Park Service approves immigration rally on the Mall

| October 7, 2013 | 46 Comments

You know the Park Service closed the National Mall for the government shutdown, right? You heard that? Veterans had to sneak through the Park Service barricade around the World War II Memorial. Remember that a Park Service employee told veterans who called to inquire about the status of the memorial during their visit was told they’d be arrested? A group of veterans from Syracuse had to dismantle a barricade at the Marine Corps Monument on Saturday.

One of our ninjas sent us this link from the Washington Examiner;

Organizers for the “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform” were spotted Monday setting up a stage and equipment on the National Mall for the rally which will take place on Tuesday.

A few scattered barriers around the park have signs informing visitors that the area is closed as a result of the government shutdown.

Susana Flores, a spokesperson for the rally, confirmed for the Washington Examiner that the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group’s rights granted by the First Amendment.

Oh, yeah, Nancy Pelosi is expected to attend and the Service Employees International Union is sponsoring the rally. Maybe the veterans should have told the Park Service that their group were members of Gay Witches for Abortion. Or something funny.

Category: "Your Tax Dollars At Work", Barack Obama/Joe Biden

Loading Facebook Comments ...

Comments (46)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. rb325th says:

    If that does not make your blood boil over, you should go get yourself some electro shock therapy because your brain just is not right.

  2. Anonymous says:

    I would wager that a veterans’ rally would also quietly gain the same approval now.

    This doesn’t seem like a political issue (in terms of supporting groups who typically form the base of a certain political party) but rather a compromise based on common sense and the reaction to the outcry and problems with the WWII memorial.

    Remember that Obama isn’t calling up mid-level Parks employees and threatening them with black helicopters and SEAL Team Six. Most of the people involved are trying to do the best they can with a bad situation, and recent events highlighted that a ‘no tolerance’ policy is just a recipe for disaster.

  3. Smitty says:

    the obama administration is trying to force people to hurt from the government shutdown. right now, with just the shut down effects on their own, only select government service employees are feeling anything. in order to make people hurt and thus demand the reopening of the government, the administration is politicizing the federal parks and other things that require no federal funds. they wanted the vets to be pissed their memorial was shut, but they dont want to risk offending the illegals that they hope to get votes from soon. this is entirely political, and i say keep the government closed

  4. Smitty says:

    oh yeah, and what i was going to say before anon up above started speaking out of the wrong end.

    dont you know vets dont have 1st amendment rights? those only apply to illegal immigrants

  5. rb325th says:

    Hey anonymous. You do know that when a US Congressman called the White House to insure that the Veterans would have access to the Mall and Memorials, he was pretty much told to pound sand by the White House, not the Park Service. No, the low level flunkies are not beoing called by the White House, but their bosses were, and they called those low level employees.

  6. Anonymous says:

    @3: Parks and other things like that do require some funds – yes, the land doesn’t go anywhere if there aren’t rangers or emergency staff, but there are issues of health, safety, etc. And in our horribly litigious society, there are probably legal issues as well, I’m sad to say.

    I don’t think this administration specfically wanted the vets to be pissed – I bet had the order of these events been different, and the immigration rally canceled, most here would STILL say that was part of their ‘plan’. Make the ‘illegals’ (and forgetting legal immigrants) mad at the Republicans, etc., etc.

    Fact of the matter is, they tried to take a hard-line stance, saw it wasn’t sustainable, especially in light of 1A challenges, and are now, quietly, approving such things.

    Evidently such a sensible explanation of human behavior is ‘talking out the wrong end’ though. Clearly, this is a truly Machiavellian maneuver by Obama himself as he personally approves this, and rejects the veterans groups.

  7. Anonymous says:

    @5: And I’m saying, try the same thing now. Look, if I’m wrong -certainly possible, just unlikely in my opinion- I’ll write all my useless Congress-idiots and complain about the double standard, AND support the veteran group in question. I just think, as I said above, they saw that this ‘hard-line’ stance wasn’t going to work, and have conceded that groups have a 1A argument to do this sort of thing.

