituents who would be outraged by her antics. She backs down slightly when the mainstream media come calling.

After her comments about Gore's "Negro tolerance level" were posted on her House Web site, she disclaimed them and canceled four scheduled interviews with the Associated Press to discuss the incident.

She employed a similar strategy in '96 when her father repeatedly called her opponent a "racist Jew." (When asked about his comments by the New York Times, he replied, "He is a racist Jew, that's what he is, isn't he?") After ignoring his comments for a week, she distanced herself from them and "fired" him from her campaign, though he had no formal role.

See Cynthia McKinney - What kind of Democrat is she? Part One for a look at her voting record.

See Cynthia McKinney - Part Three for reactions to her media slandering.

Others Blogging on Congresswoman McKinney:
Sister Toldjah, Michelle Malkin, Something... and Half of Something, Expose the Left, Leaning Straight Up, The American Thinker, Polipundit, Suitably Flip, FullosseousFlap’s Dental Blog, California Conservative, Flopping Aces