Vets Memorial March on Washington

Veterans Monument Shutdown Beyond Petty

By Michael Reagan

One of the most dangerous trends in U.S. political life today is the leftist belief that the group is more important than the law. BarryCade5This mindset completely undermines the rule of law, because it means that the law is applied through a filter of how the application affects a group, instead of being applied impartially regardless of the group or individual circumstances.

When whom you know or what you are becomes more important than the law, it’s just a few short steps toward a tyranny of the insiders vs. everyone else.

The latest example comes this week from the Obama administration. I wrote earlier about the White House ordering the park police to close the WWII Monument on the Mall because of the shutdown. This was obviously designed as a petty finger in the eye to veterans and tourists alike.

BarryCadeCopsVeterans groups dared the park police to arrest them as they removed the barricades to visit the monument, which was notable for the lack of park police presence before the shutdown.

It was only when the monument became useful as a symbol to the Obama administration that enforcement showed up.

But now it appears the mall and the monuments are only closed to some people and some groups.

BarryCadeCharlie Spiering of The Examiner reports that on Tuesday the park police allowed an exception to the shutdown rule. The Obama administration decided shutdown rules only applied to taxpayers and other average citizens. If administration supporters — labor unions, Casa De Maryland, Nancy Pelosi and the like — want to hold a rally called “Camino Americano: March for Immigration Reform,” to support amnesty for approximately 11 million illegal aliens and future Democrat voters, then the byword is “Come on Down!”

When Republicans do this it’s called a “double standard.” When Democrats do this it’s called “good government.”

The shutdown and other laws apply differently depending on who you are and whether or not the Obama administration (Michelle Malkin calls it the “Spite House”) considers you part of the movement.

As a result, illegal aliens, who invaded the U.S. in violation of the law, get “four Jumbotrons and an elaborate setup of port-a-potties, special event fencing, tents, and raised and lighted stages are set up across the National Mall,” according to Breitbart News.

Meanwhile, veterans who invaded Normandy, Iwo Jima, North Africa, and other locales that were also closed by the local authorities, get gun-toting park police telling them to move away from the monuments they paid for in blood, sweat, and tears.

Michael Reagan is the son of former President Ronald Reagan and chairman of the League of American Voters. His blog appears on

BarryCade2 BarryCade4 BarryCade6 BarryCade7



General Boykin speaks at the Vets March on the Washington Barry Cades

Shutdown was likely preplanned

NPS was used as an Attack Dog

Congressman Trey Gowdy questions NPS director, who “can’t remember….”

Another faux video: MSNBC airs edited “news” clip about Vets March

Public Free Speech is under Attack (Obama’s Lecture)

Herman Cain Reacts to Obama’s “Don’t listen!” Lecture

Earlier Posts here on related Topics



Sign up for John's Mail lists
Free Newsletters and Action Notes
This entry was posted in Actionable, Military and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Vets Memorial March on Washington

  1. Ron Ennis says:

    Not sure I follow Michael’s logic. It sounds like he is saying that Civil Disobedience is wrong, yet he also is saying the Obama administration is restricting the freedom of Americans to visit our war memorials. One way to protest is to get permits and then stay within the laws of the permits. However, when the permits are perceived by the group as violating their right to assemble, then can also assemble anyway and accept the possibility of arrest because they are violating the law as stated in the permit. (Obviously Thoreau, Gandi, and MLK are, of course, models for this other ‘choice’) Classic cases in our lifetime were in the South when permits were not issued because the applicants were Black. I have also been in many demonstrations as a US Naval Officer opposed to War where we had no permit. (One time I was actually able to negotiate with the police to issue us a permit on the spot so they didn’t have to arrest all of us!) I would argue that anyone supporting veteran’s rights has the right to consciously protest through permit or not…but if not through permit, they can practice Civil Disobedience and accept the consequences. What am I missing?

    • John Trudel says:

      Thanks, Ron, and to all my readers:

      I’m in a quandary. Ron is a long time personal friend, far left, but honest, intelligent, and fair minded. His comment below is one of a cluster that came in from moderate Republicans and non-fanatics on the left. I was hoping to get several such comments posted here so we could have something that is VERY rare these days — a reasoned discussion.

      This may not happen. First off, interest is waning. Those on the left are gleeful at the slaughter following “The Charge of the Defunding Brigade.” Those on the right are seeing the abuse of our Vets as a “moot point,” a minor sidebar the War to contain big government, stop the ObamaCare Train Wreck, and deal with a myriad of other Obama issues, including initiatives to “weaponize” Federal bureaucracies and regulate public free speech. (I’ll put some bullet points and links below and at the bottom of my post.) Secondly, I’m moving into the launch of my new novel Soft Target and “Snow birding” my way to AZ, and so will be fully occupied well into November.

