I haven’t blogged this, as the idea that an elected politician is a criminal is not really a shock.

But since she is now playing the race card, I want to weigh in.

A brief summary of the issue.

(from St): McKinney punches Capitol Hill police 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.

Members of Congress are not required to pass through metal detectors.

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.

Her official response:

"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.

So she was in a hurry, wasn’t wearing her lapel pin, blew a checkpoint, refused a call to identify herself, and when detained, she assaults the cop.  And then doesn’t even apologize.

So today comes the news that she may be arrested:

McKinney Faces Arrest for Scuffle

Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney delayed a scheduled news conference Friday morning as U.S. Capitol police reportedly made plans to seek an arrest warrant against her for striking a police officer.

An interesting twist to my previous story on Body Armor.  In that post I reported how the troops are refusing to wear the body armor being sent.

In this story, the military is now banning the use of non government issue armor.  I have to admit I am getting confused.  First we are not sending enough, and the troops ahve to buy their own.  Then we are sending too much and they wont use it.

Can we please make up our minds?

Army Bans Use of Privately Bought Armor

WASHINGTON (AP) - Soldiers will no longer be allowed to wear body armor other than the protective gear issued by the military, Army officials said Thursday, the latest twist in a running battle over the equipment the Pentagon gives its troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Army officials told The Associated Press that the order was prompted by concerns that soldiers or their families were buying inadequate or untested commercial armor from private companies - including the popular Dragon Skin gear made by California-based Pinnacle Armor.

"We’re very concerned that people are spending their hard-earned money on something that doesn’t provide the level of protection that the Army requires people to wear. So they’re, frankly, wasting their money on substandard stuff," said Col. Thomas Spoehr, director of materiel for the Army.

Murray Neal, chief executive officer of Pinnacle, said he hadn’t seen the directive and wants to review it.

"We know of no reason the Army may have to justify this action," Neal said. "On the surface this looks to be another of many attempts by the Army to cover up the billions of dollars spent on ineffective body armor systems which they continue to try quick fixes on to no avail."

The move was a rare one by the Army. Spoehr said he doesn’t recall any similar bans on personal armor or devices. The directives are most often issued when there are problems with aircraft or other large equipment.

Veterans groups immediately denounced the decision.

The recent sightings of Mexican being raised to signify protest at immigratoin reform has been fairly well reported, but today it has entered a new chapter.

At Apache Junction High School in Phoenix, a student raised the Mexican flag over the top of the US flag, only to have it pulled down- And burned.  Via Drudge:

Mexican flag burned at Apache Junction HS

Tensions over immigration reform heightened in the Phoenix area’s East Valley Thursday when students raised a Mexican flag over Apache Junction High School — and then other students yanked it down and burned it.

"I know (they) shouldn’t have burned the Mexican flag," said Jacob Stewart, a 16-year-old sophomore. "I heard it was raised above the American flag and that just irked me."

He said the turbulence was tied to debates going on in the state Legislature and Congress, where ideas ranging from offering illegal immigrants a chance at citizenship to making them felons are being floated.

Freshman Chelsea Garcia, 15, and junior Brittany Ramage, 16, said the unrest had more to do with long-running racial tensions at the school.

The week’s events might have sparked some anger, Ramage said, "but kids aren’t too deep about that stuff."

The Hispanic student who brought the Mexican flag said he was responding to a remark directed at him Wednesday. The flag-raising, flag-burning, and shoving match that followed happened before most students arrived at school.

Six students — three Hispanic and three white — will be disciplined, Principal Chad Wilson said.

Officials with the Apache Junction Unified School District would not specify what punishment the six face.

Wilson did say in a letter sent home to parents that there would be "increased supervision, including additional police officers, on the campus over the next couple of days."

School flagpoles have been lightning rods across the country this week, including an incident in which a Houston high-school principal was disciplined after he flew a Mexican flag underneath his campus’ U.S. and state flags.

The immigration issue has sparked a lot of heat from all sides, and promises to be a central issue for some time to come, particularly in the mid term 2006 congressional elections and in the upcoming 2008 presidential election.

Looking at the discussions, articles and demonstrations, I am not sure that all parties are even close to being on the same pages in understanding what the issues are.  We see demonstrations that are more about separatism, nationalism and even a sense that some want to conquer the southwest for Mexico. 

Hmm….In Hollywood’s case, maybe that’s ok….

We hear about racism, and national security; terrorism and discrimination; and even racial supremacy.  But what is rare is a focused discussion of the nuts and bolts of immigration.

