PDA

View Full Version : Obama makes protesting the president a felony



Starbuck
04-06-2012, 05:45 PM
President Obama Signs “Anti-Protest” Bill H.R. 347
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/#eMs5DRjKLXIseHaz.99

President Obama signed bill H.R. 347 (also known as the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011) into law on March 9th, amid numerous protests from the Occupy movement, as well as other agencies. HR 347 is a modification from Senate bill S. 1794, which restricted people from entering or blocking public areas that have been closed off by Secret Service while a person under their protection is passing through. The law also included major public events, such as the Inaguration and Presidential campaigns.

The new law, which passed the House with a vote of 399-3, extends the original law by adding more protected areas within Washington D.C, and removing the word “willfully,” from the paragraph stating that protesters can be prosecuted if they enter the area “willfully and knowingly.”

Representative Justin Amash, R-Michigan, explains this change by saying:

“ 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 its illegal.”

Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-protest-bill-h-r-347/#eMs5DRjKLXIseHaz.99


I heard Judge Napolitano explain this bill:
He says that anyone who is being guarded by Secret service is covered by this bill and may not be protested. Furthermore he says that the president can order Secret Service protection whenever he wants. So if David Axlerod, for instance, is giving a speech and is guarded you may not post a sign protesting him.

Note that it also covers Presidential campaigns. You may not protest the president when he is campaigning.

Bill was signed March 15, 2012.

Rockntractor
04-06-2012, 06:28 PM
Now we can start filling our prisons with political prisoners.

Hawkgirl
04-06-2012, 06:49 PM
Now we can start filling our prisons with political prisoners.


....with libtards. It's a double edged sword.

Rockntractor
04-06-2012, 07:12 PM
....with libtards. It's a double edged sword.

Speech should remain free, we already have laws on the books against criminal trespass, vandalism and many other activities that OWS engaged in.
This is wrong and will be another one for the courts to strike down.

Apache
04-06-2012, 07:20 PM
this flies full in the face of the 1st amendment... our politicians NEED their butts booted from office... all of them!

Janice
04-06-2012, 07:52 PM
Just in time for Mao Tse Teleprompters fall campaign.

Elspeth
04-06-2012, 08:15 PM
this flies full in the face of the 1st amendment... our politicians NEED their butts booted from office... all of them!

Yes it does. Add it to the strip searches and we're done as a nation of free people.

Retread
04-06-2012, 08:40 PM
....with libtards. It's a double edged sword.

According to the law it's up to the service to decide if protesting is to be punishable in each case. So you know all of the anti-Romney and the seiu demos in support of the little o will be allowed.

Hawkgirl
04-06-2012, 08:45 PM
Speech should remain free, we already have laws on the books against criminal trespass, vandalism and many other activities that OWS engaged in.
This is wrong and will be another one for the courts to strike down.

You don't have to convince me of that. Obama is trying to run this country into communism....

Rockntractor
04-06-2012, 09:47 PM
You don't have to convince me of that. Obama is trying to run this country into communism....

I just wanted to make it clear to some of our more liberal posters that the tactics of OWS don't always fall under free speech.

SarasotaRepub
04-06-2012, 10:17 PM
SILENCE DOGS!!!!
:friendly_wink:

The conventions should be interesting...

txradioguy
04-07-2012, 05:37 AM
....with libtards. It's a double edged sword.

Not really because this law will only be enforced when someone protests Obama.

You won't see this when say...Code Pink stages a protest in the middle of a Romney campaign event.

Lanie
04-07-2012, 06:56 AM
You can protest Obama to your hearts content.

You just can't block areas where he's supposed to be visiting. First of all, that's already a disturbance of the peace to block an area.

Second, if they're blocking the President, isn't it possible that they're meaning to threaten him in some way?

This doesn't just serve Obama. It's going to serve the next Republican President too. Bush probably could have used a law like that.

Lanie
04-07-2012, 07:00 AM
Not really because this law will only be enforced when someone protests Obama.

