Stand By Your Man?

[PoxEclipse]

[video=youtube;CiJ-yrpp7Yc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiJ-yrpp7Yc[/video]

Michelle Obama Pushes for Free Speech on China Tour




Restricted Access

Claim: The passage of HR 347 makes it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present.

MIXTURE

Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2012]

What is the truth behind bill HR 347. Are there now no free speech zones?

"HR 347, just signed without fanfare or news coverage by Barack Obama makes it illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present. Who is present everywhere that Barack Obama goes? That's right, the Secret Service. Ergo, it is illegal to protest Barack Obama. Well, there goes the 1st Amendment."

Origins: In February 2012, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act was passed in the Senate by unanimous consent and (as HR 347) approved by the House of Representatives by a lopsided vote of 399-3; the bill was then signed into law by President Obama. This bill was an updating of an existing law, originally enacted in 1971, that restricted access to areas around the president, vice president, or any others under the protection of the Secret Service.

HR 347 did not technically make it "illegal to protest anywhere the Secret Service is present," as a law to that effect had already been in place for over forty years. The primary differences between the previously existing law and the updated version enacted by HR 347 are:

• The old law made it a federal offense to "willfully and knowingly" enter restricted buildings or grounds, now the law only specifies that one must "knowingly" enter such a space to be in violation of the law.
• The updated version specifically defines the phrase "restricted buildings or grounds" to include "the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds."

Opinions vary as to the impact of these changes. Addressing the issue of the difference between the old law's "willfully and knowingly" vs. the new law's use of just "knowingly," Russell Smith wrote in the LASIS (Legal As She Is Spoke) blog of New York Law School's Program in Law and Journalism that the difference is of little legal import:

The difference between "willingly" and "knowingly" was set out in the 1998 Supreme Court decision Bryan v. United States, which held that in order to act "willfully," a person must know his conduct is unlawful. On the other hand, the mental state "knowingly" requires only that a person is aware of the factual events that led to the crime.

But while this may seem like a significant difference, it isn't. Not at all.

For example, protesters prosecuted under the old law, with the magic "willfully" present, could not honestly have claimed that they had no idea that trespassing or disorderly conduct was illegal. Such a claim would have been laughed out of court.

The "knowing" element of the new H.R. 347 — all by itself — requires the government to prove that a person was actually aware he was (1) entering, blocking or being disorderly and (2) in or around a restricted area. This means that those who were unaware that they crossed into a restricted area or accidentally blocked the entrance of a restricted building could not be charged under the law.

Through his communications director, Rep. Thomas Rooney defended H.R. 347 by saying, "right now it's not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn; this bill makes it a federal violation." This is the only aspect of the law that was substantively expanded, and so on this score, Rep. Rooney is right because prior to the new law, it was not a federal crime to trespass on the White House lawn if the President or his family was not inside.
​

Others disagreed with this assessment. Lucy Steigerwald, writing for Reason magazine, quoted the following from Will Adams, a lawyer who current serves as the deputy chief of staff for Congressman Justin Amash:

The bill makes it illegal knowingly to enter or remain in a restricted building or grounds without legal authority to do so. A restricted building or grounds is defined as a "restricted area" where a person protected by the Secret Service "is or will be temporarily visiting." According to federal law (18 U.S.C. § 3056), the Secret Service is authorized to protect "visiting heads of foreign states or foreign governments" and "other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States."

So, let's say a G-20 meeting is hosted in the U.S. and the Secret Service decides it wants a larger perimeter surrounding the event where only G-20 members and staff can be. A person could be arrested and found guilty of violating this law — with up to 10 years in prison if they're carrying a weapon, one year in prison if they're not — for merely walking into the restricted area, without even knowing walking into the area is illegal.
​

Gabe Rottman of the ACLU's Washington Legislative Office took something of a middle ground, writing of the bill that:

H.R. 347 has been variously described as making the First Amendment illegal or criminalizing the Occupy protests.

The truth is more mundane, but the issues raised are still of major significance for the First Amendment.

It's important to note — contrary to some reports — that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.

H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

Without getting too much into the weeds, most crimes require the government to prove a certain state of mind. Under the original language of the law, you had to act "willfully and knowingly" when committing the crime. In short, you had to know your conduct was illegal. Under H.R. 347, you will simply need to act "knowingly," which here would mean that you know you're in a restricted area, but not necessarily that you're committing a crime.