      Things to ponder:

      1. Who ordered the Park Service attack on our Vets? Per Rep. Trey Gowdy, we do not know. The director of the Park Service police admitted under oath the order came from the Obama White House, but “can’t remember” who said it.

      2. The Government Shut Down, which drove Federal initiatives to punish Vets and political opponents, was prearranged, preplanned.

      3. America’s non-political Federal Bureaucracies are being illegally used to target and harass Obama’s political opponents, including NSA, IRS, DOJ, etc.

      4. This extends to the Park Service.

      5. There are legislative initiatives to limit public First Amendment Rights for Obama’s opponents.

  2. Living in Oregon says:

    Hi John. I have been seeking examples and definitions to clearly articulate the difference between ” social justice” & traditional or Biblical justice. I know a number of well- meaning folks who don’t understand the difference or the danger and have had years of indoctrination in school and training. The term “social justice” is pervasive in our society, and, unfortunately, the difference to the uninformed seems irrelevant!

    Would you agree that these comments by Michael Reagan are a good explanation? What would you add? What arguments would a social leftist use to counter this?

    • John Trudel says:

      I think this is a good topic for discussion, and am going to hold back to see what others say.

      For a quick comment — I think Michael Reagan is on the right track. What helped humankind climb out of the mud, IMHO, was the Judeo Christian ethic (simple absolutes for right and wrong). What is dangerous about The Obama Nation (and all its socialist predecessors — Communism [International Communism], Fascism, Nazism [National Socialism], Islam [Theocratic socialism], Liberation Theology [Karl Marx ordained by God], etc.), is that all resulted in Tyranny by the elites. The 1930s are a good case study.

      Saul Alinsky communism (small “c”), which Obama taught to ACORN and SEIU thugs, is Marx wrapped in social causes and “working within the system to destroy the system,” but this “Soft Tyranny” is already growing fangs and claws.

      We already have example after example of this, ObamaCare, where Congress exempted itself and Obama cronies, being a great example.

      • Mary Arner says:

        “Social Justice” is one of the many popular made up word phrases that the liberal media especially love to use. Jonah Goldberg touches on many of these terminologies in his book Tyranny of Cliches. What do most of them translate into–namely, nothing!

  3. Living in Oregon says:

    I agree that social justice can be a tyranny. However, it is being used and inserted everywhere. Sometimes the term is merely “justice” but the context makes it clear that the issue is “social justice, ” not mere “justice.” It is very hard to clarify the difference when the listener thinks they are doing “the right thing.” The difference can be subtle in certain situations. For example, in the public realm, assuring justice for people to get health treatment. Hmm. Is forcing the taxpayers to pay for indigents and the poor “justice” or “social justice?” What is right and moral? Are we paying for the poor because they are poor and the taxpayers are being benevolent or because they are entitled to be cared for by those who have more? Looking at this from a “compassionate liberal’s” perspective, it is sometimes hard for me to explain clearly or know where to draw the line. Of course, maybe I am just afraid of sounding “judgmental!”

    • Mary Arner says:

      I think that people lump “social justice” in with fairness. To me, justice means that we are all treated equally under the laws of the nation, states, and jurisdictions. If we commit an unlawful act or have an unlawful act committed against us we are entitled to justice regardless of our race, gender or age. Fairness on the other hand is about how as individuals we are treated when it comes to going about our everyday activities, e.g. education, work, etc. For example, is it fair for a child that happens to live in an underprivileged household in an unsafe neighborhood to have to attend a poor performing school just because it happens to be in his district? Shouldn’t that child be able to attend a higher performing public school that happens to be in another district? Should we as taxpayers be obligated to fund poor performing schools along with the good ones? Should we punish those schools that are poor performing even though many of the kids that are coming in to them are disruptive, exhibit bad behavior, shun discipline and make it difficult for teachers to do their jobs?

      As far as supporting health care for the poor, one of the biggest arguments is that there are implications in that a lot of diseases are preventable. If we don’t support immunization programs, there is the threat of epidemics of whooping cough, measles, influenza, tuberculosis. It’s a safety issue. The big question always is how far do we go? Under the AFA more people will qualify for Medicaid. Is this fair? Would many of these people be able to buy their own insurance?

  4. Pingback: D-Day 2013: 9,000 Fallen Soldiers on Normandy Beach | Freedom Writers

Leave a Reply

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