So as a public service I will provide that context.  This is hardly a comprehensive review and essay, but I want to boil out the emotional rhetoric and determine which aspects are the most important.

Looking at the issue I break it down like this:

Legal immigrants-  these folks have one essential issue in the debate, and that is procedure.  How can they come here and become a citizen, or a documented worker?  What are the procedures?  That’s pretty much it.

They come, follow whatever the rules are, and get their green card.  Some eventually get granted citizenship.  Some go back home.  While waiting they obey the laws like anyone else or they are deported.  Included in here would be the migrant/guest workers, who would be here, work and then return home, or apply for permanent status. 

The biggest factor to remember is that these people only stand  to gain by the new laws, near as I can tell.  Yes there are hoops to jump, but I have met and heard many who think it’s worth it.

Illegal immigrants- Now here we get to the complicated issues.

• Employment issues

OK, let me start by saying that I support public education.

OK?  I have friends who belittle it, preferring homeschool and such.  I see public education as a necessity, something that ensures an educatoin to all.

That said I have been one of those unruly parents that challenge schools to actually teach, and I have been unafraid to confront the schools that I don’t feel are doing this.  In the course of this, I have been a real pain in the ass of a couple of stupid administrators.

As the years pass though, I get more frustrated by the bullshit I keep seeing get passed off as education, as well as the incredible lack of sense in the policies around the country.  I now whole heartedly support education alternatives, such as charter schools because our public schools have come down with a bad case of stupid.

Here is a case in point:

School’s ‘Holocaust’ Experiment Upsets Parents

Several parents in Apopka, Fla., are upset over a surprise school "Holocaust" project that some say tormented children, according to a Local 6 News report.

Local 6 News reported that eighth-graders with last names beginning with L through Z at Apopka Memorial Middle School were given yellow five-pointed stars for Holocaust Remembrance Day. Other students were privileged, the report said.

Father John Tinnelly said his son was forced to stand in the back of the classroom and not allowed to sit because he was wearing the yellow star.

"He was forced to go to the back of the lunch line four times by an administrator," Tinnelly said.

Tinnelly said the experiment upset his child.

"He was crying," Tinnelly said. "I said, ‘What are you crying about?’ He said, ‘Daddy, I was a Jew today.’"

Other parents and children shared similar stories, Tinnelly said.

"They were told that they could not use the water fountains," Tinnely said. "There was even a sign supposedly at one water fountain (saying) if you’re wearing a yellow star , you can’t use this water fountain."

In an unsurpising twist the NY times has reported the FISA Judges testimony in a completely different light.  It is hard to compare this to the story I posted from the WA Times, they seem like they are totally different events.

Big shock huh?

From Powerline:

Judges on Secretive Panel Speak Out on Spy Program

WASHINGTON, March 28 — Five former judges on the nation’s most secretive court, including one who resigned in apparent protest over President Bush’s domestic eavesdropping, urged Congress on Tuesday to give the court a formal role in overseeing the surveillance program.

In a rare glimpse into the inner workings of the secretive court, known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, several former judges who served on the panel also voiced skepticism at a Senate hearing about the president’s constitutional authority to order wiretapping on Americans without a court order. They also suggested that the program could imperil criminal prosecutions that grew out of the wiretaps.

Judge Harold A. Baker, a sitting federal judge in Illinois who served on the intelligence court until last year, said the president was bound by the law "like everyone else." If a law like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is duly enacted by Congress and considered constitutional, Judge Baker said, "the president ignores it at the president’s peril."

Judge Baker and three other judges who served on the intelligence court testified at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in support of a proposal by Senator Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania, to give the court formal oversight of the National Security Agency’s eavesdropping program. Committee members also heard parts of a letter in support of the proposal from a fifth judge, James Robertson, who left the court last December, days after the eavesdropping program was disclosed.

The intelligence court, created by Congress in 1978, meets in a tightly guarded, windowless office at the Justice Department. The court produces no public findings except for a single tally to Congress each year on the number of warrants it has issued — more than 1,600 in 2004. Even its roster of judges serving seven-year terms was, for a time, considered secret.

It won’t stop the storm of lies and accusations, but the real experts in the FISA wiretaps have spoken: 

FISA judges say Bush within law

A panel of former Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges yesterday told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that President Bush did not act illegally when he created by executive order a wiretapping program conducted by the National Security Agency (NSA).

