Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: The most frightening bill Congress has ever passed.

Posted 2 years ago on March 4, 2012, 11:50 p.m. EST by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The below is reproduced from this link.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

===========

A bill passed Monday in the US House of Representatives and Thursday in the Senate would make it a felony—a serious criminal offense punishable by lengthy terms of incarceration—to participate in many forms of protest associated with the Occupy Wall Street protests of last year. Several commentators have dubbed it the “anti-Occupy” law, but its implications are far broader.

The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

The virtually unanimous passage of H.R. 347 starkly exposes the fact that, despite all the posturing, the Democrats and the Republicans stand shoulder to shoulder with the corporate and financial oligarchy, which regarded last year’s popular protests against social inequality with a mixture of fear and hostility.

Among the central provisions of H.R. 347 is a section that would make it a criminal offense to “enter or remain in” an area designated as “restricted.”

The bill defines the areas that qualify as “restricted” in extremely vague and broad terms. Restricted areas can include “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting” and “a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”

The Secret Service provides bodyguards not just to the US president, but to a broad layer of top figures in the political establishment, including presidential candidates and foreign dignitaries.

Even more sinister is the provision regarding events of “national significance.” What circumstances constitute events of “national significance” is left to the unbridled discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. The occasion for virtually any large protest could be designated by the Department of Homeland Security as an event of “national significance,” making any demonstrations in the vicinity illegal. For certain, included among such events would be the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, which have been classified as National Special Security Events (NSSE), a category created under the Clinton administration. These conventions have been the occasion for protests that have been subjected to ever increasing police restrictions and repression. Under H.R. 347, future protests at such events could be outright criminalized.

The standard punishment under the new law is a fine and up to one year in prison. If a weapon or serious physical injury is involved, the penalty may be increased to up to ten years.

Also criminalized by the bill is conduct “that impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions” and “obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds.” These provisions, even more so than the provisions creating “restricted areas,” threaten to criminalize a broad range of protest activities that were previously perfectly legal.

In order to appreciate the unprecedented sweep of H.R. 347, it is necessary to consider a few examples:

 A wide area around the next G-20 meeting or other global summit could be designated “restricted” by the Secret Service, such that any person who “enters” a that area can be subject to a fine and a year in jail under Section 1752(a)(1) (making it a felony to enter any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so).

 Senator Rick Santorum, the ultra-right Republican presidential candidate, enjoys the protection of the Secret Service. Accordingly, a person who shouts “boo!” during a speech by Santorum could be subject to arrest and a year of imprisonment under Section 1752(a)(2) (making it a felony to “engag[e] in disorderly or disruptive conduct in” a restricted area).

 Striking government workers who form a picket line near any event of “national significance” can be locked up under Section 1752(a)(3) (making it a crime to imped[e] ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds).

Under the ancien regime in France, steps were taken to ensure that the “unwashed masses” were kept out of sight whenever a carriage containing an important aristocrat or church official was passing through. Similarly, H.R. 347 creates for the US president and other top officials a protest-free bubble or “no-free-speech zone” that follows them wherever they go, making sure the discontented multitude is kept out of the picture.

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act is plainly in violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which was passed in 1791 in the aftermath of the American Revolution. The First Amendment provides: “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (The arrogance of the Democratic and Republican politicians is staggering—what part of “Congress shall make no law” do they not understand?)

H.R. 347 comes on the heels of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which was signed by President Obama into law on December 31, 2011. The NDAA gives the president the power to order the assassination and incarceration of any person—including a US citizen—anywhere in the world without charge or trial. The passage of H.R. 347 has been the subject of a virtual blackout in the media. In light of the unprecedented nature of the bill, which would effectively overturn the First Amendment, this blackout cannot be innocent. The media silence therefore represents a conscious effort to keep the American population in the dark as to the government’s efforts to eviscerate the Bill of Rights.

The bill would vastly expand a previous law making it misdemeanor to trespass on the grounds of the White House. An earlier version of the bill would have made it a felony just to “conspire” to engage in any of the conduct described above. The bill now awaits President Obama’s signature before it becomes the law of the land.

What lies behind the unprecedented attack underway on the US Constitution and Bill of Rights is a growing understanding in the ruling class that the protests that took place around the world against social inequality in 2011 will inevitably re-emerge in more and more powerful forms in 2012 and beyond, as austerity measures and the crashing economy make the conditions of life more and more impossible for the working class. The virtually unanimous support in Congress H.R. 347, among Democrats as well as Republicans, reflects overriding sentiment within the ruling establishment for scrapping all existing democratic rights in favor of dictatorial methods of rule.

This sentiment was most directly expressed this week by Wyoming Republican legislator David Miller, who recently introduced a bill into the state legislature that would give the state the power, in an “emergency,” to create its own standing army through conscription, print its own currency, acquire military aircraft, suspend the legislature, and establish martial law. “Things happen quickly sometimes—look at Libya, look at Egypt, look at those situations,” Miller told the Star-Tribune in Casper, Wyoming. Repeating arguments employed by every military dictatorship over the past century, Miller declared, “We wouldn’t have time to meet as a Legislature or even in special session to do anything to respond.” Miller’s so-called “doomsday law” was defeated in the Wyoming legislature Tuesday by the narrow margin of 30-27.

174 Comments

174 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 4 points by DayumShame (148) 2 years ago

I like big bills

You like big bills

He likes big bills

She likes big bills

Our bills are almost

as big as landfills

[-] 0 points by GreatBallsOfFire (11) 2 years ago

Goodness gracious!

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

Really?

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

this law certainly shows government not in control of it's people

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Or the opposite...

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the people are unhappy

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Not unhappy enough...yet...apparently.

[-] 1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

We made the democrats sign it and will leave the President no choice but to sign it.

