CA State Senator demands apology
On February 23rd on the floor of the California State Senate, Janet Nguyen, representing her constituents, offered an alternate view of the celebratory memorial for Tom Hayden, anti-Vietnam War activist and one-time Jane Fonda spouse. Her version of the life of Hayden and his impact on American history ran afoul of the prevailing opinion in the California State Senate, so she was forcibly removed from the Senate by officers according to Fox News;
On Saturday, hundreds of people, including Vietnam veterans and Vietnamese-Americans from Nguyen’s Orange County district, held a rally demanding a public apology to them and the lawmaker — though she apparently has received a private apology from Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon.
“We’re getting support from around the world,” Nguyen said. “People are saying that I have a right to speak even though they don’t agree with me.”
She also argued that she was merely presenting “a different historical perspective” to Hayden’s “active support of North Vietnam’s communist regime during the Vietnam War.”
Senate Democrats claim that Nguyen received a private apology, but she denies that happened and now wants a public apology.
Nguyen lived in South Vietnam as a child and fled with her family after its U.S.-backed government fell. Her Senate district includes the largest concentration of Vietnamese people outside of Vietnam. She lost an uncle in the Vietnam War.
[…]
Nguyen also said that…she was inspired as a child by Ronald Reagan to become a Republican.
“I was one of the boat people, and Ronald Reagan was the one who opened the doors to the refugees,” she said.
I’m thinking that she has a civil rights case since her political speech was silenced by the government. Democrats contend that she spoke out of turn, but it seems odd to me that her alternate version of the impact Hayden had on history just happened to be the subject that was interrupted.
Thanks to Mick for the link.
Category: I hate hippies
The Kalifonia progressive/liberal/commie bastards screwed up again. They could have let have her say. No one had to remain to listen. The comments would have been recorded and buried in the archives, but noooooooooo, they called the muscle to remove her. And, now, as she said is, she is receiving “support from around the world.” Nice move, brainiacs.
In truth, that communist prick Hayden and his whore wife Fonda, should have been rounded up, put in a box with a few hundred pounds of rocks and dropped in the ocean…..and improvement to the human race!
So some woman breaks the rules of the Senate, then like a child refuses to stop, and is escorted out of the chamber like anyone else would have been.
Now she is claiming “victim status” for her own actions?
Legally, she has no grounds on which to stand. The Senate is a limited forum which can enact rules to make sure things get done. Those rules included a time and place (a legal restriction no matter what) when she could speak and she didn’t abide by the rules. That is what happened here. She, like many people, thought the rules didn’t apply to her so she made a scene.
I just don’t have time or sympathy for people who agree to rules and then demand that the rules not apply to them.
She left during the ball washing of Hayden and did not interfere while they extended the rules. I have no sympathy for those that think there are only one way streets.
Yep, it’s all good until somebody has a different point of view. Then it’s, “But the Rules, the RULES, the RULES!!”
“Extending the rules” is a term used for expanding a common rule – such as time limits. It is done all the time and there is nothing wrong with it.
There are many times in a Congressional meeting where a presentation of speech cannot fit in “x” minutes and someone’s time is extended.
This incident was different. She tried to speak at a point on the agenda where she could not.
