VIDEO: OOOOO OOOOO THAT SMELL, CAN YOU SMELL THAT SMELL???

 

MAKE IT A SHOT OF HEINZ.....

 

Christie: NRA is ‘reprehensible’ for targeting Obama’s daughters 17JAN13

GOV Christie r NJ has some harsh words for the nra's ad attacking Pres Obama's Secret Service protection for his daughters when they are at school. Maybe the governor's words will make some, especially gop Congressmen and women, think twice about following the nra's dictates and believing their propaganda. From Raw Story.....

By Eric W. Dolan

Share on facebook

Share on redditShare on diggShare on twitterShare on farkShare on stum

At a press conference on Thursday, Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey blasted the National Rifle Association for airing a commercial about President Barack Obama’s daughters.

“To talk about the president’s children or any public official’s children who have, not by their own choice, but by requirement, protection and to use that somehow to try to make a political point I think is reprehensible,” he said.

The controversial ad said Obama was a “elitist hypocrite” because the Secret Service guards his daughters at school. The President recently said he was skeptical of the NRA’s proposal to stop mass shootings by placing armed guards in every school.

“I think it’s awful to bring public figures’ children into the political debate,” he added. “They don’t deserve to be there. For any of us who are public figures, you see that kind of ad and you cringe.”“You know, the President doesn’t have a choice and his children don’t have a choice of whether they’re going to be protected or not,” Christie said.

Christie held the press conference to announce the creation of a task force to study ways to reduce gun violence in New Jersey.

Watch video, uploaded to YouTube, below:

Raw Story (http://s.tt/1yCfi)
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/01/17/christie-nra-is-reprehensible-for-targeting-obamas-daughters/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheRawStory+%28The+Raw+Story%29

Poolside Service and Prostitutes: Legal Group's FOIA Demands Taxpayer Cost of Secret Service's "Party" in Colombia 17APR12

WE, the people, do have a right to know what the Secret Service "Spring Break, Secret Service Boys Gone Wild" antics have cost us financially (we already know the nation and our President have been humiliated). I am sure these few don't represent the service as a whole, but in difficult times when people are still having a hard time paying bills and mortgages and buying food and gas there is no justification for these public servants to be drinking and whoring on our dime.....

Poolside Service and Prostitutes: Legal Group's FOIA Demands Taxpayer Cost of Secret Service's "Party" in Colombia

The Partnership for Civil Justice Fund (PCJF) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on Monday, April 16 with the U.S. Secret Service (USSS) demanding that the agency release records reflecting the use of taxpayer funds for expenditures for, " flight, hotel, dining, drinking, bar service, room service, prostitution, escorts, companions, recreational or entertainment services" as well as costs " necessitated by the removal and/or transport of the Secret Service’s agents from Colombia and their return and/or transport to the United States, as well as any expenditures or payments to the local police agencies or law enforcement." The FOIA to the Secret Service states: “The American public in general has a right to know the extent of the federal government's public expenditures and how its tax dollars are being spent on entertainment and leisure activities, poolside drinking, prostitution, and protection of Secret Service agents from law enforcement in Cartenega, Colombia, particularly given the current state of the economy, budget cuts to education, healthcare and housing, and the Secret Service's budget demands for asserted security functions.” “Time and again, the public is expected to bow to the Secret Service's decisions to bar, remove or distance protesters from being able to have their messages heard by the President, candidates or other officials, with the untested assertion that there is a 'security' need for such abridgement of First Amendment rights. Fundamentally, the public has an interest in the functioning and representations and conduct and character of the U.S. Secret Service in the execution of Presidential security functions, particularly where Courts and the public are asked to defer to the representations of the Secret Service,” stated Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director for the PCJF. "There is nothing about this incident that suggests it was an aberration," Verheyden-Hilliard continued. "Given that it only came to light because one woman went to the police, it raises the question as to whether women worldwide who are forced into prostitution for survival are used by Secret Service personnel on the public's dime when they carry out their Presidential advance duties." Updates and information received from this FOIA request will be made available at www.JusticeOnline.org. Read the Freedom of Information Act request here.

H.R. 347: Get the Truth on the New "Protest Law" from THE PARTNERSHIP FOR CIVIL JUSTICE FUND 8MAR12

I have seen several e mails about the death of free speech and protest rights as described in the e mail below, but waited to see how things were going to shake out. Here are the facts about HR 347 from the good people at PCJF, check it out and share and don't let anyone scare you from exercising your 1st amendment rights!