  8. MGySgtRet says:

    Anonymous #2
    Since when has this administration done anything close to compromise? Obama’s “my way or the highway” attitude has led to this current shutdown of the government and PR disaster after PR disaster for this band of incompetent buffoons.

    Obama has shown no problem with bending the rules to help out his cronies (Obamacare exemptions immediately come to mind) so don’t try to tell me that he would reach out to WWII vets who basically told him to stick his closing of their memorial up his ass. He had 80 and 90 year old men threatened with arrest if they tried to visit their memorial. This guy just does not care.

    He is allowing an Pro-immigration rally because it will be covered by the media and that will deflect attention from his dwindling support for continuing the shutdown. That was probably also the reason he sent our special forces into action this weekend but I don’t want to sound like a conspiracy theory guy.

    So in closing Anonymous, go sell your stupid koom-ba-yah shit elsewhere. You appear to be high on bat shit.

  9. Anonymous says:

    @8: My politics differ from most on here – there’s no question whatsoever that we’d disagree on the nature of compromises (or lack thereof) made by this administration. If you want to argue about that, sure, we can argue about that.

    But on this particular issue, I just don’t see the all-powerful hand of President Obama coming down to purposefully whack veterans around while coddling minorities. I see it as an idea tried and failed, and now common sense taking over. Yes, they tried to be all ‘hard-line’ and saw the result of that – which was they failed, irritated a lot of people, and it was all wholly unnecessary. If they try again, the same result would happen.. the rally would be held, and they’d .. what? Arrest people? Unlikely.

    So, they -and by they, I mean the managers at the Park Service- bent. Most of THOSE guys have probably been around longer than Obama, and aren’t politically-appointed cronies. They’re just trying to do their job as best they can, and now they see that letting this stuff go on is better than the legal and political headaches they would be subjected to for stopping it.

    Somehow people taking a common sense approach and a path of least resistance makes me selling shit? I’m no apologist for the Obama administration, I’m just calling it like I see it.

  10. USMCE8Ret says:

    My favorite part: “…the Park Service will allow the event to take place under the group’s rights granted by the First Amendment.”

    Translation? The NPS will ALLOW the event, hence, ALLOW 1st Amendment rights – this time.

  11. Club Manager says:

    A flight of Arkansas combat geezers was also in D.C. on Saturday and their welcome and treatment from the folks on your end was absolutely outstanding in every aspect. There were lots of AD welcoming them, a Rolling Thunder escort and by the time they arrived access was not a problem. These vets were ready to deal with it if necessary. Let’s do this for our Vietnam Vets in about 20 years. Sierra Hotel!!

  12. Former 11B says:

    6 Obama hasn’t rejected veterans groups. Honor Flights are also considered a First Amendment activity and are being approved just as this immigration rally was.

  13. OWB says:

    They announced from the get-go that the park closures did NOT apply to 1st Amendment activities. (How else could they justify leaving the filthy beasts in Lafayette Park??)

    Simple fact is that mostly lefties exercise 1st Amendment activities on the Mall. It would be interesting to plan a huge church service on the Mall just to see what would happen to that application.

  14. Smitty says:

    Anon, if this isnt political, why are people being kicked out of their houses, that they paid for, that sit on federal land over the shut down? private businesses that happen to be on federal land are being closed and federal employees are being stationed outside their businesses to ensure they stay closed. great use of our shut down government employees, aint it? but thats not politcal, the administration isnt just trying to make sure people feel the pain of the shutdown when there isnt much at all in the first place. obama is a big government guy, when the government shut down and no one cared, he had to prove that people need the government (they dont) so he started squeezing groups and people he knew would be loudest. amnesty is a big part of his agenda, so it would back fire on him to not allow immigrants to hold their rally.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/10/07/lawmakers-probe-reports-property-owners-kicked-off-federal-land-amid-partial/

  15. Ex-PH2 says:

    Anonymous, apparently you are not paying attention.

    yo’ boy bodaprez is now saying ‘call a vote right now’ on the funding bill ‘and let’s see what happens’. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/07/20856722-obama-to-boehner-hold-a-vote-call-a-vote-right-now-lets-see-what-happens?lite

    Is this like ‘double-dog dare you’? Sort of. This kind of brinksmanship on display is appropriate in warfare, chess and checkers, and maybe even a shootout at the OK Corral.