[-] 1 points by BradB (2693) from Washington, DC 2 years ago

this is frightening too "by Underdog (666)" ;)

Posted 2 days ago on March 4, 2012, 11:50 p.m. EST by Underdog (666) from Orlando, FL

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Brahahaha!!:)

[-] 1 points by elf3 (2240) 2 years ago

Thanks for posting this ... the most frightening things are never reported - it's nice to have a place to get the news (especially for those of us who have been priced out of the fancier cable packages that include C-Span)

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you do realize that this bill can be used against tea party people.

[-] 1 points by badlimey (48) 2 years ago

The most frightening bill ever passed was enacting the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

Would you please read the following article and respond with your comments either privately or via this forum.

The time to facilitate change is now and we are running out of time. If we have not created massive exposure for this cause before the war with Iran takes place we have lost. Thanks,

Barrie Featherstone, Houston, TX. http://mrphister.blogspot.com/2012/03/occupy-wall-street-save-it-now.html

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I just read your link in its entirety. Although it is a bit off topic regarding this OP, I will attempt to give you some feedback. Let me say first that I am largely in agreement with most of the points you've raised, and if you look at the history of my input on these forums you will see many of the same topics discussed.

So here we go.

1) The reason I gave the subject line the title of "The most frightening bill Congress has ever passed" is because it is concerned with the 1st Amendment -- arguably the most important amendment in the Bill of Rights. It is the "bedrock" upon which all other freedoms rest. Without the freedom of speech and assembly, We The People would have no way to make any kind of change to the system. People have to operate collectively to effect change on a national level. Destroy/remove/erode the 1st Amendment and political slavery is virtually assured. So how can economic slavery be addressed by the people, which is what is being discussed here, if political slavery prevents that free assembly and coming together to address it?  That is why it is the most important, in my opinion. 

2) So, since we are free (for the moment) to discuss it, I agree with you wholeheartedly that a big part of the problem can be linked to the Fed. I don't think it is the whole problem, but it is a significant contributor. Much of what you said I have repeated elsewhere on these forums, but I would refer you, in particular, to a book by Ellen Hodgson Brown called "Web of Debt". If you have not already read it, I would suggest a cover-to-cover consumption of it. It is sweeping in scope and its detail of the history of Central banking in Europe (where it all started), how it came to the US, how it has been fought and defeated in the past, and how we could get out of our current mess if we have the collective will to do it. Here is the site:

http://www.webofdebt.com/

And here is one of my OPs from a few weeks ago that discusses the Fed. 

http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-16th-amendment-the-federal-reserve-and-gutless/

3) I share your frustrations with Occupy. I have advocated from my very first OP that it needs leadership, or a least some kind of spokesperson who can represent its issues/demands in Washington. Unfortunately, that is not the model it has chosen to follow.  It has chosen to follow the path of the amorphous blob, thinking that it is less vulnerable to attack by the power-elite because it has no "face" that the media can focus its attention on (and thereby become a target for counter-attack arguments, etc. to discredit it). It is, supposedly, a movement for the 21st century driven largely by the Internet culture and their belief that a successful economic "revolution" can be obtained in a similar manner to how political revolutions have occurred recently in the Middle East (Egypt, Libya, etc). Whether such a worldwide economic revolution can occur the same way as a national political revolution has yet to be determined.. Personally, I believe it will be orders of magnitude more difficult, because my personal belief is that it is far easier to overthrow a nation politically than an entire global economy --- and that is what the world is now...a worldwide economy all interconnected. Nations and borders don't really mean much in today's world. We are owned by International bankers first, trans-national corporations second, and their puppets (national governments) last. The puppets primary function is to provide the means to control their human resources (us) which they need to service their dominion, and the means to protect their vast wealth/assets/interests via militaries/police.

4) You have raised many issues on your link/site about a wide variety of problems confronting our very complex world. I think the "whole show" can be summed up here:   

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZT6YpCsapg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[-] 1 points by badlimey (48) 2 years ago

While I agree with a lot of what Ted has to say I find a high degree of hypocrisy when I look at the list of corporate sponsors.

Unless as a planet we take care of our monetary future we will always be at the mercy of Corporate, Fiscal, and political corruption. Any change would only last with their cooperation and that would only be extended for as long as they believed there is some benefit in it to those that seek to control and monopolize.

Thanks for taking the time to reply and watch this space as I flesh out my ideas, all of those that feel aggrieved should consider uniting under a common banner. I hope we stay in touch.

I am not a conspiracy theorist I am a conspiracy realist. You can learn more about the greatest conspiracy ever by exploring its roots. In the USA that single most influential player has been Senator Nelson Aldrich. Take a look at this link. http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/nmc/nmc_406_1909.pdf

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

Bringing attention to this bill is one effective way to counter it. I'm thinking not only our reps but also social media sites like Reddit.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Reddit is censored. So is Facebook. But it's worth a try.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Anything and everthing (short of illegal activity) should be attempted. The more creative the better. The key is mass communication to raise mass awareness and outrage leading to pressure for Obama to veto it. This is an election year you know.

[-] 1 points by Progression (143) 2 years ago

That is a good point. Election year will give us a bit more of an upper hand on this issue.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

they just need to declare that any organization that continually engages in these types of acts is a terrorist group and then we're really fucked.

[-] 1 points by Nevada1 (4464) 2 years ago

Hi Underdog, Thank you for post. Best Regards

[-] 1 points by Normalperson1 (119) from Indianapolis, IN 2 years ago

Well some of it I agree with but it is open as to what what disorderly or disruptive conduct really is. When this is not fully defined then abuse of power can and will happen. Saying that when there is a speaker you do not agree with you do not have the right to stop that speaker. You may think you are getting your message out but all you do is look the fool and hurt your cause in a way that no one will listen to your message even if it is correct.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Things could get ugly if this becomes law.

[-] 3 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I am praying that Obama will veto it. If he signs it into law, the only hope We The People have is for the Supreme Court to strike it down as unconstitutional.

Now would be a good time to support and/or join the ACLU.

http://www.aclu.org/

[-] 2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

God and Obama are going to disappoint you.