H.R. 347: Get the Truth on the New "Protest Law" A Factsheet written by the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund

From Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund H.R. 347: Get the Truth on the New “Protest Law” This past week there has been a rallying cry in defense of free speech sounding the alarm that there is brand new legislation, H.R. 347, that some have wrongly argued radically transforms the landscape for protestors in the United States. Today, President Obama signed H.R. 347 into law. Much of what has been written about H.R. 347 is not correct. We are writing this to clarify the situation and separate fact from fiction. Many of the articles and email blasts claim that the law at issue, H.R. 347, “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” was written in response to, and targets, the Occupy Movement and is a new full scale assault on dissent in general. There have been alerts, articles and email campaigns urging people to take action asserting that the new bill “criminalizes protest,” is “severely curtailing First Amendment liberties,” “makes protest illegal,” is “outlawing the Occupy Movement,” and makes “free speech a felony.” There is even one campaign titled, “Say Goodbye to Your First Amendment Rights.” Sounds alarming. At the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, we have received many calls and inquiries regarding the central question: how does this law affect protestor rights? We think these facts will help: Fact: H.R. 347 does not represent a new law regulating free speech rights. Most of the language of H.R. 347 has been on the books since 2006. H.R. 347 is an amendment to an existing law, 18 USC § 1752 “restricted buildings and grounds,” that has existed in various forms since 1971. The most significant amendments to the law occurred in 2006. The law is a bad law -- but it has been a bad law for years. Much of the language that people are talking about this week already exists and has existed for years. The language about “an event designated as a special event of national significance”? Already there. The language about “engaging in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to” a restricted area? Already there. The language about “conspiracy”? Already there. Fact: The purpose of the existing law, and why it’s bad. The law as substantially amended in 2006 is very problematic and people should be rightfully concerned. What the law does (but this is not new) is it creates what is in essence a roving or movable zone of federal law enforcement jurisdiction around any person who is under Secret Service protection or in conjunction with a National Special Security Event (NSSE), as distinguished from a permanently fixed location. This allows for federal prosecution of persons who commit enumerated violations of the law within that zone and some of those violations read like classic protest activities. Among other things, the law allows the Secret Service to designate what would normally be public space as a restricted area and for there to be federal prosecution of anyone who “enters or remains” in a restricted area where a person under Secret Service protection will be visiting or which is restricted in conjunction with an NSSE; or who engages in “disorderly or disruptive conduct” with the intent and effect of “imped[ing] or disrupt[ing] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;” or who blocks entrance to or exit from a restricted area. Certain major events are designated as NSSEs, and there are at least three on the horizon this year. They include DNC and RNC major party conventions this summer and the NATO meeting in Chicago in May. Other events that are so designated have included IMF/World Bank meetings, G-8 and G-20 meetings, the Inaugurations, and even the Super Bowl. Fact: What is new about the H.R. 347 amendments? 1. The existing law required that for a person to be prosecuted under it, they would have had to carry out those described acts both “willfully” and “knowingly.” The requirement of “willfulness” generally means that a conviction requires proof that the person knew his conduct was unlawful. H.R. 347 strikes the “willfully” requirement. The new amendments appear to intend for a person to be convicted only by “knowingly” taking the actions described even if the person does not know that the actions are unlawful. As amended, a conviction arguably only requires proof that a person “knowingly entered” a certain area. This is an effort to lower the bar for prosecutors who would, arguably, no longer have to prove that a person knew his conduct was unlawful. 2. The other major change is the inclusion of the White House and grounds and the Vice President’s residence and grounds as fixed zones of designation. You might wonder why this is even necessary. Of course, entering into the White House and its fenced-in grounds is already a federal violation. We think this particular change is to target demonstration activity, specifically that which occurs on the White House sidewalk just outside the perimeter fence (as detailed in 36 C.F.R. §7.96 it is lawful to protest on the White House sidewalk, which is under National Park Service jurisdiction). We think that the Government wishes to make it easier to prosecute protestors who step up off of the White House sidewalk and stand on the concrete ledge supporting the fence, something which tourists can be seen doing all the time. We are also concerned that the Secret Service seeks to be able to expand its jurisdiction and authority to create pop-up cordoned off restriction zones in front of the White House extending to areas where demonstrators lawfully assemble. The PCJF will be closely monitoring the use of the new amendments and the existing law and is prepared to take legal action where merited. Fact: There are no new penalties under this law. Contrary to some of what has been written in the past week, there are no new penalties in the law. The law has also already been used in the past to prosecute demonstrators. We do think that it is very likely that the Government is looking at the upcoming NSSE events which are sure to draw demonstrations and determining what is in their arsenal to arrest and prosecute persons engaged in protests. They are keenly aware of the growing social justice movement -- more than 6,700 peaceful protestors have been arrested in a sustained and coordinated attack against the Occupy movement since September 2011. This includes the 700 people falsely arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge on whose behalf the PCJF has filed a class action lawsuit seeking to vindicate their constitutional rights. Fact: What Should A Person Do Who Is Concerned About Free Speech Rights? We believe in firmly defending fundamental First Amendment rights in the courts and in the streets. Challenge this law’s effect on protest, yes. But it is critical to have accurate information in hand to wage that fight and not to assert the death of free speech rights when we are not at that moment. As with any law, we are cognizant of any adverse impact on free speech and protest and dissent. While this law, including in its already existing form, is adverse, and serious, it is essential that those of us challenging abridgments of free speech or restrictions on dissent do so from a basis that is factual and accurate. It is equally important not to spread fear and inaccurate information that has the effect of chilling participation in collective action and demonstrations. So here’s what else you can do: stay vigilant about our civil rights and civil liberties and be prepared to take action to defend them; sign up for news and analysis you can trust from the PCJF, and most importantly, keep going out to the streets!