On his radio show tonight, Hugh Hewitt was talking about the fact that a Democrat Congresswoman from Northern California had given a pass to Cindy Sheehan to hear the State of the Union speech. He said that, despite her promises to be respectful, the White House needed to be prepared in case she decided to try to disrupt the speech.

They needn’t have worried. She got herself arrested for unfurling a banner in the gallery. [But see UPDATES below!]

UPDATE: Nope, it was for wearing a T-shirt with an anti-war slogan:

Peace activist Cindy Sheehan was arrested Tuesday in the House gallery after refusing to cover up a T-shirt bearing an anti-war slogan before President Bush’s State of the Union address.

“She was asked to cover it up. She did not,” said Sgt. Kimberly Schneider, U.S. Capitol Police spokeswoman, adding that Sheehan was arrested for unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor.

The charge carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail, Schneider said.

Schneider said shortly after the State of the Union speech that Sheehan was still being held but should be “out sometime tonight.”

An early report from a senior House official indicated that Sheehan was arrested for unfurling an anti-war banner, but that was later found not to be the case. Schneider said she didn’t know what Sheehan’s T-shirt said.

I am looking forward to hearing more about this. Is the law under which she was arrested content-neutral? Are there First Amendment implications here? If the T-shirt said: “Bush rocks!” would she have been arrested?

UPDATE x2: This woman was ejected for wearing a T-shirt that supported the troops. Apparently the enforcement of the law is not content-based. That’s reassuring. (Link via Drudge via commenter Shoes.)

UPDATE x3 2-1-06: Police have dropped the charges against Sheehan and apologized.

I’m not taking credit for this, of course, but I was pleased to see the editors of the L.A. Times refer to Hamas as a “terrorist” group in this morning’s editorial:

President Bush is right to threaten to cut off U.S. aid to a Palestinian government controlled by Hamas. U.S. law and common decency preclude taxpayer money from going to a terrorist group that has vowed to annihilate Israel.

That’s much better than simply saying that certain countries have “branded” Hamas a terrorist group, as the editors said the other day.

Contrary to the views to the views of the paper’s business columnist Michael Hiltzik, whether you call Hamas a “terrorist group” is not merely a “minor issue[] of syntax and diction.” It is an important issue that sheds light on the editors’ world view and credibility. I’m glad to see them acknowledge the obvious . . . finally.

P.S. In the extended entry is bonus material for those not already sick of talking about Michael Hiltzik:

(more…)

[Posted by The Angry Clam]

Today marked two events. The first is the confirmation of Justice Alito. The second is the death of Coretta Scott King.

Let’s play a game: spot the first blogger to connect the two into “Justice Alito’s confirmation proves that Civil Rights are dead!” or something similar.

Bonus points for finding the politicians making this statement.

– The Angry Clam

Via a commenter at Confirm Them comes word that a leftist activist is threatening to out a closeted gay senator if he votes for Alito.

The activist has outed a Congressman before, and that Congressman resigned, so it may not be an idle threat.

I welcome discussion of the legality of this threat in the comments.

UPDATE: I don’t want to research and give an opinion about whether this might be a crime, because if I were to decide that it probably is, some lefty nut case would probably misconstrue my opinion as some kind of official threat. (I always speak here in my individual capacity, and say so in a disclaimer on the sidebar — but some dimwits don’t seem to understand that.)

However, Eugene Volokh looks at the question here. He appears to reach no firm conclusion, other than that his brain hurts. But his reasoning process is interesting.

Why do postal workers go postal?