I recommend powerful psychotropics and electroshock.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I probably shouldn't have used the word praying. What would you call it -- a fool's dream?

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Well, you tell me. You know Obama will sign it just as you know it will sail through both houses.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I do not know he will sign it. I am not a prophet or in possession psychic powers. I admit the situation doesn't look good. Let's try to persuade him. Sign the petition on this OP. call the White House. Flood them with emails. Get it all over the social media sites.

Or we can simply do nothing and resign ourselves to the "inevitable".

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

You really haven't kept up with everything else he's signed since taking the oath of office, have you?

Petition away, I hate to tell you the effort will not even glean so much as a mocking chuckle from the whitehouse.

[-] 2 points by jel476 (3) 2 years ago

Even if he vetoes, congress will overturn the veto as they have at least a 2/3 majority

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Fat chance with this Supreme Court. If Obama doesn't veto this than I think this country is truely on the way to civil war.

[-] 1 points by Reneye (118) 2 years ago

He won't veto it. Can there be ANY question, ANY doubt at all now, that the government WANTS war and a tyrannical oppression of it's people? This law is virtually a declaration of war against the people. It seems to me that several conspiracy theories just got the word theories dropped off.

[-] -3 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Givem hell, aka reality.

There are actually millions of polly-anna and shirley temple types HERE that truly believe all that is going on is a failure of one party or the other.

Their fcuking brain dead idiots.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Well, suck on this sobering fact for awhile and tell us that global trans-national Corporatocracy based on infinite economic expansion versus finite resources is the answer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZT6YpCsapg&feature=youtube_gdata_player

[-] 1 points by economicallydiscardedcitizen (761) 2 years ago

If anyone finds any motion by the ACLU please post it here. Also, alternet.org has an article addressing why Americans don't riot as the Greeks and others such as Egyptians, Syrians and Russians but I think this will change as we enter each successive depression related economic 'dip'/'crash.'

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yeah, things have to get a lot worse before the rest of America wakes up and fights for it to get better.

Gas needs to be $8/gallon, unemployment at 25%, and 10% of our nation to be flat-out starving before you will see the riots. Too many people are living in a perpetual loop of "sleep, work, eat, watch TV, go to bar" that will not change their habits unless something drastic happens to them.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Don't forget - if that bill passes a large number of political prisoners will be flooding the privatized for profit prison system as well. Political prisoners in America. Who would have thought that was possible?

America is being killed from within the halls of power. Manipulated by the corrupt greedy.

Stand-up Speak-up Stand-up for your rights.

[-] 0 points by XenuLives (1645) from Charlotte, NC 2 years ago

Yes. More people need to stand up, however, before there will be an impact. More outreach is needed.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That's what we do. That is part of our being here, and not only contributing here but taking the good stuff and putting it out on the internet to share in all available social media. That is outreach.

[-] 0 points by Inthesky (5) 2 years ago

Why not use a common uniform, such as orange shirts to signify the prescence of OWS protestors. Then you could send protestors through congress, or in front of a federal building or the house of a banker but they could not cite you for orange shirts..or could they??

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Rush and those damned Republicans forcing the Democrats, YET AGAIN, to do things they really are opposed to doing.

[-] 0 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

As long as the Supreme Court rubber stamps the corporatist agenda, Congress can pass any law that supports the corporatists without fear. SCOTUS only overturns legislation designed to clip the corporatists wings or level the playing field in any way. The only way to reverse the trend is to clip SCOTUS' wings. Passing a Human Rights Amendment would help.

Packing the court would be better. And when I say "packing," I mean with constitutional scholars, not liberal activists as a counterweight. And the expansion should be massive, from 9 justices to 29. And the Chief's job should be divided among a Chief and three associates with voting powers on court procedure. It should be like dropping an anvil on their heads so any "compromise" (read capitulation to the corporate agenda) that is forced still results in a court packed with rational thinkers instead of right wing ideologues.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Anyone have any ideas what we can do about this?

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I would suggest planning, " Award Winning Picture Perfect Assemblies" and to petition your government with grievences and style. Contact the mayor, get the necessary permits, plan and time the event , wear uniforms , set it up like a parade ..with marching band .. maybe a front row of girl scouts .. have a prepared document..

keep it clean and presentable. [ no rock throwing, cursing, etc.]

these are my suggestions..

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Only if you'll march with the Girl Scouts. JK, they're good ideas for any kind of protest.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Mostly we need to stop thinking of this as a protest. We are participating in the improvement of our lives and the lives and future of our children and country. We need to address our concerns to the powers that be with respect, and give them no cause to become defensive but rather welcoming us into meetings of deliberation.

The conception, presentation and reception of our thoughts towards a better future should be a happy occasion.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Not sure they'll listen if we're too sweet about it.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Ahh but thats where we need to realize the nature of the human heart .

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Where's your human heart when you question whether Muslims value life? Please explain why you posted that. Seems very hateful to me.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

bw, shadz66 wants me to redress this comment/ question.

You have me wrong when you suggest it is hate when I question muslim values. When The reason I question their values comes from the horrible evidence as to how terrible their lives must be. I question this to help those who are not allowed to question. I question this from my heart that goes out to the sufferings brought on by the horrors of islam. I know the whole group is not evil , and I know my words do not hurt the innocent .. but only the evil. And it is the evil that I intend to hurt . without mercy.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

You hurt all people with your divisive and disrespectful speech. You, in your cute little way (which, perhaps, some people can't see through which is why you use that tactic), are denigrating not only all Muslims but all of humanity, because if we can't rise above that kind of hatred, we're all going down.

[-] 0 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

It is you they do not see through.. thanks for the tip.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

I'm seeing right through your nonsense. Maybe you need a new tactic.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

bw, are muslims happy ?

