Pretty disgusting. Not the first time this racist has been in the news.

William Lacy Clay Jr, is the U.S. Representative for Missouri's 1st congressional district, serving since 2001. He is a member of the Democratic Party.

Clay made headlines in early 2007 when, as a member of the Congressional Black Caucus (co-founded by his father), he objected to the possible inclusion of U.S. Representative Steve Cohen of Tennessee, a Caucasian who represents the majority-African American district in Memphis and had made a campaign promise to attempt to become the first white member of the CBC. Although it is not part of the CBC's bylaws that members must be black, all members so far have been black. Clay told Cohen "that he could not collaborate with the Congressional Black Caucus for the benefit of his black constituents 'until your skin turns black.'" In response to press inquiries, he said, "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the Caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." In response to the decision, Cohen stated, "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in." Clay issued an official statement from his office in reply to Cohen's complaint: "Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept — there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives." Some have said that since Cohen represents a district with 60 percent of African American voters, that he has a legitimate interest in helping the goals of the CBC, and the decision should not be solely based on skin color.

Would make a great statement to see President Trump remove this painting, January 20th.

The painting won Rep. Lacy Clay, Democrat's annual Congressional Art competition in May, and so was selected to be displayed in the U.S. Capitol complex.

The piece depicts two police officers, whose heads are replaced by animal heads – one of which appears to be a pig -- aiming guns at protesters who are carrying signs saying “History” and “Racism Kills.” In the background is a crucified black man in a graduation cap holding the scales of justice.

Someday they will need a cop, and a cop will be there to help.

And for that the police have my respect and admiration. I am not so sure I could remain as professional as they are in some circumstances and when dealing with some people.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-V2arHXwq8
I post this before I really think this should be the standard procedure for the dispatcher to respond.

Link


GOP congressman takes down colleague's sponsored 'art' depicting police as pigs


A Republican congressman took matters into his own hands Friday and personally removed a painting depicting police officers as pigs that a colleague had allowed to be displayed at the U.S. Capitol complex.

“I was angry,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FoxNews.com. “I’ve seen the press [reporting] on this for about a week or so. … I’m in the Marine Corps. If you want it done, just call us.”

Hunter said he walked over to the artwork Friday morning with a few colleagues and unscrewed it. He then delivered it to the office of Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., the congressman whose office had allowed the piece to be displayed. The painting, hanging since June, was done by a high school student who had won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.

The piece drew outrage, however, from law enforcement groups and fellow lawmakers.

As for whether the painting will stay down, Hunter said: “Lacy can put it back up, I guess, if he wants to … but I’m allowed to take it down.”

Clay’s office has not yet responded to a request from FoxNews.com for comment.

More than 27,000 law enforcement professionals had been protesting the display of what they called a “reprehensible, repugnant and repulsive” painting in the hallway of the Capitol.

After being told the piece was removed, Ron Hernandez, president of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, said in a statement Friday they were “very pleased.”

He said: “At a time of our country facing rising crime and a shortage of those willing to work the streets as police officers and deputy sheriffs, we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation's Capital is not acceptable.”

The acrylic painting, which took first place in a congressional student art competition in St. Louis, depicts a police officer as a pig in uniform aiming a gun at African-American protesters. Above the scene, two birds -- one black, one white -- fight, and beside them, an African-American protester holding a scale of justice is crucified.

The art piece, “Untitled,” was created by then-Cardinal Ritter Prep senior David Pulphus, and was on display in the hallway between the Capitol and adjacent House office buildings. Clay’s office has said the teen who made the painting was speaking from his own life experience, considering where he lived and its location close to Ferguson, Mo.

Hunter said he’s friends with Clay, calling him a “great guy.”

He added, “But you’ve got to respect our men in uniform and what they do.”

The Independent Journal Review had first reported on the art.

House leaders already were coming under pressure to take the painting down before Friday.

In an earlier statement calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to remove it, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New York, and the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Police Officers Associations said: “This false narrative portrays law enforcement professionals as posing a danger to the very communities we serve. That is untrue and this ‘art’ reinforces this false narrative and is disrespectful on so many levels.”