Any time the government lowers the intent requirement, it makes it easier for a prosecutor to prove her case, and it gives law enforcement more discretion when enforcing the law.
​

Dahlia Lithwick and Raymond Vasvari opined in Slate that even under the older version of the law, the increasing designation of "restricted buildings or grounds" to encompass events and functions that have nothing to do with the government creates an unreasonable restriction on the right to engage in free speech where "protected" persons are present:

The types of events and individuals warranting Secret Service protection have grown exponentially since the law was enacted in 1971. Today, any occasion that is officially defined as a National Special Security Event (NSSE) calls for Secret Service protection. NSSE's can include basketball championships, concerts, and the Winter Olympics, which have nothing whatsoever to do with government business, official functions, or improving public grounds. Every Super Bowl since 9/11 has been declared an NSSE.

When it comes to relegating demonstrators to obscurity, two approaches predominate: keeping protesters outside an expansive, sanitized bubble that surrounds the very event they have come to protest, or allowing them to come closer, but only within the confines of heavily policed "protest pens" that one federal judge likened to temporary internment camps.

The exclusion zones imposed by [the law] have no natural or intuitive spatial boundaries. They can be as large as law enforcement claims is necessary to ensure the security of whoever the Secret Service is protecting. The "free speech zone" is a moving target, not a delineated area.
​

Russell Smith summarized by maintaining that even the minor changes to existing law implemented by HR 347 were unnecessary, and the law as it now stands "violates protesters' first amendment right to protest in their preferred public place":

Proponents of H.R. 347 claim it advances the government's interest in protecting its property from damage and its officials from intruders. But every state's laws already criminalize trespass, disorderly conduct and criminal mischief.

For example, jumping the White House's fence would be a violation of the District of Columbia's trespass statute, which subjects jumpers to up to six months in jail. Since police can arrest and remove anyone in violation of this state law, the government doesn't need H.R. 347 in order to protect its property from damage and its officials from intruders.

And, the practical consequence of H.R. 347's more serious punishment is that it will deter activists from staging protests near important policymakers.

The impact on protest locations is not incidental. The law was purposefully constructed to shield a select group of powerful government officials from provocative protests. A law which restricts speech based on the impact of its message is a fundamental violation of the first amendment.

It is no coincidence that Congress is polishing up the tools in the government's arsenal for prosecuting protesters now. Later this year, the G-8 summit and the Democratic and Republican national conventions will draw massive protests. Because the President, Vice President, presidential candidates, or foreign heads of state will be in attendance at these events, activists will be at risk for violating federal law when protesting at them.
​

Last updated: 25 April 2012

Read more at snopes.com: HR 347 - Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act
​

 

[PoxEclipse]

Aksedintz Hapin?

[video=youtube;BJbUXw87j0A]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJbUXw87j0A[/video]

SUPPLEMENTAL:

Aids; The Manufactured Virus

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/aids.pdf

Laura Bush Car Accident

Claim: While a teenager, future First Lady Laura Bush caused the death of a classmate in a car accident.

TRUE

Examples:

[Collected on the Internet, 2004]

I heard at a party last Saturday that Laura Bush, at age 17, ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing a 17-year-old classmate.

---

[Collected on the Internet, 2003]

I heard a rumor this past weekend concerning our First Lady, Laura Bush, to the effect that she committed manslaughter at one time by backing over her boyfriend with her car.


Origins: Driving is one of the most dangerous activities we engage in, and most of us do it every day, little realizing the peril of it. Every year in the U.S. there are approximately 6.5 million traffic accidents, resulting in about 42,000 fatalities.

This is the story of one of those accidents. It resulted in the death of someone you've never heard of, at the hands of someone you have.

In May 2000, a two-page police report pertaining to a fatal accident that had taken place near Midland, Texas, in 1963 was made public. It contained the information that 17-year-old Laura Welch had run a stop sign, causing the death of the sole occupant of the vehicle hers had struck. According to that report, the future First Lady had been driving her Chevrolet sedan to a local drive-in theater on a clear night shortly after 8 p.m. on 6 November 1963 when she entered an intersection without heeding the stop sign and there collided with the Corvair sedan driven by 17-year-old Michael Douglas. Also in the car with Laura Welch was her friend, 17-year-old Judy Dykes.

How fast Miss Welch might have been driving is open to question. That part of the police report is illegible, although two biographies of the First Lady refer to her as having been going 50 mph at the time of the collision. The speed limit on that portion of road was 55 mph. According to the police report neither driver had been drinking, but no tests were performed. No charges were filed as a result of the accident.