    Either he is stupid enough to think that nothing will go wrong if the funding issue is not resolved by Lew’s deadline (10/17/13) or he doesn’t understand what WILL happen if it is not resolved.

    This is sheer stupidity on the part of someone who has a history of being a dabbler and a dilletante, and not someone who takes the job seriously.

  16. David says:

    I do think it’s safe to say this admonistration has NOT been veteran-friendly… between the Tricare flap in the west and all the VA issues, which have apparently drawn no effective cures – yes, I would be shocked if a veterans’ group was granted a permit. Remember, it was just Friday that the administration said groups would be allowed in – then promptly wired the barricades together. Bluntly, at this point there’re a boatload more illegal immigrants that vets, and they have a higher birth rate. The Prez may limply wave an imperial hand to vets, but he kisses immigrants babies. And asses.

  17. Ex-PH2 says:

    Oh, yeah, and while I”m at it, Anonymouse, government contract Catholic priests who hold Mass for Catholic military have been barred from holding Mass on military bases under threat of arrest, EVEN IF THEY DO SO VOLUNTARILY, WITHOUT PAY.

    This is a 1st Amendment violation – freedom of religion, guaranteed by the Constitution. If it isn’t political, then what is it?

    Answer from you, Anonymous, would be really great.

    It does not matter that the House subsequently passed a unanimous resolution to allow priests to do this. It matters that it was done in the first place.

    So if it isn’t political, Anonymous, then what is it? I want an answer from you.

  18. David says:

    (crickets)

  19. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    Anonymous. 1A? If you mean the 1st Amendment, try writing just that. That 1A shorthand is unique to you and is quite unsightly.

  20. Smitty says:

    PH, i have started useing your term “Bodaprez” in conversation, i do hope there is no copy right violation

  21. OWB says:

    (Doesn’t 1A have something to do with one’s draft status?)

  22. TN says:

    ANON: You are being an apologist for the Admin. I thought maybe you had simply misunderstood or been misunderstood at first, but you have clarified it.

    It costs more money to lock down the open air monuments than to send a (delayed, but paid) parkranger through it once in a while. It costs more money to barricade a parking lot (Mt Vernon) than to just leave it open, particularly since it requires no attention to begin with.

    The Admin itself made the decision to barricade the monuments, not a rogue Parks agent. The employees are “just following orders,” even if the orders are immoral and wrong (but not illegal). The Admin made clear they would block WWII Veterans again, threatening arrest of the arrivals this week (though they probably won’t enforce that red line anymore than they did the one in Syria), but the wired barricades came AFTER the publicity of the WWII Vets overrunning the first barricades.

    The Admin has been quite clear that it wants to spread the pain.

    Interestingly, WSMV (channel 5, CBS, Nashville) aired the story of how the parks shutdown is having a local effect: The “full time RV’er” made the case that by having to move his RV to a private park would come at the detriment of grocery stores and other private businesses, because full time RV’ers spend a bunch of money. Of course, the federally owned park he was living in happened also to be a Corps of Engineers park (Piercy Priest) he was working at, and he’ll still get a paycheck for his time off. And I presume that while he may shop at a different grocery store, he’ll still be buying groceries. But his message was clear: it’s Boehner’s fault that Reid wouldn’t vote on and Obama wouldn’t sign a bill to fund the park system.