Ever listened to Mr. Clay speak? Just do that, and you will understand.

Looks like this painting has been taken down, and replaced, numerous times.

I guess I'm in the camp of "who gives a crap?"

First off, I'm not a special little snowflake who is going to lose my mind because someone else has a different opinion (even one that i find horribly wrong.)

Second, it would be against anything I stand for, and WHY I do what I do, to insist someone's freedom of speech, however misguided, be infringed upon.

THAT ladies and gents, is the real difference with what we area dealing with.

The other side of this accepts ZERO argument... There is no right answer other than theirs in their minds.

That alone is exactly why the painting should stay.

The BEST thing about Freedom of Speech is it lets the fools identify themselves. Then you know why you do and do not want to associate with.

Kevin

^^ that's great Kevin
You are so right.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
^^ that's great Kevin
You are so right.

We will see. While I usually find myself on the moral high ground, it rarely seems to keep my feet from getting wet in the flood.

But it is still where i prefer to be.

Lacy, like Lewis, is a racist piece of garbage.

Trash like these two need to be pushed back against at every opportunity.

I don't care what they did in the past. The fact that they rely on that to cover for their hatred of this country is appalling.

Federal judge denies Clay's lawsuit seeking re-hanging of controversial painting

WASHINGTON • A federal judge has rejected Rep. William Lacy Clay’s legal attempt to rehang a controversial painting on the wall of a tunnel connecting the U.S. Capitol with a House office building.

John D. Bates, a judge in the District Court for the District of Columbia, ruled that “Untitled #1,” a painting by former Cardinal Ritter College Prep student David Pulphus, was government speech, and therefore was legally removed by members of Congress who objected to its content.

The painting depicts police officers as animals and has symbolic references to the 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson by police officer Darren Wilson.

Wilson was cleared of wrongdoing in federal and state investigations, and the case touched off violent confrontations between demonstrators and police. It led the U.S. Justice Department under former President Barack Obama to impose reforms on Ferguson police and courts.

“There is little doubt that the removal of the painting was based on its viewpoint,” Bates wrote in his decision issued Friday.

But, he added: “Although the Court is sympathetic to plaintiffs given the treatment afforded Pulphus’ art, under controlling authority this case involves government speech, and hence plaintiffs have no First Amendment rights at stake.”

Clay, D-St. Louis, had sought an injunction against removal of the painting by the Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers. Pulphus’ painting was taken down on several occasions by Republican members of Congress, who said the art demeaned police and gave a false narrative of what happened in Ferguson. Ayers removed it in January after a formal complaint from Republicans.

Pulphus, now in college, has said the art “speaks for itself” as the experiences of a young black man seeing reports of the shooting deaths of black men by police.


The painting hung for seven months among more than 400 other student works in a Capitol Hill tunnel before conservative bloggers noticed and called for its removal because of its depiction of police officers.

Republicans successfully argued that the painting violated the annual art contest’s prohibition of art reflecting “subjects of contemporary political controversy,” or of “sensationalistic or gruesome nature.”

There was no immediate reaction from Clay on Monday. A lawyer who argued the case pro bono for Clay was on vacation in Hawaii and also did not comment.

Bates noted that at least two other paintings hanging among the 400 winners could be interpreted as violating the rules against political or “gruesome” images, but that he was being asked to rule on only Pulphus’.

And Bates said the fact that Clay did not establish that the Capitol tunnel was public space led to a legal finding that the painting constituted government speech, which does not have the protection of individuals’ speech.

Bates noted Clay’s unique position in the case: His lawsuit argued for a constituent’s First Amendment right, but Clay is also a member of the government that, the judge declared, had the right to take down the painting.

Competition rules, the judge wrote, “set up a hierarchy of decision-making authority with respect to content suitability: House members, by whatever method of judging they choose, select one winning piece from among the multiple works submitted to represent the district, but their choice may be overruled by the AOC if it concludes that the work does not meet the suitability guidelines.”

“In this case, Clay’s decision was overruled by the entity at the top of this decision tree, making his objections irrelevant for purposes of the government speech analysis.”


Link

Black Lies Matter.