News accounts from 1963 reported the young man as having been thrown from his car and dying of a broken neck; he was pronounced dead on arrival at Midland Memorial Hospital. According to various biographies of Mrs. Bush, the boy's father had been traveling in a car immediately behind his son's and witnessed the whole thing.

The two teen girls were taken to the same hospital and treated for minor injuries that amounted to bumps and bruises.

Michael Douglas, the young man who was killed, had been a member of Laura Welch's crowd at high school and her friend. He had been a star athlete, excelling in track and football, and was looked up to by his peers not just for his athlete prowess, but for his personality and intelligence too. By all reports, he was likeable, outgoing, and funny. He was nominated as the school's most popular boy while a junior, an honor that almost always went to a senior.

There has always been speculation about the nature of his relationship with Laura Welch. One rumor asserts the two had never dated, but that Laura had been romantically interested in him. Another claims he had been Laura's boyfriend when he died, and another that he had once been her boyfriend but the couple had subsequently broken up. (The latter theory is advanced in the 2002 biography of the Bushes, George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage, which states Laura Welch and Michael Douglas had dated throughout early and mid-1963, but by the fall of that year Michael was going out with Regan Gammon, one of Miss Welch's closest friends.)

The accident is difficult to understand in that it took place on a clear night on dry pavement at a crossroads described as "the middle of nowhere," where the view was unobstructed and the stop sign that faced Laura Welch was clearly visible. (The intersection was a two-way, not a four-way, stop.) Yet looking to only weather and road conditions to explain what happened is to miss the obvious: there were two teen girls in the car, girls who were on their way to a party and thus who likely would have been bubbling over with chatter about who would be there. Laura Welch, the driver, had turned 17 only two days earlier. She and her passenger were still of an age when they could all too easily shut out everything going on around them, even the approach of another car and the recognition of a stop sign.

In her 2010 autobiography, Laura Bush attributed the accident to a combination of a dangerous intersection, the darkness of night, a less than safe car (on the victim's part), and her own non-optimal eyesight. She acknowledged that the victim, Mike Douglas, was a close friend of hers but stated that he was not her boyfriend:

I left Judy's house and headed to the loop, which back then was a little country road with no streetlights circling around Midland.

We talked as I drove along the pitch-black road. I knew in my mind that somewhere ahead was a right turn for Big Spring Street, where the drive-in theater was, because the loop almost dead-ended at Big Spring. Beyond the turn the asphalt stopped, and there was nothing more than a trail of unpaved dirt and dust. Most drivers turned right, toward town. I knew there was a turn, but where that turn was seemed very far away until suddenly, off in the middle of a field, I glimpsed a stop sign with the corner beam of my headlights. At that moment, I heard Judy's voice: "There's a stop sign." And I just couldn't stop. I was going along, a little below the speed limit, which was fifty-five miles an hour. The next thing I knew, I was in the intersection, and immediately in front of me was another car. It came rushing out of the darkness, and I was right upon it, with a second to turn the wheel. All I heard was the horrible sound of metal colliding, the catastrophic boom that occurs when two hard pieces of steel make contact.

[Mike] was a handsome boy with a beautiful smile, and he was a top athlete at Lee. He was not my boyfriend, although for a decade some in the press have claimed that he was. But for years, he was my very close friend.

All through high school, Mike and I were good friends; we talked on the phone for hours, and Mike's circle of close friends included nearly all of my own. And so it was unbelievable to me that it was his car in that almost always empty intersection. It was a small car, a Corvair Monza, Detroit's version of a compact, economy car designed to compete with the Volkswagen Beetle. It was sporty and sleek, and it was also the car that Ralph Nader made famous in his book Unsafe at Any Speed. He claimed the car was unstable and prone to rollover accidents. I was driving my dad's much larger and heavier Chevy Impala.

So many lives were wrecked that night at that corner, which was known as a particularly dangerous place. Already that year, two other people had lost their lives in crashes where the loop met Big Spring Street. After Mike's death, the city did install a much bigger stop sign and posted warnings. But it was too late for us.