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

There you go again with your cute little questions. Sorry, not falling for it.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

What .. ? Are muslims happy ? think about .. look at all the evidence .. look at the mass of muslims and their living conditions .. look at the oppression and tell me they are happy .. doing just fine .. women don't need to have rights .. children don't need an education .. go on bw , tell me how it is .. you like to spread your ass on both sides .. so show us .. how happy muslims are ..and show us where the extreme violence comes ..from being so happy all the time .. perhaps if we were as happy as they we would be violent to, is that how you see it bw .. lol

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Two words. Cultural imperialism.

[-] -1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

I remember Donald Rumsfeld telling a story about a video he watched that come out of Iraq. In the video a man was being drowned in a sess pool . He was tied up and being held under by other men .. but he was big and strong and fought hard to live .. so the men shoved a stick in his mouth and again shoved him under ... Donald said .. he did not come up after that ... Is it hate or is it sadness.. that you feel when you read this......

[-] 3 points by shadz66 (18076) 2 years ago

'FOB' : I'll be your huckleberry as I've just seen your 'comment' and apologise to 'bw' for butting in.

You 'FOB', recount this sordid tale that is beyond the pale in order to further justify your dehumanising of Muslims. Your quoting that unconscionable War-monger Donald Rumsfeld is revealing and really quite indicative of your 'mala fides'.

Somehow hundreds of thousands of dead, dispossessed, displaced and decimated innocent people in Afghanistan and Iraq are forgotten in your specious and tendentious attempts at belittling and defaming 1.3 billion people in a manner specifically designed to utterly ignore the actual atrocity of WAR !!

Your so called 'heart' has atrophied with congealed hate and not a little hubris and 'bw' has you cold with that genuine question, which you have singularly failed to answer. You attempt to shock and recount your tale (as told by Donald Rumsfeld - no less!) in order to obfuscate, dodge and evade the core point which you are too dishonest to engage with.

So ... "Is it hate or is it sadness .. that you feel when you read this" ?

Feel free to answer but don't try to 'FOB' us off with any more 'BS' tho' !

ad iudicium ...

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

When I heard the story I felt for the man .. it was crushing to my heart .. and I felt to the possible little daughter he may have had .. somewhere innocently losing her father whom she loved so much .. The story still brings tears to my soul.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18076) 2 years ago

NO !!! That is a lie and you are a liar & you can take that to the bank !! I call you on your two-faced, specious BS !

Aggressive, acquisitive WAR that is Not For Self-Defence is simply The Paramount Atrocity and Crime - as advocated, acknowledged and accepted at The Nuremburg Trials and all other reasoning flows from that ...

fiat justitia ruat caelum .

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

you have a lot of hurt and pain buried inside of you that causes these extreme actions you have.. it may have be caused by the horrors of your religion .. the traumatizing effect comes out in many ways .. find peace in your heart.

[-] 2 points by shadz66 (18076) 2 years ago

You speak with forked-tongue and know nothing of my 'religion' or 'spiritual or metaphysical outlook' but clue for you - I certainly do NOT subscribe to Any Abrahamic Abracadabra !!!

Consider : "Peace" is as 'Peace' does and PEACE is always antithetical to War-mongers !!

E Tenebris, Lux !

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Abraham was weak.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

I never liked Donald Rumsfeld and wouldn't take too seriously any story he tells.

Yes, there are extremists in the Muslim world, just like there are extremists in Christianity, Judaism and even Buddhism and most other religions and groups. But, extremists do not represent the whole of the people and to extrapolate extremist behavior onto the whole group is divisive, ignorant and full of hatred. It only serves to break the human heart.

[-] 1 points by FriendlyObserverB (1871) 2 years ago

Well, I think the story was horrible. And I liked Donald Rumsfeld.

I think the lives of the Iraqi people were badly traumatized and brokem by the cruelties that went on in that nation .. wmd's or not I am glad the USA went in there , and gave them freedom.

have a good day

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Somehow, this has to reach the mainstream media. Of course, it is being repressed from getting wide coverage. I am hopeful that secondary media will pick it up and that it will gradually get more attention until the MSM has no choice but to cover it as its controversial nature and threat to basic freedoms will garner it wider exposure at some point.

The ACLU is already addressing/challenging the NDAA. We need to flood them with emails/texts to make sure it becomes part of their efforts to preserve our precious freedoms.

I have been urging everyone to join the ACLU if they are not already a member. Dues are not that expensive, and support their team of lawyers dedicated to addressing abuses of power like this.

Join here--->>>. http://www.aclu.org/

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

I'm going to email Obama and my local politicians as well. Can't hurt.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

The below is text of petition to veto HR 347 (see below link)

https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/petition/veto-trespass-billhr-347-and-save-first-amendment/5N6gzG57

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

VETO TRESPASS BILL/HR 347 AND SAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT

"Congress shall make NO law...ABRIDGING...the RIGHT of the PEOPLE peaceably to ASSEMBLE, and to PETITION the Government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment

Mr. President, you swore an inauguration oath that you "will to the best of [your] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

HR 347 has passed through Congress. It states that the American people will no longer be allowed to peaceably assemble to petition the government when certain government officials are nearby, whether they know it or not. This is a clear violation of the First Amendment, which states that this right is not to be ABRIDGED:

a·bridge

to REDUCE or LESSEN in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; CURTAIL

Stay faithful to your duty as President and VETO this bill!

Created: Feb 28, 2012

Issues: Civil Rights and Liberties, Government Reform, Human Rights

Learn about Petition Thresholds

SIGNATURES NEEDED BY MARCH 29, 2012 TO REACH GOAL OF 25,000

22,841TOTAL

SIGNATURES ON THIS PETITION 2,159

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Excellent. Thanks. I also think it helps to write to him as a citizen in your own words.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yes, I agree totally.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I have already signed.

So I re-tweeted it as I had tweeted when I 1st signed it and I re-posted it on face book.

People if you care, whether you sign it or not. If you believe it to be good, then please forward it. If you change your mind you can always sign it later.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Thank you SO much. I remember that you signed. I just posted it so others could read it.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I replied so you would know, to keep it in easy view of others, while I also gave a shout out for forwarding.

Team work, team work that's what counts.

