Tell Obama: Veto the anti-protest bill!

[Hash Zeppelin]

This could seriously limit us on how to get out the message for legalization. Not to mention it is a clear act of tyranny.

US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law Bill H.R. 347

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.

Sign the petition----> http://markcrispinmiller.com/2012/03/tell-obama-veto-the-anti-protest-bill-petition/

Why This Is Important

The U.S. House and Senate have both recently passed bills that place crushing new restrictions on the First Amendment rights of all Americans. This legislation puts new limitations in place that charge protesters with federal crimes if they protest on federal grounds, at any location in which someone protected by the Secret Service (the President, a former President, a Presidential candidate, or any number of domestic or international figures), or at any location sanctioned as being of “national significance” — including the Democratic and Republican conventions and even Super Bowl XXXVI.

H.R. 347 and S.B. 1794 *severely* limit the ability of Americans to exercise their First Amendment rights to speech and assembly — and destroy the long tradition of American protest. We are calling on President Obama to veto this legislation, and to stand up for those who wish to participate in the political process in deep and powerful ways.

http://huffingtonpostunionofblogger...enforcement-in-anticipation-of-more-protests/

Government Officials Increasing Powers of Law Enforcement in Anticipation of More Protests

John Robb explains, albeit with some hyperbole:

HR 341: One more step towards Neo-Feudalism

In feudal times, you could be put to death if you didn’t kneel when the carriages of the nobility passed by. This is a step in that direction (although very few people care). ’

I’m not that excited to write about this type of things. Seems like more of a chore than something I want to do. Why do I write about it? It’s another milestone on the decline of the US that is worth highlighting for future historians.

I can see these future historians now: pouring over the output from software systems that cull trends out massive social media repositories. Some will be shaking their heads, asking themselves: what were those numbskulls in the early 21st Century thinking about when their governments began to hollow out? Why were they so passive as things began to fall apart?

___________

This new bill, about to be signed by the President, is called the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. It is not as innocent as its name.

Essentially, it makes it a federal offense to be anywhere near, from being in the area or in the same building, somebody protected by the secret service. That’s from the President to candidates for political office (Romney or Santorum) to senior government officials to foreign dignitaries (G20). In other words, lots and lots of people.

While being sold as a way to close a loophole in the current law regarding White House security, it is actually much more than that. It changed one word that made a world of difference. What’s the difference?

To be arrested and imprisoned, all you need to do is be the same building or area around a person that has secret service protection. You don’t even need to know they are there to be arrested and imprisoned. If you are merely walking by the area, you can be legally jailed for one year. If you are carrying something that can be seen as a weapon (legally or not), that imprisonment can be extended to ten years.

In short, if you are within the same building or neighborhood as a political or foreign personage without their expressed permission, you can be imprisoned.

“Trust us” or “they are good people” isn’t a valid answer to this critique. If a new power can be abused legally, it will eventually be abused. Very simple tautology.

http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don’t fret. It’s not like the country will really try to enforce it — right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a “terrorist” under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, “The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.”
“Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights,” adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Citizens on the left and right are very against this bill, yet only 3 reps voted no. do we have representation? I think not

 

[bentom187]

we are screwed,i see after a unanimous vote from the senate and only 3 libertarians including Dr.Ron Paul, against it in the house,the idea of the presi turning on a dime and not signing it seems impossible.
im sure goldman sachs recruited a constitutional scholar in order to smash our constitution.

heres something else entertaining,from our current presi.misreprisenting the founders.


[YOUTUBEIF]fL6HX07unPE[/YOUTUBEIF]

unfortunatley the majority of the populice doesnt have a frigin clue whats going on and could care less.

The Goverment itself the park service specificly warns "do not feed the bears" why is this ? because they become completley dependant on humans feeding them.

we are at a tipping point,we either accept tolitarian rule through apathy,or gain our bearings and align them with our founder original intent and experiment of existing without kings and dictators.

 

[Sam the Caveman]

one more step towards making the constitution illegal

 

[Anti]

Damn this sort of shit is depressing.

 

[supherbb]

Great post Hash Zeppelin, I might break out into a rant and before I do I want you to know that the fact you posted this is a good thing.

But I'm done signing petitions. I'm done protesting peacefully. I'm done looking to anyone that is anywhere REMOTELY close to that stinking, corrupt Klan they call the Government.

This country wasn't founded by the signing of petitions, so why the fuck do we settle for this 'peaceful is the way' bullshit? We're hijacked, doesn't anyone see that? If a guy stole a car with you in the backseat, do you think he's gonna pull over and let you out when you ask him to? WHAT THE FUCK!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

Yeah, I'm done with the peace shit. I'll never understand why so many of us fear so few of them.

Call me when you guys want to get this war started. Realest talk ever on ICMAG.

 

[resinryder]

Sieg Heil and pay tribute to the homeland bitches!!!!!