A dangerous intersection, a less than safe car, and me. I don't see well, I didn't ever see well, and maybe that played a part. Or perhaps it was simply dark. Judy and I were talking, and I was an inexperienced driver who got to a corner before I expected it.
​

There are those who want to believe the future First Lady deliberately and with malice aforethought murdered her (ex-)boyfriend over some now forgotten teen tiff and who point to what they view as the suspicious circumstances of the accident and the subsequent lack of prosecution as proofs of their supposition. Yet to entertain such a hypothesis is to believe the young woman would have attempted to kill another by doing away with herself. (As the driver of what was intended to be a murder weapon, she would have had no reason to believe she would survive a collision severe enough to be fatal to her prey — that events turned out that way doesn't mean that outcome could have been reasonably foreseen.) Although the theory of "I'll kill you even though I have to kill myself to do it" might still play in a person sufficiently vengeance-minded (e.g., a suicide bomber), it is far better discounted in cases where an innocent life would also be taken (e.g., a passenger in the car). Those intent upon acts of revenge are generally impelled by a misguided sense of justice, and there is precious little justice (misguided or otherwise) in causing the death of innocent parties.

Then there are the circumstances of the crash. It was 8 p.m. on a November night in Texas on roads far removed from any town, so it was dark. With no stop sign facing him, the doomed young man would have had no reason to slow his vehicle even if he had seen another car approaching the intersection. He therefore would have been traveling at least 50 mph. Laura Welch ran the stop sign facing her, so there is reason to assume she too was going approximately 50 mph, the speed she would have been doing if she'd had the right of way.

Consider two cars traveling in the dark at right angles to each other, each going approximately 50 mph. The span of time available in which to form murderous intent would have amounted to mere seconds, given the speed at which the event was unfolding and how close the two vehicles had to be to one another before the ill-intentioned would recognize the vehicle of her target. It doesn't add up.

One e-mailed version of the rumor tries to supply an answer to that inconsistency, saying, "She knew it was her boyfriend's car driving south, because of the unique headlight configuration of his 1962 Corvair Sedan." The vehicles were traveling at right angles to one another, so an unusual headlight array on one wouldn't necessarily have been easily visible to the other. (According to automotive experts, the headlight array on the 1962 Corvair Monza was typical of the cars of the day; two headlights on each side, as this photo shows.)

So 17-year-old Laura Welch did cause the death of a friend by running a stop sign, but to see more in the story than that is to surrender oneself up to baseless imaginings. Yes, it is always easier to attribute malice to bad outcomes, but that does not mean malice is an integral component of tragedy, especially those involving people Fate later chooses to exalt.

According to George and Laura: Portrait of an American Marriage, Laura Welch did not find out that the driver of the other vehicle had died at the scene until later when she and her girlfriend were being treated at the hospital. And she did not learn his identity until later still, when her parents arrived and broke the news to her. It shattered her.

She was barely 17 and she had taken the life of a friend. She has since carried the weight of this, and it changed her, at least according to those who knew her before and after. Only rarely has she spoken of this with the press (although she has often been asked), but even on those occasions her answers have been oblique, almost as if she cannot bear to think of it, let alone speak of it.

Barbara "there are many sides to a tragedy, never just one" Mikkelson

Last updated: 14 December 2013

Read more at snopes.com: Laura Bush Car Accident






​

 

[PoxEclipse]

Billary Clinton?

[video=youtube;Pw7Dhicqstc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pw7Dhicqstc[/video]


Miguel Rodriguez & Vincent Foster Part 1

Miguel Rodriguez & Vincent Foster Part 2


The Death of Vincent Foster | WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

"Contrary to the White House spin, Vincent Foster's connection to the Clinton's was primarily via Hillary, rather than Bill. Vincent and Hillary had been partners together at the Rose Law Firm, and allegations of an ongoing affair had persisted from the Little Rock days to the White House itself."

"While the U.S. Park Police (a unit not equipped for a proper homicide investigation) studied the body, Foster's office at the White House was being looted. Secret Service agent Henry O' Neill watched as Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, carried boxes of papers out of Vincent Foster's office before the Park Police showed up to seal it. Amazing when you consider that the official identification of Vincent Foster's body by Craig Livingstone did not take place until 10PM!"

"The boxes of documents removed from Foster's office by Hillary Clinton's chief of staff, Margaret Williams, were taken to the private residence area of the White House! Eventually, only 54 pages emerged."

"One set of billing records, under subpoena for two years, and thought to have originated in Foster's office, turned up unexpectedly in the private quarters of the White House, with Hillary's fingerprints on them!"