Stand-up Speak-up Stand-up for your rights. - B. Marley

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Bravo!!!!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

we could stop dropping bombs today

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (21344) 2 years ago

Yes. Add that to the list.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

It can be seen from here

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I'm sure this is strictly attributable to those gawddam "R's" and the masses of "D's" that sign off on it will only do so in extreme duress as their will likely be guns at their heads while their families are indefinitely detained while being tortured.

I'm sure that's how NDAA 2012 found so much support by this nation's saviors, the Demoncrats.

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I know

anyone defending their forclosed home with a gun can get 10 years

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Because..... It's not your house anymore!!!!!!! If you break the contract then you lose it! Duh!

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

good luck

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

I'm not going to be dumb enough to take out a 20 year mortgage on a house! That's a buttload of risk that I don't need. If I buy a house I will have mostly cash and a small mortgage of no more than 5 years

[-] 1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Another evil brought about because of those fawking "R's".

They made the "D's" go along with it and even control the Whitehouse.

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

It seems to me that we are very close to having to revise the end of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address to read "government of the people, by the people, and for the people has perished from our part of the earth."

[Removed]

[-] 0 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

AT THE SECOND SESSION Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,

the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

An Act

To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011'.

SEC. 2. RESTRICTED BUILDING OR GROUNDS.

Section 1752 of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: -`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds

`(a) Whoever--

`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;

`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or

`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).

`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--

`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--

`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and

`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

`(c) In this section--

(1) the termrestricted buildings or grounds' means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area--

`(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds;

`(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or

`(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and

(2) the termother person protected by the Secret Service' means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112vDPy1X::


I'm sorry, I like to look at the bill so, I am adding it.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep, this is not good at all.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Seems the feelings here are as uniform as they were in congress, if for no other reason makes me want to look twice. I diffidently see the concerns, but I am reminded of how the paid operatives of the TEA party attended town halls to keep people from discussing healthcare reform and in 2000 when they attacked vote counters. This bill looks to be designed to quell dissent and as such is a step in the wrong direction, but to interrupt it strictly as a step against OWS, would be an error I think. We live in a time when people (TEA party) stand outside congress to spit on representatives as they enter, the times they are a’ changing.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

I, for one, did not look at it as "a step against OWS", as you put it. My view is that this is much worse in that it attempts to restrict/abolish the 1st Amendment right of peaceable assembly and other free speech actions. As such, it applies broadly to all Americans, and not just OWS. It is another chipping away effort, like the Patriot Act, designed to remove cherished freedoms that Americans have fought and died for for over 230 years --- and it is being done internally, quietly, and intentionally. It represents a subversive internal coup right under the sleeping noses of the American people. It is being accomplished insidiously, like a spreading cancer, and most people are either blissfully unaware of it or have been programmed to believe it is "good for the security of the country" in a post 9/11 world.

It is one of the most frightening things I have ever seen in my 56 years on the planet.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

the link to the government information site doesn't work

imagine that

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Just run a search on H.R. 347.

[-] 2 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I don't think the violent case should be included in the bill

acts of violence are already illegal

and placing the two together is intentionally confusing

.

anyway

sounds like congress is ready to take political prisoners

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

And I am trying to find out where the below came from. It was printed as a comment by Obbop under Original Post HR 347: The anti--Occupy law.

Section 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government

Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any state,territory,district or possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty,necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with,any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof -

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.

As used in this section, the terms ''organizes'' and ''organize'', with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

leaves far too much room for conjecture

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2385

This? Click on notes.

Edited for: It's been around a lot longer than OWS.

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Thanks for providing that. So this has been on the books since the 40s-50s under various revisions.

So, by passing the above into law back then, those legislators were basically saying that Thomas Jefferson was full of shit when he said in the Declaration of Independance (italics are mine):

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness."

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It is also called the Smith Act.

I hate to use Wikipedia but look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Act

http://www.shmoop.com/free-speech/smith-act-communism.html

If you have more time, check out this: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=887773##

[-] 2 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Thanks GF. In looking this over, it looks like the intent of it's creation was to counter Communism and the whole "Red Scare" of the era. But the disturbing thing about it is that the wording is not focused on foreign operatives/agitators but applies to anyone who would advocate/attempt to overthrow/subvert the US government, even loyal, patriotic US citizens who believe/know that the government has utterly failed to operate in the best interests of We The People. The wording would seem to imply that if Thomas Jefferson himself were alive at the time (or today) he would be thrown in jail for 20 years for advocating "...it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."

That is my take on it. Am I missing something somewhere? Perhaps I am. The law seems to say that there is no exception, under any circumstance, where We The People have the right to, in Jefferson's words, alter or abolish the existing government.

If this is a correct interpretation, I would be really curious to know how many Americans side with Section 2385 and how many side with Jefferson. In the end, knowing those numbers may be the final indicator/predictor of the ultimate fate of Occupy (or any protest for that matter) in light of HR 347 and/or other follow-up legislation/laws designed to restrict/abolish the 1st Amendment.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

It was in fact over the Red Scare and against labor. However, did you read the Yates case?

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

So looks like some of the defendants got off and some didn't. The legal process still offers a glimmer of hope due to interpretation by juries during the trial phase. Is that your point?

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Well, speech is protected even radical speech is protected and the case has to be made for clear and present danger. So, if this is truly the anti-OWS law (section 2385) then where are the arrests? They already have the tools available. I think the reason is that there are no plans a foot to overthrow the government. There are no concrete steps being made to overthrow the government. This is by and large a peaceful demonstration and it would not look good for the US to cheer all of these other countries on their quest for democracy while locking up what amounts to political prisoners. That would be the icing on the cake for those countries that have publicly denounced US actions. But, yeah, that is my point.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Gotcha!

Are you a lawyer or legal aid? You sure seem to know the law, or at least how to find it quickly.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Oh, I'm not a lawyer. Lawyers were slammed just as hard during this financial crisis. I can find my away around. Thank you. :D

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

In this bill are we seeing a reintroduction to McCarthyism? Dissenters/protesters of corruption, greed and the misuse of power are the new Boogeymen?