“This incident was different. She tried to speak at a point on the agenda where she could not.” The CA Senate is still unclear what rule she “broke”. Warren on the other hand, knowingly violated Rule 19 of the Rules of the Senate. https://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXIX From the linked article: “Democrats said Nguyen violated the Senate’s parliamentary rules with her criticism and could have delivered the same comments if she had waited until later in the session and made a motion.” Did she violate the Senate’s parliamentary rules with her criticism or speaking without making a motion? Or speaking on Thursday when she should have spoken on Tuesday? It’s really anyone’s guess. “Members, last Thursday was not one of the finest moments of the Senate,” de León said. “Like many of you, I was troubled and unsettled by the actions last week. As the leader of this body, I take full responsibility for what transpired and for making sure it never happens again.” How can de Leon guarantee that this will never happen again? Change parliamentary law in California single handedly? Invoke hecklers veto on steroids? “As the event unfolded, Democrats said Nguyen violated the rules of the house and should have made her comments during the Senate’s tribute to Hayden two days earlier. Nguyen said she chose not to speak that day out of respect for Hayden’s family in attendance and had alerted de León’s office that she intended to make her comments on Thursday. (Emphasis added by me) De León’s chief of staff, Dan Reeves, sent her staff an email Wednesday warning that any statement she attempted to make about Hayden “will be ruled out of order and be rebuked by the body.” Reeves said Nguyen’s comments would “violate the rules of the house,” but he did not describe which rules would be broken.” Emphasis added by me Reeves sent a warning? Censorship? Seriously? She is only allowed to speak when they tell her she can? Thursday, last Tuesday, next Wednesday, the following Monday? So staffers make the parliamentary rules and dictate who says what and when? They cant even… Read more »
We agree that Warren broke the rules and as such, should have been admonished (which she was) and removed if she persisted (which she did and then was.) So that leaves us with Nguyen. De León staff’s memo told her that as she was not addressed by Hayden previously, she could not make a “point of personal privilege” at the point in the meeting she planned to. She needed to make another motion, have that passed and then rise to make her comments. She did not do any of that. When she was told to stop, she had several choices. She could have stopped and waited until the appropriate time, or she could have raised a “point of order” saying that the Chair’s stopping her was in fact against the body’s rules. If the Chair ruled in favor of himself, Nguyen could then appeal and with the backing of the other members, have the body’s parliamentarian make a ruling. That means that even if we say that the Chair was wrong, Nguyen was wrong in not knowing how to handle it as well. De León’s “apology” was to the public in the way the whole mess was handled – not to Nguyen. She is only allowed to speak when they tell her she can? It depends on who “they” are, but essentially yes. That’s why you have rules for legislative bodies. Time, place and manner restrictions are legal according to the Supreme Court. The bottom line is this: if Nguyen was speaking at the correct time in the agenda (and it appears she wasn’t) then the ruling was correct and she needs to suck it up. (She also needs to learn the rules to make sure she doesn’t do something like this again and if so, can handle it better.) If Nguyen was speaking in the correct time of the agenda, following the rules and was stopped simply on the basis of content, that’s wrong. It doesn’t appear that is the case. While you and others want to focus on the Chair not saying what rule was broken, Nguyen also… Read more »
“It depends on who “they” are, but essentially yes….”
“They” was Dan Reeves, a staffer.
“While you and others want to focus on the Chair not saying what rule was broken,”
Huh? You are under arrest sir, but for what I do not know! You need to stop talking (because I don’t like what you are saying) but I don’t know what rule you are violating, Sergeant at Arms, front and center STAT!
“If Nguyen was speaking in the correct time of the agenda, following the rules and was stopped simply on the basis of content, that’s wrong.”
Apparently Sen. Janet Nguyen used the adjourn in memory period of the session.
“The first is to make sure the body is following the law when they try to stop you from speaking.”
Yelling “Out of order”, turning off a microphone and man-handling a Senator with no reference to the rule that is supposedly being broken doesn’t seem appropriate or justified either. It is apparent that many Senators, including the Chair don’t understand the “laws”.
“Instead, what we see is just someone whining.”
Whining is still free speech.
Hecklers veto.
“They” was Dan Reeves, a staffer. I am pretty sure that Reeves did not ask Nguyen to stop on that day in the chambers. You need to stop talking (because I don’t like what you are saying) but I don’t know what rule you are violating, The Chair doesn’t have to cite chapter and verse when making a ruling. Apparently Sen. Janet Nguyen used the adjourn in memory period of the session. Well that’s not what happened, but let’s see what that is: ADJOURN IN MEMORY (AIM) A Member may request that the Assembly or Senate session be adjourned in the memory of a person. This request must be in writing and shall be read by the Presiding Officer prior to the adjournment of session. “http://www.legislature.ca.gov/quicklinks/glossary.html So if she was using the “adjourn in memory” time of the meeting, she was speaking at the wrong time. (Notice that the AIM is read by the Chair, not the member of the legislative body.) The Chair was therefore right to silence her and when she refused, have her removed. However, she wasn’t speaking during a “adjourn in memory.” The video can be found here: https://youtu.be/2hiXDIuaUNs The agenda item, as announced by the Chair, was “motions and resolutions.” Her statement was not appropriate during that time and when another Senator called a point of order, the Chair correctly ruled that Nguyen was out of order. (And in case you aren’t aware, when a point of order is raised, the Chair much recognize the point and address it. So while the point is being addressed, you can still hear Nguyen continuing to talk. Even then, she thought she was about the rules. Yelling “Out of order”, turning off a microphone and man-handling a Senator with no reference to the rule that is supposedly being broken doesn’t seem appropriate or justified either. Your characterization that the Chair was “yelling” is belied by the record. The Chair was very calm and collected. He gave Nguyen plenty of chances to sit down and make her statement in the right part of the agenda, but she would not.… Read more »
So you’re OK with Elizabeth Warren being silenced under similar conditions? Just want to make sure there’s consistency here.