"The front of Foster's clothing should have been soaked with blood as the heart continued to beat. This did not happen. This indicates that Foster's heart was already stopped when the gunshot into the mouth was fired to mask the real cause of death."


Supplemental:

Our Clients

We are proud to represent a diverse group of clients that includes:

• Acxiom Corporation
• Alcoa Inc.
• Arkansas Business Publishing Group
• Arkansas Capital Corporation
• Arkansas Development Finance Authority
• Arkansas Teacher Retirement System
• Arvest Bank
• Bank of America, N.A.
• Bank of the Ozarks
• Baptist Health
• Bombardier Recreational Products, Inc.
• Bridgestone Firestone North American Tire, LLC
• Bunge North America, Inc.
• City of Little Rock, Ark. Residential Housing and Public Facilities Board
• Claridge Products and Equipment, Inc.
• Columbian Chemicals Company
• Cooper Communities, Inc.
• Cooper Land Development, Inc.
• Curtis H. Stout, Inc.
• Diamond State Ventures
• General Motors, LLC
• HEALTHSCOPE Benefits, Inc.
• International Paper Company
• John Hancock Life Insurance Company
• Kemper Insurance Companies
• Lyon College
• Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company
• Mountaire Corporation
• Murphy Oil Corporation
• Nucor Corporation
• Plum Creek Timber Company, Inc.
• J.A. Riggs Tractor Company
• Winthrop Rockefeller Charitable Trust
• Pat Salmon and Sons, Inc.
• Keith Smith Company, LLC
• SECURUS Technologies, Inc.
• SF Holding Corp.
• Sol Alman Company
• Roy and Christine Sturgis Charitable Trust
• Stephens Inc.
• Stephens Investments Holdings LLC
• Stephens Media, LLC
• Stone Ward
• Summerwood Partners, LLC
• Swiss Re Life & Health America Inc.
• The Stephens Group, LLC
• U.S. Bank, N.A.
• Welsco, Inc.
• Welspun Tubular LLC
• White River Health System, Inc.
• Wingmead, Inc.

 

[PoxEclipse]

Who's Your Daddy?

[video=youtube;ntqz_NFiX_o]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntqz_NFiX_o[/video]


George Bush, Grand Father Is Aleister Crowley - YouTube

George Bushs Family Tree and the Bloodline Disease [HD] - YouTube

 

[PoxEclipse]

Just Say...Yes?

[video=youtube;huPdHkx7nAM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huPdHkx7nAM[/video]

All That Glitters Is Not Real, Book on Nancy Reagan Says - NYTimes.com

Ms. Kelley asserts that Mrs. Reagan will go down in history as the cold and glittering icon for a morally vacuous era. The author says the former First Lady reinvented herself with a tissue of fabrications about her background, age and family, just as her free-spirited mother did before her; that she had her nose fixed and her eyes lifted; that both the Reagans had extramarital affairs, and that Mrs. Reagan had a long-term affair with Frank Sinatra.

Ms. Kelley also writes that the Reagans once smoked marijuana provided by Alfred S. Bloomingdale, the department store heir and founder of Diners' Club, at a dinner party in the late 1960's, when Mr. Reagan was Governor of California. She says the former President loved anti-gay and racist humor, even jokes about AIDS, and that Nancy consulted not one but two astrologers to help pull her husband out of the slump caused by the "malevolent movements of Uranus and Saturn," better known as the Iran-contra scandal.


Alex Constantine's Blacklist: Nancy Reagan's Sexual Trysts with Frank Sinatra

The Truth*: Thankfully, Fellatio Has Come a Long Way Since Nancy Davis Was a Girl





Scandals of Classic Hollywood: Ronald Reagan Plays the President | The Hairpin

Reagan Raped a Woman named Selene Waters, Reagan the Rapist,

SELENE WALTERS: "THE BATTLE OF THE COUCH"

KELLEY CLAIMS: Reagan met starlet Selene Walters in a Hollywood nightclub in the early 1950s.

"Although I was on a date," she quotes Walters as saying, "Ronnie kept whispering in my ear, 'I'd like to call you. How can I get in touch with you?'

"Hoping that Reagan, then president of the Screen Actors Guild, could boost her career, Walters gave him her address and was surprised when he came calling at 3 A.M.

"He pushed his way inside and said he just had to see me. He forced me on the couch...and said, 'Let's just get to know each other.' It was the most pitched battle I've ever had, and suddenly in a matter of seconds I lost...They call it date rape today..."