 

[GP73LPC]

thanks for the petition link Hash Zep

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

The best thing all of you can do is spread this as to as many people as possible. and ask them to do the same!

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

we are screwed,i see after a unanimous vote from the senate and only 3 libertarians including Dr.Ron Paul, against it in the house,the idea of the presi turning on a dime and not signing it seems impossible.
im sure goldman sachs recruited a constitutional scholar in order to smash our constitution.

heres something else entertaining,from our current presi.misreprisenting the founders.


[YOUTUBEIF]fL6HX07unPE[/YOUTUBEIF]

unfortunatley the majority of the populice doesnt have a frigin clue whats going on and could care less.

The Goverment itself the park service specificly warns "do not feed the bears" why is this ? because they become completley dependant on humans feeding them.

we are at a tipping point,we either accept tolitarian rule through apathy,or gain our bearings and align them with our founder original intent and experiment of existing without kings and dictators.

Look how fast other countries have fallen into totalitarian rule. It happens in about 5 years each time.

 

[resinryder]

we are screwed,i see after a unanimous vote from the senate

It was not a unanimous vote in the senate. Not the 1st senator voted for or against it. It was unanimous consent, which means it wasn't voted on nor debated. It just means no one objected in time. Unanimous consent is actually a way to speed up the passage of bills; they are set to pass automatically unless someone on the floor objects. This was how the Libya no fly zone was passed, there wasn't really a "vote" in the sense we think of it. It's a total bullshit sneaky ass way to get a bill passed without debate.

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

that is pretty fucked up

 

[bentom187]

It was not a unanimous vote in the senate. Not the 1st senator voted for or against it. It was unanimous consent, which means it wasn't voted on nor debated. It just means no one objected in time. Unanimous consent is actually a way to speed up the passage of bills; they are set to pass automatically unless someone on the floor objects. This was how the Libya no fly zone was passed, there wasn't really a "vote" in the sense we think of it. It's a total bullshit sneaky ass way to get a bill passed without debate.

im not politicly correct all the time, but is this what they call a "up or down vote" ?

i dont agree with it either way,but it just shows how much they care.

 

[abellguy]

Damn life just hurts! As Bob said, Rasta is the future thanks for the link

 

[resinryder]

im not politicly correct all the time, but is this what they call a "up or down vote" ?

i dont agree with it either way,but it just shows how much they care.

It's neither. Someone brought it up on the Senate floor, no one was there or gave enough of a shit to argue for or against. So since no one questioned it during whatever time frame it had it passed under the procedure of unanimous consent.
Had a friend look at the bill last night and he found a portion of it he says will place the police under military authority. Not sure about that personally.

 

[minds_I]

Hello all,

Well, its a sure thing now...going on Ebay for some jackboots and maybe a schwsitka for my hat.

Wake the phuque up America and welcome to the machine.

Sieg Heil Sieg Heil Sieg Heil.

I remember a time when such a thing was unthinkable. I lament the notion of free speech and right to assemble.

minds_I

 

[Pig Pen]

Let's see...
No free speech (this is truly what free speech is all about, the right to protest )...
No right to bear arms...

Good thing we have the Constitution to protect our other "freedoms" right?

LOL

I am so glad I was young when freedom was a reality, I am so sorry for my grandchildren and beyond. We are definitely slipping into darkness.

 

[Yes4Prop215]

this has got to be some sick cruel joke...are they really taking direct shots at the constitution now?

fuckin A....these assholes needs to be dragged to the guillotines french revolution style..

i hope every politician who voted for this gets massive internal bleeding and diarrhea for life...

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

well obama did not veto it so this is law now and all those kids that are going to protest the g8 will be considered felons. the OWS kids will be felons. This law is provoking as well. it basically puts people in a position to have to brake the law to defend the first amendment. I would. I will be civilly disobedient at the least until the day I die. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of arrests there will be, and they will all be political prisoners. People will just get angrier and angrier as it happens which will add to that. Not to mention police lines will no longer be safe from being over run.

What does the government expect the young reactive kids to do when they take away the legal and peaceful means to express their right to protest and speak their minds in a direct manner to politicians at live events. This is a huge step to provoking violence and civil war.
This is not the 60's there is no acid movement. There is millions of pissed off people on both sides of the political spectrum and they have 250 million registered guns. There is also hundreds of millions of unregistered guns. There is also millions of military small arms collected in wars brought back thought out the many wars we have waged.

Basically the federal government is backing them self into a corner. less and less people are staying quiet and nice. some normally tame people are up and yelling. The more they clamp down with their Iron fist the more of us will slip through their fingers.

 

[abellguy]

well obama did not veto it so this is law now and all those kids that are going to protest the g8 will be considered felons. the OWS kids will be felons.

This is absolutely insane! It just leaves me speechless that all that is happening is happening. When I was reading the book Behold a Pale Horse by William S. Cooper, I thought this can't be real well that was in '88 and well time is telling the real truth of the agenda the Illuminate has! Rasta is future