Remember that disgusting display of “art” that depicted police officers as pigs and other animals, that caused such a stir when it was removed from the Capitol complex?
The hateful, anti-law enforcement, waste of taxpayers’ money, Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.) actually took to the House floor to defend the painting on Thursday.
Clay’s premise was that removing the painting after it had hung in the underground hallway for months was a violation of the First Amendment.
“Without incident or concern, my constituent’s winning entry was removed in an act of politically motivated, unconstitutional, retroactive censorship,” Lacy said.
“This unconstitutional act of censorship will not stand,” he said, noting it was the architect of the Capitol’s job to approve the painting for public display.
I have no idea what qualified this painting to be a “winner” in any art contest. Putting aside the contemptuous, racist connotations of the offensive piece, it’s honestly not very good. I can only imagine there weren’t many entries to choose from, and if this was a “winner,” the losers must have been insanely bad.
Still, Clay does raise an interesting point.
Who was part of approving this vile piece of work, to begin with? What was the Capitol architect’s role in allowing it to be hung?
The piece was there for months before a former police officer took notice and objected. California Republican Rep. Duncan Hunter removed the piece, setting off a tug of war with Clay, who replaced it, only to have it taken down again. He moved after that time to gather several of his cop-hating colleagues, call the press, and then replaced it.
After taking it the matter to the architect of the Capitol, it was determined that the painting violated the contest rules that prohibit any work of a “sensational” or politically sensitive nature.
Clay, of course, pushed the issue, taking it into court, where earlier in April, Judge John D. Bates ruled the painting “political speech,” thus, in violation of the contest rules and not eligible to hang in the Capitol complex.
That didn’t stop Clay’s narrative on Thursday, however.
“The architect of the Capitol miraculously traveled back in time to disqualify the very same painting that he had approved ten months ago,” Lacy said. “Perhaps we should advise the National Academy of Sciences of the architect of the Capitol’s newfound ability to bend the space-time continuum in order to retroactively respond to the most extreme voices in the majority so they could more easily suppress the rights of my young constituent.”
It’s not exactly “extreme” to say this particular painting was inspired by the same hateful, misguided rhetoric that has put a bullseye on the backs of American police officers.
Lacy claimed that as a result of the controversial painting, Pulphus has been subjected to racial attacks on social media.
Everybody that utilizes social media gets attacked for something, and let’s be perfectly honest: Given the nature of that painting, Pulphus probably engages in his own heaping helping of racially-charged attacks.
In fact, the painting, itself, is an attack, so Clay’s crocodile tears over a young man getting treated the same way he treats others shouldn’t move anyone.
“He has also been deprived of the honor of listing his first place victory in the congressional office art competition on his resume,” Lacy claimed.
The hope is that life will cause this angry young man to realize how wrong he was, so that he will be ashamed of that painting and not want anyone to continue to associate him with a symbol of hate.
And is that something people would seriously put on their resumes?