Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime

Author Topic: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime  (Read 6723 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Jordan

  • Guest
H.R. 347 passed the House yesterday 388 to 3. It makes peaceful protest within proximity to government officials a federal offense.

http://youtu.be/G9cp7aVH7OE


http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-347

Offline John_Back_From_The_Club_O

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,246
    • From Hell to Veins
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #1 on: February 29, 2012, 12:14:59 am »

However, tar and feathering is still permitted!  ;D
DON'T WORRY!!!!!

WE WILL BRING YOU DANCING WITH THE STARS IN IT'S ENTIRETY AFTER THIS SPECIAL REPORT!

Jordan

  • Guest
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #2 on: February 29, 2012, 01:10:04 am »

Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012.

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.


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

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #3 on: February 29, 2012, 01:17:34 am »
What an amazing sign that the congress is being controlled by Committee of 300 assholes.

Good thing that this 'bill' is 100% illegal and has zero weight of law.

They just continue passing illegal shit as if it has any value.

Hey congress, all laws that violate the constitution are null and void, as if they have never been written in the first place. Your wizard of oz boogie boogie bullshit is exposed. Now stop helping banksters and incestuous royal nutjobs in destroying our country. And for pete's sake read The Law before you take another fricking vote.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Dig

  • All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.
  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 63,099
    • Git Ureself Edumacated
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #4 on: February 29, 2012, 01:25:33 am »
Hey Congress...welcome to the tenth amendment and a little thing called 'nullification' (which you swore to defend)...



NDAA Nullification Passes Virginia Senate by a Veto-Proof 39-1 Vote
http://www.prisonplanet.com/ndaa-nullification-passes-virginia-senate-by-a-veto-proof-39-1-vote.html
Michael Boldin
Tenth Amendment Center
February 28, 2012

Today, the Virginia Senate took a firm stand in support of liberty, the Constitution for the United States, and the Constitution of Virginia by voting in favor of House Bill 1160 (HB1160), the “NDAA Nullification Act.”

The final vote was 39-1.

After a motion to recommit (delay until next year) went down to the wire before being rejected yesterday (report here), groups across the political spectrum activated in support of the legislation, which codifies in law that no agency of the Commonwealth of Virginia – including defense forces and national guard troops, will comply with or assist the federal government in any way under it’s newly claimed powers to arrest and detain without due process.

INTERNMENT: NEVER AGAIN

The bill’s primary sponsor, Delegate Bob Marshall, had this to say in support:

“During World War II, the federal government incarcerated tens of thousands of loyal Japanese Americans in the name of national security. By this bill, Virginia declares that it will not participate in similar modern-day efforts.

Even President Obama had questions about the bill, when he promised the American people that he would not use the unrestrained powers it granted him — but why should we trust any President with such powers?

There are moments in our history when our liberties hang in the balance. This is one of those moments. I urge the Senate…to lead the way in the nation to ensure that Virginia will not cooperate when the Federal Government strays off the reservation with laws that take away the civil liberties of our citizens.”

BRIDGING THE POLITICAL DIVIDE

Last Thursday, the Tenth Amendment Center, in partnership with the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and Demand Progress held a media conference with experts and legislators from across the political spectrum. On hand were a former Al Gore advisor and a former Reagan administration member. (full report here)

The message was resounding, and echoed by the Jr. Senator from Loudoun Virginia on the floor today, “Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, any law that passes congress that has those provisions should be a deep concern, and I hope that we can all agree on this one issue.”

While the bill doesn’t directly block federal agents from carrying out their new NDAA powers, this is part and parcel of a larger NDAA nullification campaign around the country. Currently 7 local governments have passed resolutions ranging from a denouncement of the federal act in three Colorado counties to requiring noncompliance with it in places like Fairfax, CA and Northampton, MA. And, 7 states are currently considering legislation like Virginia’s – all based off the model legislation provided by the Tenth Amendment Center, the Liberty Preservation Act.

THREE STEPS, MAYBE JUST TWO?

