Skip to comments.Obama Park Service Official Beaten Like A Rented Mule At OWS Hearing
Posted on 01/26/2012 10:55:47 AM PST by Nachum
The head of the National Park Service defended his decision to let Occupy protesters camp out in a park in the middle of Washington, D.C., though he said Tuesday the group will be given one last warning before being evicted.
NPS Director Jonathan Jarvis testified to the House Oversight and Government Reform subcommittee on the District of Columbia that protests are a right under the First Amendment, although he acknowledged that some homeless people "have taken advantage of the situation."
He added that this is not the first time the Park Service has allowed protesters to remain for weeks at a site.
"Whatever they are protesting is irrelevant to our decisions. Our decisions are based on the totality" of the circumstances, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nation.foxnews.com ...
The list, Ping
Let me know if you would like to be on or off the ping list
LOL. love the title. be back later!
Try to violate, let alone persist in violating, park rules as an individual not affiliated with a left wing group and you will be promptly arrested by a park ranger.
If this was the Tea Party, this guy wouldn’t be defending their actions - he’d be trying to get rid of them....
I love Congressman Joe Walsh from IL. I give kudos to Congressman Issa also.
You know, I was just wondering. What would be the reaction at all of these parks and public squares if the National Right to Life organized an Occupy movement for the rights of the unborn? I wonder how quickly these city governments would send in the swat teams to shut it down.
The hypocrisy and political favoritism with respect to Constitutional rights are laughable if you can stop crying long enough.
That is a non sequitur. The "totality of the circumstances," by definition, include the subject of the protest. If they are irrelevant to the NPS decision, than they are not basing their decisions on the totality of the circumstances. If they base their decisions on the totality of the circumstances, then the subject ofthe protest has to be considered in their decision...
And furthermore if the National Right to Life ever forms a 501(c)3 to organize such a movement, I will send them money.
Occupier encampments are so 2011.
Protest is certainly a First Amendment right. Provision of a place to do it by the government is not. Public property is just that - public. It is to be shared by all the public and not monopolized by one group with a particular political viewpoint. Other groups must also be allocated time, and in fact time must be allocated to those other members of the public who don’t wish to protest anything at all but merely wish to walk their dog or play frisbee or just sit and listen to the birds.
A right does not create an entitlement.
Do they have rules or not? If they selectively enforce their rules, why and how do they do so?
These are simple questions.
That statement reeks so much of common sense as to border on racism. < / sarcasm >
I wish these f**ks would try to “occupy” a gun show.
"Whatever they are protesting is irrelevant to our decisions. Our decisions are based on the totality" of the circumstances, he said."I think "totality of the circumstances" means "guidance we get from the political people in the White House."
Oh yes. That’s not unheard of as an overt criticism. Poor people cannot afford to exercise their rights and poor people are disproportionately black, so to oppose the use of tax money to fund people who cannot afford to exercise their rights is racism.
Lately I’ve answered this by saying, “Oh, so if you can’t afford to exercise your rights then the government should pay you to do so? Cool. I want an $800 shotgun, which is my right to own and carry according to the 2nd Amendment. You’ll support the government paying for my gun for me?”
"THIS time, I'm really, really really really serious!"
Jeez, stop talking about it and kick 'em out already.