First, the conditions were not “similar.” Warren was stopped because of the content she was saying.
Nguyen was stopped because of her speaking in the wrong place in the agenda.
I have more concerns with the content of speech being silenced rather than the timing of the speech itself being limited (which the Supreme Court says is allowed.)
That being said, both people violated the rules and bylaws of the body of which they are members.
I am not just “okay” with Warren being removed, I applaud it.
“I am not just “okay” with Warren being removed, I applaud it.”
Correct, she clearly violated Rule 19 of the Rules of the Senate.
https://www.rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleXIX
Elizabeth Warren should be ckubbed like a baby seal
She’s the rep for the district I grew up in… and probably one of the new faces of the CA GOP in the future.
As for de Leon… COCKSUCKING ASS HAMSTER!
KA-BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!
The irony of this occurring in a matter regarding Tom Hayden of all people is inescapable. It is also ironic that the tossed speaker is a Republican and the guy who had her tossed is a Democrat. The irony is that the Dems have a long and solid reputation for disregarding rules and the Republicans have a well-deserved reputation for observing them. But this is Kalifornia. so…
IMHO the liberal mantra is always “Rules are for THEE, not me!” thus libs go apeshit when they’re held accountable. AS TO the PRoC officially commending a fleabag pisspants POS roach shit communist hippie, okay, let them continue to show their true colors to the rest of the world as people see them and turn their backs on the left even more.
“During a riot, for instance, a conscious guerrilla can participate in pulling police away from the path of people engaged in attacking stores. He can create disorder in new areas the police think are secure. He can carry the torch, if not all the people, to white neighborhoods and downtown business districts. If necessary, he can successfully shoot to kill. The guerrilla can employ violence effectively during times of apparent ‘peace,’ too.” Tom Hayden 1967
Hayden was wife Hanoi Jane in North Vietnam and wished the communists good luck and victory. He was a founding member of the violent SDS and an ardent violent revolutionary. He was a guest of communist countries during the cold war and once declared, during a trip to one, “I am the Vietcong. We are everywhere! We are all Vietcong.”
This is the man the Democrat-controlled Kalifornia Senate honored. Well, fuck him and fuck them.
What 2/17 said. Especially the fuck him and fuck them part.
Eloquently stated, 2/17. Indeed, fuck him and fuck them.
I looked for his grave, so I could visit, and piss on him. But, the location is not listed on the sites I visited.
I’m glad he’s dead and I’m willing to be that he was not saved. He can burn like a flag at Berkeley.
Well said 2/17… in spades. Thanks to him and his ilk I got spit at and called names while in uniform.
Somebody needs to ‘splain this to those of us on the short bus. Why is this even a thing? Hayden died last October, and hadn’t been a member of the legislature since 2000. What was the original hook?
It was also kind of bizarre in the video when Bill Monning got all teary-eyed and described Hayden as “a fallen colleague.” You might have thought the old hippie had caught a couple of rounds while attacking Pebble Beach.
Been trying to come up with an equivalent figure among Republicans that could spark a similar discussion as this Hayden fellow – don’t know of one. Who on the right supported various subversive causes, attended and directed anti-American rallies and such? Are there any statues erected to honor those folks?
And since when do Democrats worry about rules? Arson doesn’t seem to be a problem for them. Lies are encouraged. They are very cavalier about violent demonstrations, aka riots, in support of people they like or against people they don’t like.
So what is with their sudden concern with rules? Oh, wait. Silencing the opposition is always good with them. Doesn’t really seem to matter how it is done or who it is done to.