Here at the Tenth Amendment Center, we define nullification as “any act or set of acts which has as its end result a particular law being rendered null, void, or unenforceable in a specific area.” With that definition in mind, we see nullification of the new “kidnapping powers” of the NDAA as a multi-step process.

1. Education - awareness. This is where local and state resolutions come into play. When something is passed, even non-binding, it gets press coverage about the idea that the local and state people have a role to play in this.

2. Non-compliance – as just passed by the Virginia House and Senate, and being considered in various other states and local communities. The message? Your unconstitutional federal act is not welcome here!

Gandhi, Rosa Parks and others didn’t take it beyond there. We recognize that in almost every situation, the federal government relies on states being silent or even fully complicit. Information sharing, logistics, and even national guard troops carrying out orders are activities that could be asked of state and local governments. Could the feds still kidnap at that point if the state refuses compliance? Sure, “legally” nothing has changed. But if 10-15 states and a hundred or so counties and cities are making clear they will not comply and that they consider the act unconstitutional, it’s going to be much tougher for them, if not politically impossible, than if everybody just complied and waited for the courts or another election to “save” them.

3. Resistance and physical interposition – Some, of course, believe that the feds can never be stopped without a physical resistance. But this may not be required if enough states and localities take noncompliance seriously in #2 above. But, we also see the value in running the full spectrum of options from the simplest to the strongest in various parts of the country. In Washington State, the bill there is full non-compliance. Matt Shea and Jason Overstreet, the primary sponsors, feel they can get that moving forward, and hope to follow up with criminal penalties in a future bill. Then, potentially another to require arrest of fed agents for kidnapping could be considered. In Missouri, they’re tracking along the same lines.

In Tennessee, though, the bill being considered right now refers to indefinite detention as a “kidnapping” charge and requires the local sheriffs to stop them. (info here)



NEXT STEP FOR VIRGINIA

HB1160 received a minor amendment in the Senate before passage and now goes back to the House for Concurrence. The bill previously passed the house by a vote of 96-4 so it’s expected that the amended version will sail through as well. The Amendment reads as follows:

§ 1. Notwithstanding any contrary provision of law, no agency or political subdivision of the Commonwealth, or employee of same acting in his official capacity, shall aid an agency of the United States in the unlawful detention of any United States citizen pursuant to 50 U.S.C. § 1541 as provided by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (P.L. 112-81, § 1021).

Delegate Marshall previously reported that Governor Bob McDonnell is opposing this legislation. And, even with such large veto-proof votes in both the House and Senate, Virginia residents are encouraged to take action today. Those living in Virginia are encouraged to contact their Senators with words of thanks for passing HB1160 (at this link) AND the Governor’s office (at this link) in support of this legislation now.
All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man. The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately

Offline Monkeypox

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16,849
  • He Loved Big Brother
    • Monkeypox
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #5 on: February 29, 2012, 03:24:26 am »
We're now starting to see so many parallels to what happened in Nazi Germany, it's frightening.
War Is Peace - Freedom Is Slavery - Ignorance Is Strength


"Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

—Thomas Jefferson

Jordan

  • Guest
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #6 on: February 29, 2012, 09:55:22 am »
Hey Congress...welcome to the tenth amendment and a little thing called 'nullification' (which you swore to defend)...



Utah and others are also in the process of nullifying NDAA. 

Offline Scarbo

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 854
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #7 on: February 29, 2012, 11:28:12 am »
Is there a list somewhere of the states nullifying NDAA?

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,644
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #8 on: February 29, 2012, 01:27:09 pm »
http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/

Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13

"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."

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,196
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #9 on: February 29, 2012, 01:28:37 pm »
 Doesn't it appear to be a dividing line,  The federals, \are saying, don't you miserable little shiiits attempt to raise your voices or gather on our turf.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,644
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #10 on: February 29, 2012, 02:18:06 pm »
Another example of high treason.

When you come right out and attack the most fundamental right of a human being, you will most assuredly be facing an enemy who is no longer afraid of death.  For slavery is worse than death.  I hope you shitbag puppets for the Club of Rome think it was worth it in the end, because you've just invoked the nearest thing next to the wrath of God.