    Of course, the MSM continues to ignore that the Admin is trying to prevent the citizenry and WWII Veterans from visiting the Memorial.

  23. Old Trooper says:

    As I told you many times before, Jonn; some people are more equal than others.

  24. TN says:

    The SEIU (sponsor of the rally) is an active propaganda arm for the Admin and his party. The message of the rally will demand that the Admin’s policy on illegal immigrants be enacted. Is that pandering to a (non-voting) voting block, or is that ensuring its political message is given the stage on public lands?

    It would be interesting to see, if Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Sarah Palin, the NRA, or the Tea Party requested a permit, if they would get the same reception by “the NPS.”

  25. Ex-PH2 says:

    Smitty, be my guest. I’d like to see someone use it on TV. Maybe I could get some late night talk show host to do it.

  26. OWB says:

    TN: Have been involved with the acquisition of permits for several events from NPS. They are great people, and are very happy to see folks who clean up their own mess and are generally respectful of what most NPS personnel consider sacred ground around all the Memorials. I can say without reservation that they are the single most responsive and responsible group of federal employees with whom I ever worked on anything.

    Keep in mind that the pesky First Amendment covers several things, which evidently are being allowed to still occur on the Mall. They said so. The signs posted say so. And groups of 20 or less do not require permits for First Amendment activities.

    The Mall is a pretty large piece of real estate. There could be a bunch of groups of 20 or less roaming around, doing whatever it is that they can do that is protected by the First Amendment, with impunity, it would seem.

  27. TN says:

    OWB: Please don’t consider my comments earlier to malign the NPS employees. While I’m sure I could find some I don’t like (as with any organization), I strongly differentiate (at least in my mind, if it didn’t come across), the employee from the policy makers (politicians in this case) that have decided to block the Memorials.

    Also, I’m an avid supporter of the Bill of Rights, not least of which is the 1st Amendment, as it was written, without constraints more recently applied (i.e. “hate speech” or political correctness.)

    While I might use that right to tell someone that they “should shut up,” (generally in less aggressive terms), I would not support a law to force them to shut up, even if their words were insanely un-American.

    It’s not that I think that the SEIU should be prevented from spouting their idiocy, but that I believe we have equal rights to point out their idiocy, and their taskmasters and goals.

    In the case at hand, the problem is that decisions of partisan politicians working in the White House, is following partisan lines, rather than the Constitution.

  28. Anonymous says:

    @ Smitty (#14): When I said ‘this isn’t political’, I was referring just to the granting of park access to this immigration rally. Not the other horde of issues that are popping up because of the shutdown. Pretty much everything there is a political football. Again, I’m willing to bet that any similar request by a veterans group now would be met with a similar exemption and be allowed to happen.

    Throwing people off lands? Shuttering businesses? I don’t know anything about that, but it wouldn’t surprise me. I wasn’t defending the administration at all on their actions, I simply don’t see their evil, all-powerful hand in this.

  29. Eric says:

    The unfortunate fact is, far too often people like Park Rangers take HEAT rounds for someone else’s policy or directive. In this case, the White house is telling them to spend MORE money to do this than it would be to leave them open.

    Oh and of course SEIU is going to get to do what they want, after all they are the biggest funder of the democratic party:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204707104578091030386721670.html

  30. Anonymous says:

    @ Ex-PH2 (#15): The President of the United States is most certainly not ‘my boy’. And I’m paying enough attention to see the political games on all sides; I haven’t defended the Administration’s actions in any of these posts – I’ve simply said that the actions of the Parks department here seem to simply be a case of learning that their previous stance was untenable. Alas, on here, that makes me President Obama’s water-boy.

  31. Anonymous says:

    @ David (#16): The Tricare debacle is utterly indefensible, absolutely. The VA issues.. well, there’s a long, sordid history of them – I think all recent administrations lose points on that one.

    I will again, however, disagree on what would happen if a veterans group applied for a park permit now under the First Amendment exemption that this group used. You can reasonably disagree, but that’s just how I see it.