The five judges testifying before the committee said they could not speak specifically to the NSA listening program without being briefed on it, but that a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act does not override the president’s constitutional authority to spy on suspected international agents under executive order.

"If a court refuses a FISA application and there is not sufficient time for the president to go to the court of review, the president can under executive order act unilaterally, which he is doing now," said Judge Allan Kornblum, magistrate judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida and an author of the 1978 FISA Act. "I think that the president would be remiss exercising his constitutional authority by giving all of that power over to a statute."

There was some caution indicated however:

The judges, however, said Mr. Bush’s choice to ignore established law regarding foreign intelligence gathering was made "at his own peril," because ultimately he will have to answer to Congress and the Supreme Court if the surveillance was found not to be in the best interests of national security.     

But in regard to the often repeated claim that previous presidents did the same thing:

Judge Kornblum said before the 1978 FISA law, foreign surveillance was done by executive order and the law itself was altered by the orders of Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan.

It has been three months since President Bush said publicly that the NSA was listening to phone conversations between suspected terrorists abroad and domestically. The actions raised concerns from Congress and civil liberties groups about domestic spying, but the judges said that given new threats from terrorists and new communications technologies, the FISA law should be changed to give the president more latitude.

Well even the students know how to take a concept and twist it completely out of proportion.

The students in the LA area again protested the proposed immigration laws, and decided that immigration wasn’t necessarily the issue, nor was illegal immigration.

Their issue is apparently conquest.  From Michelle Malkin:

Go to her link for more pictures.

Honestly I am trying to be objective about this but this just irritates the veteran in me.

The kids think they are trying to make a point, but even at it’s most basic levels, immigration policy does not mean turning the US into North Mexico.

I have no issue with national pride in one’s heritage, but since when must your heritage and roots drive American policy more then any one else’s?

If I were to be feeling really belligerent I would ask them "If Mexico is so great, why are you expending so much effort to come here?" but I am not, so I won’t. 

One bright spot. Apparently truancy is not trumped by free speech:

Well when they are Ann Coulter dolls that he can torment and sexually violate, yep.

A little levity is fine and certainly we can all have some expression, but I still think this is a bit weird.  He seems obsessive and a little er….strange.

Sean Penn Has an Ann Coulter ‘Torture Doll’

Actor Sean Penn was apparently interviewed for an upcoming issue of The New Yorker magazine. According to a couple of sources, Penn was quoted in the piece as having a plastic doll with the likeness of Ann Coulter that he “likes to abuse when angry.”

As reported by ContactMusic.com (hat tip to Drudge): “The Oscar-winner actor has hated Coulter ever since she blacklisted his director father LEO PENN in her book TREASON. And he takes out his frustrations with Coulter, who is a best-selling author, lawyer and television pundit, on the Barbie-like doll.”

The Post Chronicle reported:

“‘We violate her,’ the ornery actor tells The New Yorker about his mini-Coulter. ‘There are cigarette burns in some funny places. She’s a pure snake-oil salesman. She doesn’t believe a word she says.’"

Jack Ryan of The Post Chronicle accurately concluded: “Penn is a sick puppy.. And you thought he was just pretending to be Jeff Spicoli.”

Yeah…I did think he was just acting that part, Jack.

Yea, I think someone has some ’splaining to do…

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/03/28/D8GKOD080.html

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice asked her Russian counterpart on Tuesday for a "serious investigation" into reports that Russian intelligence fed U.S. battle plans to Saddam Hussein, the State Department said.

Rice made the request in a telephone call to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli. The call came four days after the Pentagon released a report citing captured Iraqi documents that described the information exchange.

"The point we’re making is, this is a report we take seriously and we are asking the Russians to look into it," Ereli said.

Even so, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld seemed to downplay the report. He said it may be worth looking into, but said he first heard about the allegations when the Pentagon issued the publication last Friday.

"It merits looking into," Rumsfeld told Pentagon reporters.

Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, added that U.S. officials "still don’t know if the translation is 100 percent accurate" or if the report contained "real information or disinformation."

According to the unclassified report, Russian intelligence had sources inside the American military that enabled it to feed information about U.S. troop movements to Saddam Hussein before the 2003 invasion that toppled him.

The unclassified report did not assess the value or accuracy of the information Saddam got or offer details on Russia’s information pipeline.

Russian officials have said the allegations are false.

Of course they are, and Russia has never helped Iraq behind our back before. 

(cough –>oil-for-food-payoffs<–cough)