Yeah; I saw that “Alien Autopsy” thing on Fox, too.
Your post is simply not true. They were NOT afforded access, they broke the law just like the people arrested at parks did. The difference is there weren’t cameras at the parks to embarrass the President into looking the other way. Your analogy makes no sense.
As long as Obama is in power.
No, scratch that. In the runup to the elections in 2016 it will be the Democrat nominee’s fault.
If we’ve learned anything in the past few years it is that you can get a segment of the gullible population to believe ANYTHING if you repeat it long and loud enough.
With regards to people vandalizing National Parks and videoing themselves? There is some evidence that it does happen.
Who knows better: you because you saw something on Fox News, or the guy who organizes the Honor Flights that was bringing WWII vets to the memorial? Again, the quote is, ““We’ve had no problems at all,” said Jim McLaughlin, a lead organizer for the Honor Flight Network…”
I went to the WW2 Memorial on multiple occasions during the shutdown. There were veterans milling around the monument each time, just like this. The Director of the National Park Service is on the record as saying that “First Amendment activities” were protected during the shutdown, which means they were NOT breaking the law.
You are perpetuating a falsehood that the veterans had to break the law. They were not breaking any law, their activities were being afforded an extra level of protection due to the First Amendment. They were being invited in past the barricades, and organizers reported no problems.
Who were reporting problems? Partisans, such as yourself, who swooped in to have press conferences to make political hay based on falsehoods – even the worst of those showhorses admit that there wasn’t a problem on October 1: “Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said in interviews that** the gates were opened for the veterans to access the memorial.**” Cite.
That was not the argument being made. It was the likelihood of vandalism at the memorial in front of a hundred people with cameras versus a deserted memorial because it was closed. By far it was better to have citizens watching over it than nobody watching over it.
If they weren’t breaking the law than the people visiting the parks who got arrested were not breaking the law.
Which is it?
And the “gates” weren 't “opened” by the Park Service. The BARRICADES were taken down by the visitors. Obama will forever be known as the President who thought protests for illegal aliens were more important than public access to parks.
The whole “1st Amendment” schtick was nothing but a stunt to avoid looking stupid in his own back yard.
The people you were originally complaining about – WW2 veterans – did not break any laws in visiting the memorials because the Park Service, and the US Government, deemed those First Amendment activities protected by law, and therefore the government ensured that those activities continued.
Knuckleheads who trespassed at National Parks because they wanted to take a hike were cited and not arrested, and face fines because they had no legal right to tresspass.
Your question raises an even more important one: if you don’t understand the fundamental facts of what transpired over the last three weeks, why are you complaining?
Meanwhile, why is it that each time I point out that WW2 vets were not denied access to the memorials, you start talking about tourists at the Grand Canyon or other National Parks? It’s just so blatantly obvious that you try to change the subject each time it is pointed out why what you’re saying is wrong.
“Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said in interviews that the gates were opened for the veterans to access the memorial.”
“Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said in interviews that the gates were opened for the veterans to access the memorial.”
“Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said in interviews that the gates were opened for the veterans to access the memorial.”
“Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said in interviews that the gates were opened for the veterans to access the memorial.”
“Reps. Steve King, R-Iowa, and Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., said in interviews that the gates were opened for the veterans to access the memorial.”
Just in case it needs to be repeated a few times to sink in.
It was no more a first amendment right to visit the memorial than any other location shut down. This is a spurious argument that you swallowed all the way up to the fishing pole. Or should I say fishing POLL. It made the President look bad and he looked the other way.
There are no 'GATES" at the memorial.
They were barricades.
They were barricades.
They were barricades.
They were barricades.
They were barricades.
They were barricades.
They were barricades.
And they weren’t opened, they were taken down by the people visiting them.
Are you somehow under the misapprehension that most Americans blame the closing of the memorials and parks etc. on Obama? No, sorry to break it to you, but you’re in a distinct minority, and for good reason.
The WW2 memorial indeed does not have gates, though; you can have that one if it comforts you.
Why are you calling Michelle Bachmann and Steven King liars? How dare you, sir!!
I’m guessing the barricades were a formality, an announcement that the site was officially closed. Not like they amounted to much by way of closing it off. Don’t know much about it, since the whole incident is pretty piddling. Doubt Obama paid it much attention, since he was, well, kinda busy.
The barricades were to keep people out. Because it was closed. Because people will shit all over stuff if no one is watching.
But Magiver is unwilling to accept that, so this thread is largely running in circles.
Although I happen to have something that rebuts his previous assertion that no one would damage anything if people with cameras were around:
For the events that happened on Oct 1 at the Memorial, I have heard conflicting accounts. Some people claim the veterans stormed the monument, took down the barricades on their own. Other claims state that there was a delay and then the park service opened the barricades for the Honor Flight veterans.
The posted info above seems to support the claims that the park service eventually was directed to open the barricades on that day, to then close the park again afterwards. Subsequently, the Park Service employees tasked with overseeing the closure found a justification to allow the veterans in, citing the First Amendment.
To me, that reads like a fig leaf justification to step around the directed closure of non-essential services. Essentially, everybody felt allowing honor flight veterans in was more appropriate than keeping them out, so they found something that sounded like a reasonable justification. I doubt there was any real legal analysis, though I could be wrong. I suspect the rangers could have enforced the closure per their directives, but someone found a way to let it slide, and nobody was/is going to force a judicial review over that justification.
But note that the veterans being allowed in were part of specific tours, and their were park service personnel on duty to generally oversee the closure. That is different than the trespassing cases at other parks.
Note that Obama did not make determinations on what were essential services and what were non-essential services. Those were broader policy decisions, just like which services at NASA that were kept operational was a broad policy directive.
The situation with the “damage” to the “goblin” feature in that park is not really the same thing as someone spray painting graffiti, or chiseling their name, or scraping skateboards across the polished marble surfaces and breaking the edges. There is something of a justification in that the rock “sculpture” was a naturally weathered feature that was weakly supported and likely to topple eventually, and conceivably there was a safety risk. Assuming that wasn’t an “off limits” area they were climbing in because the rangers weren’t there to tell them to stay out. Those scoutmasters did not believe themselves to be damaging anything. Perhaps it was ignorance on their part, but not quite the same thing as intentional defacement of a monument.