[-] 2 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

DK.. Check this out..

.. If you want the Smoking Gun of Greed and Abuse in the System.. just look how the POOR are STILL in those Gun Sites! ..

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-02-16/business/os-florida-tipped-minimum-wage-20120215_1_minimum-wage-darden-restaurants-servers

Is there NO shame in FLorida?.. Which State is Going to follow that?

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Shades of Herman. ( abuse that is not abuse depending on your perspective - predator or prey )

The restaurant associations - making a better world ( for them ) for the owners.

I always found it quite greedy ( and wrong ) that while restaurant service people worked for below minimum wage and so tipping was encouraged to help those workers get a living wage out of their time and effort. That many establishments took a percentage of those tips.

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

Still.. Left up to the People to Help the People.. While the PIGS are the one's Feeding on us!

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

And so we are here.

Stand-up Speak-up Stand-up for your rights. - B. Marley

The need has never been more clear.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Well, section 2385 has been on the booksfor years and it stems from McCarthyism and anti-labor.

HR 327 doesn't have anything to do with McCarthyism.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

They are trying to get this bill passed by playing on nonexistent fears about the Boogeymen. Just like McCarthy and his communist inquisition witch hunt. Only this time they are targeting legal citizens with legal complaints exercising their rights in legal protest.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I think they are setting it up primarily because there is a high amount of anxiety of this or any other protests spiraling out of control. I have said before that we will have those food riots that we have seen in other countries. We will.

So, to us it is a nonexistent fear but I'm sure to them it is a humdinger.
Here is who is covered under section 3056

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Any way that you look at this.

It does not look good.

Thanks for the link. It does require close and careful consideration. Buyers Beware.

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/II/203/3056

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They have the power to turn this around right now.

They refuse.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Be careful not to carry a pocket knife - even a nail clipper could be pushing it with some conceal and carry laws. Those with the fold out nail file for instance. Silly I know - until it is used against you.


1 points by GirlFriday (3401) 3 minutes ago

Too, don't take a gun or weapon to a protest. That's like begging for it. A lot of this can be avoided by that old adage: Don't start no shit, won't be no shit. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

signs on sticks is often sited as dangerous

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Good Point:

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (5422) 6 minutes ago

signs on sticks is often sited as dangerous ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

People protect you cell phones future models may not have a camera.

The MSM will not be covering/airing this.

The truth has never been more available to be seen - "IF" you have internet access.


1 points by GirlFriday (3401) 8 minutes ago

Well, at this point, if people are planning on protesting at these areas then it might be wise to take the little course offered on training. I think that it is going to be key. If I was a betting woman, I would lay my money on that they realize that one bad move and they create a martyr. They don't want that. It will become an international headline. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Too, don't take a gun or weapon to a protest. That's like begging for it. A lot of this can be avoided by that old adage: Don't start no shit, won't be no shit.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

It is exactly why we are here. It is exactly why there is growing disaffection for the system as it now stands. More and more people are taking a look at the world around them and are finding that they don't like what they see. Not One Little Bit!!!!!!!!!!!!

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Well, at this point, if people are planning on protesting at these areas then it might be wise to take the little course offered on training. I think that it is going to be key. If I was a betting woman, I would lay my money on that they realize that one bad move and they create a martyr. They don't want that. It will become an international headline.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Looks like we made it through the 60's with this thing on the books. I'm trying to decide if this is one of those moments, I don't support violence as an action, but then they toss in force which seems a little more open. Given that this has been on the books for a long time I would think there has been rulings, but with the Robert's Court that might not matter much. The 2011 bill above seems entirly unnessicary for a free people, so the intent there is at least suspicous, I don't know if I see a ground for challage but I hope it's there, then again with Robert's Court...

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Section 2385? It is constitutional (prior case) but the Yancy case seems to have made a more clear distinction. Hard core rightwing would have a field day with it. I don't trust the Robert's Court.

I have mixed feelings on the 2011 bill. So, I kind of want to slow down a minute and mull it over. Specifically what was before and what is now.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

1 points by GirlFriday (3401) 13 hours ago

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/18/I/115/2385

wow lot of comments, yes this was the one I was talking about. I have seen the clip of the young girl taking over a school borad meeting with the people's mic and forcing them to at least hear her complait, but I also saw citzens who really wanted to learn about healthcare prevented from being allowed to do so, this one is about Washington, but I'm just speaking to the issue in general. The new one seems to be more than is needed, but I'm not so sure it will hinder OWS much if at all, but some people here may see more danger, and many have more experience than me, (when Bush said stand in the free speech zone I did)

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Here is the current law

that

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;

(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;

(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or

(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).

(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—

(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—

(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or

(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118 (e)(3); and

(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case.

(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.

(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.

(e) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752


I'm not seeing a fear factor. I am trying.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know the quote "when they came for.." I look at this and the things described are not actions I support, interference of process (at the federal level) carrying weapons to public meetings, however if you can stop a foreclosure by speaking up, ok: but I am worried about interpretation and prosecutor discretion, I don’t see jails filling up but they don’t have to, this could be very chilling, depending on how it is applied and that in itself is a problem, I’d like to see the ACLU position, I would not think they would like this.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am going to copy and paste my response to DKA [-] 1 points by GirlFriday (3473) 1 minute ago I don't understand. This law was enacted in 1965 after Kennedy's assassination. At the time it wasn't a Federal offense to kill the president. In 1971 it was amended to include congress. I don't see a fear factor here. This is the first part http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1751 Click next and it takes you to the current law I posted. ↥like ↧dislike reply edit delete permalink

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Conflict here ( proximity being the key word ): ( proximity is a fluid concept)

(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;


Let us all be restricted to the designated free speech zone or be liable to face the penalties of exercising free speech in an unapproved manner ( out of sight & out of mind ).