Do you f*cking traitors who work for Bilderberg, Anser, Aspen Institute, RAND, CSIS, MITRE, Raytheon, et.al. think people are going to submit and be afraid of imprisonment, torture, and even murder if they don't surrender their God given rights?  Think again.

The Founding Fathers would have had everyone who was involved in creating/drafting this bill arrested, tried for treason, and publicly executed.

The more people who wake up from Ron Paul's massive awareness of liberty, the more people it forces them to have to try to kill, which means the less likely it is for them to prevail.  Once you understand what freedom really is, you cannot "unlearn" what you learned.  Countless millions know who the real enemies are, and no one is going to make them forget who they are.

Offline Effie Trinket

  • member
  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1,644
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #11 on: February 29, 2012, 02:53:32 pm »
We're now starting to see so many parallels to what happened in Nazi Germany, it's frightening.
Look at this troll response to the article:

"Unless I'm reading it wrong, its for federal buildings, not everywhere.  And I don't know why people who are of the mind to protest don't get this. If you are really THAT unhappy that you are protesting, do you really care that you protesting is illegal if you really feel you have been wronged to the point that you are protesting?"

People love being slaves.

Offline John_Back_From_The_Club_O

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,246
    • From Hell to Veins
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #12 on: February 29, 2012, 10:43:12 pm »
Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal


Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

29 February, 2012, 02:13

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.
 
DON'T WORRY!!!!!

WE WILL BRING YOU DANCING WITH THE STARS IN IT'S ENTIRETY AFTER THIS SPECIAL REPORT!

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,196
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #13 on: March 01, 2012, 02:43:31 pm »
 Mr. Obama, who is this guy, no one remembers him from his college days, his SSN is shaky, his true past is covered, blanked..
BUT is he truly the one coming up with all this shiiite? OR, is he on the elites strings.
They can pick em can't they. He is the face on screen not the brains running this operation.
 At least GWB exposed his insanity for any American with a functioning braincell, Obama is just flat out following the script, it reminds me of the Howdy Doodey puppet show.
 Ever wonder if his guy is a Manchurian candidate? Isn't' it surreal  he made 580 campaign promises and reneged on over 500 of them.
P.S..Luved effie trinkets rant, good on her.

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,159
    • The Great Deception
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #14 on: March 01, 2012, 06:31:51 pm »
We have a CCC problem in DC!

Congress - Cowards - Complicit
Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

The Great Deception - Forum/Library - My Research
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showforum=110

Offline chris jones

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,196
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #15 on: March 01, 2012, 08:14:10 pm »
We have a CCC problem in DC!

Congress - Cowards - Complicit

Jo, hope ya don't mind I include greed, the divisions, their power over the common man, the bennys for life, the connections, and quite possibly the fact they know once in they are in the  mode it's a go along, the have it waxed. If they should publicaly resist or expose the deal they won't remain very long.

Offline jofortruth

  • Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13,159
    • The Great Deception
Re: Bilderberg is forcing congress to make protesting a federal crime
« Reply #16 on: March 01, 2012, 08:39:38 pm »
Jo, hope ya don't mind I include greed, the divisions, their power over the common man, the bennys for life, the connections, and quite possibly the fact they know once in they are in the  mode it's a go along, the have it waxed. If they should publicaly resist or expose the deal they won't remain very long.

Oh yes, there are many factors involved!

IMO, a good man stands on principle and let's the chips fall where they may! There is no excuse for a person who calls themselves a "leader" or "my representative" to be a coward!

It is shameful that out of 535 so called leaders, the majority are sniveling cowards, idiots and or complicit! There is no excuse. You are either a man who does the right thing, or you are a despicable little child just in it for yourself. These people are an embarassment to this country. Their cowardice etc have allowed what is currently happening! They are failures in every sense of the word!

Don't believe me. Look it up yourself!

The Great Deception - Forum/Library - My Research
http://z4.invisionfree.com/The_Great_Deception/index.php?showforum=110