You won't see this when say...Code Pink stages a protest in the middle of a Romney campaign event.

The law is the law. It's only going to be undone when somebody challenges it in the Supreme Court. They're not going to side with the plantiff. You can protest the President without blocking where he's supposed to be.

I like how you said Romney. :)

txradioguy
04-07-2012, 07:32 AM
You can protest Obama to your hearts content.

You just can't block areas where he's supposed to be visiting.

You mean like the sidewalk? C'mon Bridget do you REALLY think this will be used on someone why stands in front of the motorcade?

You obviously don't have any comprehension on how long before the POTUS enters an event to speak that the Secret Service secures the area...and how long people are held in the area not allowed to leave after the POTUS departs.

If you did you wouldn't have made the silly observation that you did above.



First of all, that's already a disturbance of the peace to block an area.

And yet it happens all the time. 1st Amendment rights and all.


Second, if they're blocking the President, isn't it possible that they're meaning to threaten him in some way?

Why does this suddenly become a problem when a Democrat is in office? This was never a concern by anyone the previous 8 years.


This doesn't just serve Obama. It's going to serve the next Republican President too.

And when it's attempted to be enforced when Romney or Santorum takes office the "rights" groups will howl and wail and gnash teeth and shriek to the high heavens about how draconian this law is and the very same Libs that voted for it will call for investigations into the legality of it.


Bush probably could have used a law like that.

And yet as evil as you Libtards claim he is...he never came up with a law like this nor did the GOP controlled congress.

txradioguy
04-07-2012, 07:37 AM
The law is the law. It's only going to be undone when somebody challenges it in the Supreme Court. They're not going to side with the plaintiff.

You mean those 9 unelected judicial activists? The ones that would take an "unprecedented" step in overturning a democratically passed law?

:rolleyes:





You can protest the President without blocking where he's supposed to be.



Define "where he's supposed to be"? 5 feet away? 50 feet away? 5 blocks? 5 miles? 5 counties?

That's a very ambiguous term that gives so much leeway that "where he's supposed to be" could be defined as the same state.

So now if I'm in Midland, Texas and I want to hold an Obama protest (this is THEORY ONLY...I'm NOT holding a protest of any kind) and he's in Dallas...under the "where he's supposed to be" hypothesis I could be arrested.

Lanie
04-07-2012, 07:46 AM
You mean like the sidewalk? C'mon Bridget do you REALLY think this will be used on someone why stands in front of the motorcade?

I think conservatives will suddenly be for the law when a Republican is in office. I do think liberals will end up getting arrested in the future.


You obviously don't have any comprehension on how long before the POTUS enters an event to speak that the Secret Service secures the area...and how long people are held in the area not allowed to leave after the POTUS departs.

If you did you wouldn't have made the silly observation that you did above.

My apologies for my ignorance, TX. Doesn't this make things harder on the President though to allow nearly anything in the name of the first amendment?





And yet it happens all the time. 1st Amendment rights and all.

One's right to swing one's fist ends at somebody's face. I'm pretty certain that if I tried to block the exits to the church tonight or tomorrow for service that I'd be arrested. Same thing with Wal-Mart (although I'm sure the customers would run said person over).




Why does this suddenly become a problem when a Democrat is in office? This was never a concern by anyone the previous 8 years.

Because people are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't make a law bad or good.




And when it's attempted to be enforced when Romney or Santorum takes office the "rights" groups will howl and wail and gnash teeth and shriek to the high heavens about how draconian this law is and the very same Libs that voted for it will call for investigations into the legality of it.

True, and I think it will be shot down.



And yet as evil as you Libtards claim he is...he never came up with a law like this nor did the GOP controlled congress.

That's true. He just put up with people throwing things at the Presidental car and trying to come up to it the morning of inaugeration.

Lanie
04-07-2012, 07:53 AM
You mean those 9 unelected judicial activists? The ones that would take an "unprecedented" step in overturning a democratically passed law?