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I don't understand. This law was enacted in 1965 after Kennedy's assassination. At the time it wasn't a Federal offense to kill the president. In 1971 it was amended to include congress.

I don't see a fear factor here. This is the first part http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1751

Click next and it takes you to the current law I posted.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

While the law has been in effect for a long time, this seems to add definitions that change the original intent and to add these things to a law designed to deal with acts of violence does concern me.

http://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20120227/BILLS-112hr347-SUS.pdf

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

This expandsion seems to be what people are upset about, this was introduced in Jan 2011.

http://www.gop.gov/bill/112/1/hr347

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Well, this is how I arrived at my conclusion and I have no problem being wrong here. First, I looked at the history of it, where did it come from, why does it exist and what real changes are being made. I have searched through ACLU to see if they had anything on this and I cannot find it. In fact, I have to wonder if this is because the law is intentionally being broken to begin with. So, if you intentionally and knowingly slip into an area with the purpose of disrupting---criminal trespass and or disorderly conduct then what can they do? If you notice, their Know Your Rights for protesters section includes information on acquiring permits and there are cases where they have been able to protect rights but, the error is committed by law enforcement. Or maybe they haven't said anything yet because it hasn't been signed yet....

The question that I asked myself is simply: What are you losing? The answer that I have found is: Nothing that hasn't already been lost.

If you go to a national event, will you not be arrested for the same exact thing as it stands right now? You most certainly will.

Can you do a mic check in Congress without going to jail? No. Not at all. In fact, here and here

should show that you cannot do now what you haven't been able to do before.

Currently at a "town hall" meeting, you walk in and start screaming and yelling or (ask too many questions or the wrong questions), will you go to jail as it stands now? Yes.

Yes

Yes

It is no longer a misdemeanor. That is what has changed.

I guess, what is holding me back from HR 347 is that the law is intentionally being broken. By the same token, these people that are protected have refused to answer to the people. Specifically, so called town hall meetings where people are told not to ask questions or are arrested for asking questions even when the questions are presented in a calm and orderly manner.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

PS I forgot to tell you how nice it is to work through something without somebody piling on lies or going to the gutter.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thanks, facts. I think there are so many issues that are ZOMG that I try not to go ZOMG. I also wish there was a smart law person because I would like to know if I nailed it or at least how close I got.

The flip side is that I really like researching some of this stuff. I also thought it quite nice not to deal with the lies or the gutter. :D

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think since I'm not ready to chuck out everybody but a couple of Rs, I think I will fight elsewhere for the most part, did you see the post on mininum wage?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/should-ows-spearhead-an-effort-to-have-the-minimum/

I'm sure they have been many, but it occurs to me that it would be usefull to make them talk about it, maybe with letter writing push? anyway I haven't read it all so you may already have commented.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8651) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I had heard about the Josh Fox story, even saw him talk about it. I think near the end of your post you hit on it. It is a very different thing to be removed and released, and being removed and face a one year sentance, assuming no body's bring weapons and facing 20, pretty sure I don't want weapons there, I might be there. If they can remove people now, why the Bill? Thank you for looking at ACLU, this is close enough call for me I really do want to hear what some of the smart law people have to say. On one hand there are a least a couple of people in Congress that voted for this (I haven't check that but from the stroy) that I sort of trust, but then there was the "P. Act" and not too many saw that for what it was at first. (or they did)

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Yes, they do seem to be increasingly isolated and protected, and that just doesn't set well with me at all. I understand the need to protect them, to a certain extent, but my contention is that when a person runs for, and attains, public office then they have become public property. In a very real since, they belong to the public. If a person is not willing to put themselves at personal risk in order to serve We The People, then they should not seek public office in the first place.

My 2 cents.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

And I agree. To an extent they should be protected. However, to further run and hide is completely and totally unacceptable. When you refuse to answer legitimate questions that are presented in a calm and orderly manner then you are abusing your position. If your staff does not have the capacity to work with people that have come to speak with you.......they should be fired. Immediately. If that means that they spend an extra 30-45-120 minutes trying to get to the root of the problem and focus on the questions and then negotiate a time slot.......then that is what they do. The four Occupiers that were arrested for trying to get a commitment for five town hall meetings "because there is only so much time".........you make the time even if that means that you miss your after hour drink date or call the SO to pick up the kids. There is no excuse.

[-] 1 points by pewestlake (947) from Brooklyn, NY 2 years ago

This is excellent research and it serves to prove a very important tangential point -- Occupiers go to jail for doing a lot less disruptive things than the Tea Party was doing in the so-called health care town halls in Democratic districts. When you disrupt government officials and you DON'T go to jail, you're part of an astroturf movement. This proves that Occupy is a thousand times more genuine than the Tea Party ever was. Admire your tenacity, GF.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Thank you.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Originally this law was enacted to protect key members of the government from assignation attempts or from physical violence. It has now been amended to include a broader range of conditions and events.

reference in #2: [ in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance ]

reference in #3:

[ to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions ]


(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; (3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;

[-] -1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

And just when you thought it couldn't get any worse...

http://occupywallst.org/forum/paul-gilding-gives-a-frightening-prognosis-for-our/

This is why we see all this happening. In the BIG scheme of things, we are nothing.

[-] -2 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

Trespassing isn't free speech, stupid

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

It's not trespassing if my tax dollars go to pay for the upkeep of said "Federal Buildings and Grounds" because I own it!

Unless it's a designated military facility, maybe, I and other Americans may decide it permissible to disallow ourselves to go there.

[-] 1 points by Pottsandahalf (141) 2 years ago

You don't own it- the federal government does

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

What IS this "federal government" you speak of? You must explain how it functions, since it clearly does not appear to be a body of elected and accountable members of my peers.

Besides, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear...from angry pitchfork weilding farmers...right, right??