  32. Anonymous says:

    @ Ex-PH2 (again, #17) : Yes, I know about contract priests being forbidden from performing mass, and I think it’s batshit crazy. I also don’t think a) they’d be arrested, and b) it’s Obama’s fault.

    My understanding of this is that it relates to the Antideficiency Act and the lack of non-contractor Catholic priests. If you’re a lawyer and know more about the Antideficiency Act, perhaps you know more than me, but since that’s an old law -1870- it’s a wee bit before President Obama’s time. And the lack of active duty Catholic priests is also not really his problem.

    Is this stupid? Hell yes. Nowhere have I defended any of these senseless bits of idiocy. If Congress subsequently passed a resolution allowing this, that’s fantastic – Congress actually got something right for once. But it wasn’t ‘done’ by the President to enact some misguided vengeance on Catholics.

  33. Anonymous says:

    @19 (2/17 Air Cav) : Sorry, I was pretty busy and had been speaking to a lawyer earlier in the day who referred to 4A, and between that and 2A, I just figured 1A was a decent abbreviation. I used the full ‘First Amendment’ name in my replies above.

  34. Anonymous says:

    @ TN (#22) : I have not been an apologist for the administration in the least. I am well aware that it costs money to lock these things down, but since when has Washington ever operated with a ‘common-sense’ approach to things? And yes, certainly, there’s a desire to make these effects felt for political reasons.

    What *I* said I see differently is that the WWII group was facing resistance and the immigration rally is not, and where most here attribute THAT to politics, I simply attribute it to a bit of sense creeping into the Parks departments’ collective noggins. They saw how the WWII group went, know they can’t do that, and have found a nice little loophole that lets them grant exceptions. That’s MY view of things. You feel differently? No problem, but it doesn’t make me a stooge for the current administration.

    Attitudes on the shutdown are heated and evolving fast; I’m pretty sure we’re at the point of cooler heads recognizing that allowing groups from one political stripe in and forbidding ones of the others is a great way to look completely and utterly pathetic. Which most of YOU already feel, but some of us don’t – and would, if that were indeed the case.

  35. Ex-PH2 says:

    @32 Your words: I also don’t think a) they’d be arrested, and b) it’s Obama’s fault.

    A) They have been threatened with arrest if they attempt to enter the base and perform a Mass for Catholics on the base, as unpaid volunteers. That is a fact.

    B) That directive, like the directives for the park rangers to force people out of their homes and businesses came from the White House. That is a fact.

    So if it isn’t Obama’s fault, then whose fault is it?

    Are you naive enough to believe he didn’t do that? If he didn’t, then who did it? Was it Bigfoot?

  36. Anonymous says:

    @35: Who has ‘threatened’ them with arrest? That threat exists because, in my understanding of things, a contractor priest would be violating existing law.. something which generally CAN result in arrest. Not NEW law enacted by the Obama administration, an existing (and old) law.

    I haven’t seen anyone actually talking about enforcing that law and threatening contracted Catholic priests with arrest, though, so if you do, I’d be genuinely interested in seeing it.

    Being ‘threatened’ because you’re violating a law -even a really dumb one- is different from this current administration actively threatening them.

    And I don’t think anyone ‘did it’ – I think lawyers looked at how this shutdown will impact things, some found these absolutely crazy scenarios, and of course the media picks up on them and runs with it. In some ways, to their credit, since this SHOULD be fixed, as it was, but generally speaking the media is light on legal background and big on outrage.

    Again, if you have some release from the White House that shows they’re telling Catholic priests specifically that if they perform mass they’ll direct MP to arrest them, I’d be happy to see it. That would be certifiably nuts.

  37. malclave says:

    @28
    When I said ‘this isn’t political’, I was referring just to the granting of park access to this immigration rally.

    Given this administration’s history (such as the IRS’s lopsided scrutiny of conservative groups prior to the election), I’m not sure that I can concede that it might not be political.