Such as possibly the mandate in Obamacare? Yes, those judges. They're there to determine the constitutionality of a law.

:rolleyes:







Define "where he's supposed to be"? 5 feet away? 50 feet away? 5 blocks? 5 miles? 5 counties?

That's a very ambiguous term that gives so much leeway that "where he's supposed to be" could be defined as the same state.

So now if I'm in Midland, Texas and I want to hold an Obama protest (this is THEORY ONLY...I'm NOT holding a protest of any kind) and he's in Dallas...under the "where he's supposed to be" hypothesis I could be arrested.

I would think that if there's an organized protest that the city was informed about, then there's a place that the protesters would be assigned to be. When Bush came years ago to Winston-Salem, there was a "cage" where the protesters stayed. It wasn't really a cage. lol. It was a confined area that was sort of away from the people wanting to see the President, but when they left, they would pass the protesters by and see the signs. If anybody left the "cage" to go and disturb the ones waiting in line to see the President, then it was technically against the law. The officer could technically arrest them, but they usually told them to go back. The new law would probably insist on an arrest.

So, you can't just try to disturb the area where people are trying to get in. You can't block any other doors. The sidewalk is tricky. Technically, anybody can be there, but protesters do test their limits on it.

Oh heck, if the liberals pitch a fit, throw FACE up in their face. lol.

txradioguy
04-07-2012, 07:55 AM
I think conservatives will suddenly be for the law when a Republican is in office. I do think liberals will end up getting arrested in the future.

Wanna bet?




My apologies for my ignorance, TX. Doesn't this make things harder on the President though to allow nearly anything in the name of the first amendment?

Hasn't for the past 200 plus years. They had no trouble saying everything from porn to flag burning was covered by the 1st Amendment. IF a President truly respects what the 1st Amendment says...then he wouldn't sign a law like this.







One's right to swing one's fist ends at somebody's face. I'm pretty certain that if I tried to block the exits to the church tonight or tomorrow for service that I'd be arrested. Same thing with Wal-Mart (although I'm sure the customers would run said person over).

No if you were harmed blocking the entrance to a church you'd be hailed on the left as a champion for the separation of church and state...and if you were harmed in any way lawyers would be falling all over themselves to represent you in your lawsuit.

You'd be a hero.





Because people are hypocrites. Hypocrisy doesn't make a law bad or good.

No the Constitution makes it good or bad. And by the Constitution this is a bad law.





True, and I think it will be shot down.

It shouldn't have even come to that...this President and his followers believe in "free speech for ME but not for thee".





That's true. He just put up with people throwing things at the Presidental car and trying to come up to it the morning of inaugeration.

That's because he has a class and grace and understanding of the Constitution his successor will never have.

txradioguy
04-07-2012, 08:01 AM
Such as possibly the mandate in Obamacare? Yes, those judges. They're there to determine the constitutionality of a law.

:rolleyes:

Not according to Obama. What they are about to do...according to him...has never been down before.




I would think that if there's an organized protest that the city was informed about, then there's a place that the protesters would be assigned to be. When Bush came years ago to Winston-Salem, there was a "cage" where the protesters stayed. It wasn't really a cage. lol. It was a confined area that was sort of away from the people wanting to see the President, but when they left, they would pass the protesters by and see the signs. If anybody left the "cage" to go and disturb the ones waiting in line to see the President, then it was technically against the law. The officer could technically arrest them, but they usually told them to go back. The new law would probably insist on an arrest.

The new law is designed as thuggery pure and simple. The current POTUS doesn't want toe view inside his armored limo spoiled by throngs of people that detest his policies and what he's doing to his country. He would prefer rose petals spread before him as he walks.


So, you can't just try to disturb the area where people are trying to get in.

Again define what the "area" is where people are trying to get in. Is it an exit off the freeway. Entrance to the parking lot? A street adjacent to the auditorium or stadium where the POTUS is speaking?



You can't block any other doors. The sidewalk is tricky. Technically, anybody can be there, but protesters do test their limits on it.