[-] -2 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

And yet STILL there are some that continue to worship the magic negro and his democrat party. That STILL think they are any different than the republicans. Jesus tap dancing goddamn Christ when are you people going to wake up?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

When we can wrest all the power other than the presidency from the Republicans. This argument is so specious, don't vote Democrat because they are becoming almost as bad as the Republicans. Does that make any sense?

Of course if Obama doesn't veto it, than all I can say is he actually is a Republican, because nothing could guarentee a Republican victory more effectively than his passing this legislation.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

So no democrats voted for this bill? You sure about that?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yeah, that's why we should help the Republicans, because they're worse, right?

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Excuse me but that isn't what I asked. I don't see anywhere in my previous post where I said the republicans should be supported. Did democrats vote for it or not?

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Of course many of them are sold-out too, just not as many; and for the last tiresome time, we can influence the Democratic Party to put forth a more receptive agenda for the 99%, make them give ground, and if they don't back us, we can really threaten them with a third party split.

We can do none of those things with the Republicans - if the win we're screwed. And finally, those are the ONLY choices in the next election - Democrat or Republican.

Now, I've explained this to you probably 20 times. I'll wait and see if you can wrap your synapses around it, for the last time by the way.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

And for the 20th time you Marxist twinkies are wasting your time thinking the democrats will bring about your Utopias . They are every bit as corrupt as the republicans. Unless of course you really believe what they tell you. If you truly grovel to Obama/Pelosi/Reid/etc..then you are beyond hope and any real change for this nation.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

If the Republicans are elected all OWS can look forward to is a boot in the face. I have asked you for some VIABLE way forward for this movement between now and the next election. I have asked you before many times, and all you do is say the same thing over and over and over again. Do you have any such plan, or is your plan to undermine this movement without giving any thought to how it will go forward?

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Okay. It can go forward if you Marxist fucks quit thinking the democrats are any different from the republicans. They just spew forth the shit you and your ilk have been brainwashed to believe. They have driven up the national debt up so high that succeeding generations will never be able to pay it off. BOTH parties have done that. Both parties are wiping their ass with the Constitution. Both are taking away our freedom. But I sometimes wonder if you Red shit really care about freedom.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You didn't answer my question. Thought I wouldn't notice after you spewed all you time-tested lies and smears, did you? Go forward how?

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Okay, one more time . The two party system must be done away with. At the very least a parliamentary system must rise. The more parties with a REAL shot at power the better. Hell, even you commie/anarchist cum stains would have a shot at it. But ya know something? I don't think you have the imagination to understand what I'm saying. Nevermind.

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Yes, that will all happen simply by magic! Presto - changeo! The twoparty system is gone, and we have a Parliament! Wow, that was easy, thank you for enlightening me. Do you possess the magic wand?

Forget it, you're hopeless. You know nothing about process, about the concrete steps we should consider as to how we get from where we are to where we want to be. You're just wasting my time, and I will NEVER respond to any more of this offal.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

You give no answers you piece of shit. You have no imagination and no real intelligence. And I've no doubt you will still constantly respond to my posts.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Shouldn't your user name be BlackHole (?) no no that wouldn't be right either a black hole swallows and you spew.

[-] 0 points by BlackSun (275) from Agua León, BC 2 years ago

Get bent Marxist garbage.

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

True to form.

Thanks for playing - Who's that troll.

Please come again.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Trying for Americas demise - a law to make dissenting citizens political prisoners. Another plus for Prisons for Profit? In America - who would have thought?

Who else needs another reason to Stand-up Speak-up Speak-up for you rights.

[-] 0 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Everyone needs to join the ACLU today. At this rate, it won't be long before groups like them are outlawed if we can't reverse this trend. Below is link to their site.

http://www.aclu.org/

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

You should place a link for everyone to look at and consider. Any tool that comes to hand has the possibility to get the job done if it is used properly. Any good tool not used could be a fatal mistake. We need to use all that is good in our fight against corruption, greed and evil.

Unite in common cause for the health and prosperity of all.

[-] 1 points by Underdog (2971) from Clermont, FL 2 years ago

Thanks. I have added their link to previous comment above. Is this what you meant?

[+] -6 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes - http://www.aclu.org/

Take it with you where ever you go. Just because it is a large organization, it does not mean that it is well known by all or critically considered by all.

Advertise good and positive methods to unite or to support good common cause items that anyone and everyone can participate in. Direct action placed right in front of you. Help yourselves to a better world.

That kind of thing always and forever.

[+] -7 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Anyone else feeling a cold wind blowing?

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

I do! And So do ALL those who are now facing Incarceration and/or Fines..! Too Many! And now, the UGLY has just FLOWN in the Face of the PEOPLE!..

The ILL WIND of Persecution is Blowing #ows Peaceful efforts .... far far Away!

We have been forced to take Two Steps Back now. And what was our HOPE for a Common Cause of Resolve, .. ..has now been forced into a 'Let Them Eat Cake'... out and out.. Call for REVOLUTION!

... It's what is on the Wall. ..And WE sure didnt Write it!

[-] 3 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

I am SO with DOG on this.. We Seem to have done NOTHING to stop the Machines that Grind away every Day..at Decency, Honor, and Justice! The Corrupt have shown their Faces!

Every single Congressmen and Senator needs to FEEL the ONLY Strike back we have left.. Vote Every one of those who signed.. OUT!

( or Revolt.. seems we have been left with very little choice now)

[-] 1 points by Marlow (1141) 2 years ago

We need to get some ENERGY in this, that's for sure...

No more Drums... make Noise with our Voices!

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (34898) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

So we need to:

Stand-up Speak-up Stand-up for our rights. B. Marley

We need to take all of the legal action our rights grant us, before those rights are taken away.

We need to own the system like never before.

Unite in common cause. For the health and prosperity of ALL.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Screw that, you and BitchFriday just vote democrat and this will all take care of itself.

Just ask your daddy, ZenPunk.

The Republicans are forcing this and all Dems who vote for it must do so because their families are indefinitely detained and are currently being water-boarded.

[-] -1 points by uncensored (104) 2 years ago

Check your zipper.