    Since the National Park Service is part of the executive branch, it’s safest to assume that anything it does is out of partisan politics, unless proven otherwise.

  38. Eric says:

    Like it or not, the white house is obviously doing things to purposely put a hurt on the American populace where it can.

    However, it very well remembers who pays their bills, like the SEIU.

    But then this is the same President that allowed veterans to start paying more out of pocket to get their EARNED health care, while giving more “free shit” to people who don’t. (factcheck.org is a wonder in this case)

    Regardless anonymous, when I see a news report indicating that the WWII memorial is open again, then you can say something about it being “a mistake they corrected.” At this point, they are letting the group that pays them the most do something they aren’t letting veterans do. And THAT is confirmed as being the White House. And last I checked, Obama ran the White House, or maybe SEIU does? Or perhaps they just share it?

  39. TN says:

    ANON (Pick a name on here, will you, it’ll separate you from all the other “Anonymous” partisan hacks that wander through): The Administration threatened the WWII Vets coming in *this* week (Wed if I recall correctly) with arrest if they go to the WWII Memorial, as per their schedule. Honor Flight called to check last week.

    That’s not the Park Rangers, or NPS, that’s the White House. Park Rangers didn’t just sit around one night and say: “Hey, ya know what: Let’s go rent some barriers and put them up around the monuments and close them down and get some more and close down the parking lot over by Mt Vernon.” No, those were the orders they got from their bosses, who got them by the political appointee running NPS, who got them from chief elected politician.

    And given that he has been made aware of the problem, by members of Congress, even if the original decision were only made by his political appointee, he has NOT rectified it. No, instead, he had the barriers wired together, AND threatened the next set of Veterans with arrest.

    If he is, as you imply you believe, ignorant of the costs and actions of barricading memorials, businesses, and parking lots, then he is not doing his job of president of the government.

  40. Flagwaver says:

    Most roads are paid for by the state. Scenic routes are definitely paid for by the state. Yet, the Federal Government shut down turn-outs along a stretch of Scenic Route that you could view Mount Rushmore from. Oh, and they also told boaters that they couldn’t use the Ocean because of how much money the government must pay to upkeep the ocean.

  41. Old Trooper says:

    @28: I do. You can’t be serious in not seeing how this is playing out. The War Memorials and the National Mall were closed. Sure, the WWII memorial was stormed and overrun, but when they tried the same tactic at the Vietnam Wall, they brought in the Park Police to kick everyone out. btw, the Park Service was told to make it as painful as possible to the American people. How that doesn’t tell you that this administration is clearly targeting certain aspects of our population, I don’t know. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to see that this President’s actions are deliberate. I could throw out more examples to tie this all together for you, but I don’t want to continue to rehash what everyone already knows. Connect the dots and it will become clear to you.

  42. Ex-PH2 says:

    @36, Anonymous – per your request, this is from the Military Archdiocese of the USA: http://www.milarch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dwJXKgOUJiIaG&b=8486699&ct=13344123

    Yes, the Catholic priests are under threat of arrest for the mere act of entering a base where they normally work, and holding Mass EVEN IF THEY DO SO VOLUNTARILY – MEANING NO PAY.

    That does not come from me. It is NOT a rumor. It comes from the White House, you moron.

    Being a contractor does NOT make a volunteer risk arrest for doing his normal job VOLUNTARILY, meaning NO PAY. And why ONLY Catholics? There are bases where active duty military Catholic chaplains are present, you know.

    Oh, but you don’t go to church, so it means nothing to you, does it? Why not just admit that you are trolling for the administration?

    You certainly are not the voice of reason.

  43. TN says:

    On the Priests:
    Evidently, the Admin considers it criminal for a member of the clergy to provide *free* services to the Troops, but *only fair* for bureaucrats to be given paid time off to not do their jobs.

    The consistent theme is “workers shall not work,” paid or not. The difference is one is rewarded with pay for not working, while the other is threatened with punishment of arrest for working.