Again...as I said before...that is taken care of 5-6 HOURS before he POTUS arrives in town. People that the Secret Service have on a watch list in that particular town are investigated and interviewed 2-3 days before the visit and told not to come near the event The layers of security that go into a POTUS event make this law unnecessary.


Oh heck, if the liberals pitch a fit, throw FACE up in their face. lol.

Damn right.

Elspeth
04-07-2012, 11:26 PM
Interesting that the Orlando Sentinel reports on this tonight:

Orlando's Rep. Adams fears Obama power grab (http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2012-04-07/news/os-sandy-adams-obama-martial-law-20120407_1_order-powers-barack-obama)



WASHINGTON — A White House order updating federal emergency powers has raised alarm among some conservative commentators, and U.S. Rep. Sandy Adams, that President Barack Obama is attempting to grab unconstitutional powers.

A columnist with The Washington Times declared the mid-March order — an update of a 60-year-old document outlining the president's authority in a national emergency — "stunning in its audacity and a flagrant violation of the Constitution."

...And Adams, R-Orlando, said it "leaves the door open for the president to give himself control over American resources during both times of peace, and national crisis."

So Adams filed a nonbinding resolution specifying what Obama cannot do with the order — including institute a draft, confiscate personal property and "force civilians to engage in labor against their will or without compensation."...

Janice
04-08-2012, 02:32 AM
It almost makes you wonder. Is this how the establishment in that day circled the wagons around Hitler too ... in the beginning? Just one "power grab" is nothing. But taking a broader view of all the orders and mandates, the set asides, ignoring and/or contempt for the courts, turning the Justice dept into ... what? An arms distribution center, possibly money laundering for gangs? Plus turning racism upside down on its head. The property or business confiscation (a little fascism?), wealth redistribution and crony capitalism. All the flaming communists and marxists appointments and czars... it just goes on and on and...

Plus the college records, the health records, the travel records ... and whatever else is locked away so nobody has a clue about the chief marxist clown.

Meanwhile, what is our govt turning into? A Thuggish Statist Utopia? Govt is supposed to fear the citizens... not the other way around. Unless of course we are no longer citizens.. but subjects.

And where in H E double L is the republican leadership all this time? Are they a little envious of these power grabs? Perhaps ordering xtra knee pads besides the ones they've worn so well already, as they secretly hope to get a little piece of the pie? Is this why they with the dems and the media attacked all the conservative candidates to get them thrown out of the Presidential race early? So the only thing left standing is the girly man (with nice hair) vs the ("clean and articulate") man child megalomaniac narcissist? Really, it almost makes you wonder.

txradioguy
04-08-2012, 04:22 AM
It almost makes you wonder. Is this how the establishment in that day circled the wagons around Hitler too ... in the beginning? Just one "power grab" is nothing. But taking a broader view of all the orders and mandates, the set asides, ignoring and/or contempt for the courts, turning the Justice dept into ... what? An arms distribution center, possibly money laundering for gangs? Plus turning racism upside down on its head. The property or business confiscation (a little fascism?), wealth redistribution and crony capitalism. All the flaming communists and marxists appointments and czars... it just goes on and on and...

Plus the college records, the health records, the travel records ... and whatever else is locked away so nobody has a clue about the chief marxist clown.

Meanwhile, what is our govt turning into? A Thuggish Statist Utopia? Govt is supposed to fear the citizens... not the other way around. Unless of course we are no longer citizens.. but subjects.

And where in H E double L is the republican leadership all this time? Are they a little envious of these power grabs? Perhaps ordering xtra knee pads besides the ones they've worn so well already, as they secretly hope to get a little piece of the pie? Is this why they with the dems and the media attacked all the conservative candidates to get them thrown out of the Presidential race early? So the only thing left standing is the girly man (with nice hair) vs the ("clean and articulate") man child megalomaniac narcissist? Really, it almost makes you wonder.

^^^^ Outstanding!!! QFT