“She also argued that she was merely presenting “a different historical perspective” to Hayden’s “active support of North Vietnam’s communist regime during the Vietnam War.””
Where I come from, that’s referred to as “telling the truth”. And the truth is that Tom Hayden was a slimy little twinkle-toed shit-for-brains communist cocksucker.
Gunny Hartman would be proud!
Oh no, the Commissar is gonna be pissed when he comes down off that high he’s on. Dissing communists is so distressing for him.
Word. Hell hath no fury like a Zika-Commie scorned. He will defend his Comrades to the death (or shoot them in the back if they run away).
Even crypto-commies gotta commie when the opportunity presents itself.
I didn’t even know this piece of shit had kicked the bucket; may his fabulously fabulous ex-wife follow him to Hell ASAP on the commiefornia high speed express…
I’m not looking forward to that day– when everybody starts gushing over that piece of shit too. I bet it will last for weeks.
She did her best to piss everybody off, and then wonders why some folks are still so pissed off.
Wait…..what??? Shame and remove me in PUBLIC, but then offer a PRIVATE apology? Oh, no, you don’t.
Hell, this wasn’t even my generation and this pisses me right the f+++ off.
It makes me warm inside when I see a Hanoi Jane urinal target most likely left by a Vietnam Vet.
Truth is in the eye of the beholder, and it may be in the CA legislature’s best interest to figure this the f+++ out before they learn it the hard way… 😉
Dang, I’ve never seen a Hanoi Jane urinal target! Does she have her mouth open?
Did a Bing and found ’em – in multiple versions. Great!
A picture is worth, well, you know.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=hanoi+jane+urinal+target&qpvt=Hanoi+Jane+urinal+target&qpvt=Hanoi+Jane+urinal+target&qpvt=Hanoi+Jane+urinal+target&FORM=IGRE
Thanks for doing the heavy lifting whilst I was being a taxable citizen.
I’m 37 years old and just the mention of that woman makes my blood boil.
History (should) never forget what those zealots did while their countrymen died.
I’ve yet to see a Men’s room in any VFW or AL Post that didn’t have “Hanoi Jane” target stickers in every urinal!
[…] And Incoherent Tweets Have To Do With Each Other? A Middle School Teacher This Ain’t Hell: California State Senator Janet Nguyen Demands Apology War Is Boring: It’s Time To Stop This Dead-End, $17 Billion Nuke Project Weasel Zippers: […]
So that whole “She persisted” hashtag doesn’t apply here? Oh right; Democrats view women as property.
I can think of no greater insult to the memories of the 5,572* young men from California that fought and died in that lousy shithole of a war.
Not to mention the 58,272 names in total inscribed in the pages of history for all to see at the Vietnam Memorial in Washington DC.
I served with many of the heroes that were over there and I am honored to have done so.
That man and the rest of those subversives can eat shit and die and I hope that they have a very hot place to go to for their version of eternity because of the damage they caused to the men that fought and died for their freedom. Like it or not, that is why we went there, and the communist aggression leveled off after that war.
Only to be reincarnated by the same kind of pukes that brought it to us the first time…
Fucking asswipes…
Fuck him and all of his friends and the jackass he was married to…
I was always taught to speak good of the dead. Tom Hayden is dead. Good.
Amen, sister. May he and all his fellow travelers burn in hell.
Nice one.
I’m afraid I’m not so polite.
Ding dong, the commie’s dead!
Democrats want to especially silence non-white conservatives. They literally hate non-white people who don’t vote democrat. Democrats get upset when you don’t act according to what they think your skin color should behave. Democrats are still the party of KKK.
Last time I checked, Tom Hayden didn’t exactly play “follow the rules” when he wanted to make a speech – particularly when he was a youngster and wanted to “speak truth to power”, AKA spew Leftist propaganda.
“Free speech for me, but not for thee.” That’s been one of the Leftist parliamentary rules of order since, oh, October 1917. The CA Senate is merely upholding a nearly century-long tradition.
The State Senate honored Tom Hayden. In other news, my Father-In-Law questioned whether any of those liberal legislators might have the balls to say that to his face. Or maybe make those same statements in Little Saigon-San Diego or OC. Now THAT would be a hell of a show!