    Pablo Escobar, as well as many mobsters, used similar tactics of reward and punishment to attain the actions of the peasantry and bureaucrats that they wanted.

  44. Anonymous Independent says:

    @36: I understand all that – and, now time to share a link with you, from a conservative Catholic website and a formerly contract priest (now volunteer to get around these issues). The post itself is outraged, but the comments have some people with real experience in this, in particular ‘vandalia’. Check it out:

    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/10/obama-administration-attacks-catholic-military-personnel-and-threatens-their-chaplains/

    You’ll find plenty of anti-Obama rhetoric, but the replies from ‘vandalia’ are of particular interest given his personal experience. He says that a Catholic priest at a prison can’t ‘volunteer’ his services either. And he also says this rule was strictly enforced during his tenure under the Bush administration, too. It’s a really interesting read.

    Do I disagree with all this nonsense? Absolutely – it’s nuts. It’s also the law. Whether it would be enforced or not is a different issue – I’ve been inclined to think not, but the above posts indicate it has been in recent years, again starting under the Bush administration, not Obama doing a big, scary attack on Catholics.

    Oh, and it’s also not only Catholics – they’re simply the most affected due to the shortage of non-contracted Catholic priests in the military.

    And yes, compared to someone who is screaming I’m a moron and a shill for an administration I don’t support, and that I don’t go to church, which isn’t something you could possibly know, .. yes, this is the voice of reason.

  45. OWB says:

    @ #44: Evidently you are purposefully misunderstanding the concept that the contract priests are not allowed to enter the bases which they serve, locked out of their offices on those bases (not that it matters since they cannot get to the buildings which house the offices), and that Catholics were officially denied services this past week-end around the world because of this.

    This makes sense to someone somewhere but not to me. The chapels already exist on the bases, the lights are on for other services, and conducting a Catholic service would cost nothing. The only purpose locking the priests off the bases serves is to deny worship services to the Catholics on base.

    I do not care who is in control of any branch of gubmint, the executive is responsible for this. End of story.

    And for the record – we had volunteer clergy lead worship services for nothing during the Bush years. It may or may not have been a widespread practice (I simply do not know if more than a few other bases also did this), but it happened with some regularity on my base. And was an approved method of providing a variety of denominational worship experiences.

    Ya know – it is rather tough to stomach your calling yourself a voice of reason when you are flat out lying, being intentionally obtuse, or however you prefer to characterize your self-righteous ignorance.

  46. Anonymous Independent says:

    @ OWB: I’m not purposefully misunderstanding anything. And I find this whole thing ridiculous. I’m simply explaining the background behind it.

    I understand that (federally contracted) Catholic priests have been locked out – the reason being that their access relates to their contract, which with the shutdown isn’t presently valid. I also understand that VOLUNTEER priests don’t have this issue, as they’re volunteering and thus have no contract which they’re violating. (We’re talking legal contracts here, not moral ones.)

    Again, please, read the link above and the comments by the ex-contractor, conservative Catholic priest. I have no love whatsoever for this policy, nor this administration, but clearly I’m seeing as a liberal devil, hence why I provided a link to a conservative with first-hand knowledge of this.

    And yes, the Executive is in charge of this – President Chester A. Arthur’s Executive, or so it seems. Should the current one be able to do something about this? Absolutely, and it seems Congress is indeed finally addressing this. Thankfully.

    Basically, volunteer priests? No issue. Contract ones? That’s a problem because of the Anti-deficiency Act. Stupid? Absolutely.

    I’m not flat out lying, being obtuse, or calling people names. What part of the above facts do you disagree with? Please, I’ll try to find more sources to back them up. I don’t understand why pointing out that this IS stupid, but not Obama specifically attacking Catholics, is so utterly horrendous. There’s plenty of things he’s actually done wrong that you can be mad at; there’s no need to invent new ones.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *