Posted on 02/14/2002 8:55:32 PM PST by Timesink
From the February 25, 2002 issue of National Review, page 8:
The story line proved irresistible: Justice Department's Top Prude Drapes Naked Statue. Two large semi-nude statues adorn the department's Great Hall, where the attorney general holds big press conferences. In the past, a large blue curtain was rented to provide a TV-pleasing backdrop. An aide responsible for staging such events, on her own initiative, hoped to economize by requesting the purchase of a curtain. She may have been admirably conscious of costs, but she was definitely oblivious to the ways of Washington. A phony story then ran on the website of ABC News attributing the decision to the straitlaced attorney general, who supposedly couldn't bear the bare breast of Ms. Spirit of Justice. Other reporters happily echoed the fabrication, many no doubt lamenting that a permanent curtain would end their fun in going for the "gotcha" shots that framed the breast and the beast.
All this business about smoking, second-hand smoke, blah blah blah--it's nothing but neo-puritanism.
And political correctness--you can't say certain words--might as well bann "damn" and "hell".
And "sexual harassment"--make 'em all wear scarlet A's.
Liberals would love to reinstate the witch trials.
The environmentalist whackos are the same--controlling the amount of water you can use in your toilet or your washing machine.
Control! Control! Control! It's just like the Taliban banning kites and paper bags and music, telling people what they can wear. Liberals even attack their "infidels" and are merciless toward them. That's what their attacks on Aschroft amount to.
Neo-puritanism! Three hundred years ago these same people would have been burning us all at the stake! They would today if they could get away with it.
Please check my Reply #34 on this thread to find out what may well have been Ms Lumpkin's motivation for this story. It could well be that she just wanted to please her PJ. Hee! Hee!
Would you mind pointing out where the U.S. Attorney General was empowered to enact legislation? Last I checked the Constitution, responsibility for the US PATRIOT act would lie with the Congress, since Congress alone can pass legislation.
The principle lies in the idea that "advocating a crime is a crime". This was not a 'crime' exactly, (treasonous to the constitution and oath of office perhaps), but neither is supporting gun control. Does Sarah Brady get a pass?
Yes, congress is responsible for enacting things Ashcroft supported. This fact does not cleanse Ashcroft of his culpability, nor does it exorcize his constitutionally repugnant positions.
Let me get this straight, dog. A lengthy thread about a story that everyone assumed to be true at the time, turns out to be partialy fabricated, and these posters say that "libertarians" who made "anti-Ashcroft" remarks are supposed to "retract" them, all the while many posters defended the (partially fabricated) actions of Ashcroft? These folks are a hoot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.