Silencing Occupy

Yeah right, I wish... :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Sat Mar 17, 2012, 08:58 PM
marmar

Silencing Occupy: Big protests are planned. So is suppression from the Portland Phoenix: Silencing Occupy Big protests are planned. So is suppression. By LANCE TAPLEY | March 14, 2012 Get ready for the protests. Get ready for the warm American spring — and maybe a hot summer and fall. Vast economic inequality has not disappeared and, in a presidential election year, the supremacy of money in politics will be extravagantly displayed. But if you protest, also get ready for "free-speech zones," "pop-up" restricted areas, National Special Security Events, and — with the signing on March 8 by President Barack Obama of HR 347 — a suddenly sharper federal anti-protest law. Despite American constitutional rights to speak freely, to assemble, and to petition for redress of grievances, suppression of protest is just as American. HR 347's title, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, suggests court-house landscaping, but its true impact cuts much deeper. Without debate, it flew through the Senate with unanimous consent. In the House, only three members voted against it, all Republican, most notably presidential candidate Ron Paul. The brief debate featured jokes about the Super Bowl. But after its February passage, HR 347 caught the attention of lefty and libertarian bloggers. They saw it as the end of the right to protest and the beginning of outright fascism — with Occupy in its crosshairs. Their reaction reflects a political atmosphere in which the Obama administration is justifying assassinating American citizens without trial as a necessary part of the War on Terror. ...................(more) The complete piece is at: http://portland.thephoenix.com/news/...#ixzz1pQRi9J3e

---

LOL!!! Even Obama doesn't want the scum around...:redface:

From a strategy standpoint I'm beginning to think we should encourage the Occupukes.

Let them pull their bullshit all spring, summer and into the fall. Right up to the election. The Occupukes are associated with the Dempukes. The voting public are going are finally going to wise up and say, I'm tired of these Occupukes. I mean Demopukes. Whatever.

Seriously though, isn't it suspicious that something like this would fly through the Dem Senate and Barry signs it with no problem. You're right SR, even Barry doesn't want them around. With good reason.

Viva Occupy. Long live the car shitters!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JB

Seriously though, isn't it suspicious that something like this would fly through the Dem Senate and Barry signs it with no problem. You're right SR, even Barry doesn't want them around. With good reason.

---

Yeah, I'm not really laughing. If you read the text of HR 347...

c) In this section--

`(1) the term `restricted 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 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 or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.

So, no unauthorized persons allowed at any location where a person protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting, or plans to temporarily visit. Also, no unauthorized persons allowed on a building or grounds designated as a special event of national significance.

This pretty much destroys any right to peaceably assemble. Just imagine next time the Tea Party holds a rally somewhere, and some Democratic Senator who is authorized to be protected by the secret service decides (wait... I mean "plans") to pass through the neighborhood. Result: everyone gets arrested.

Obviously, all house democrats except for 1 voted Yea, and all house republicans except for 2 voted Yea. The parties work together wonderfully when it comes to infringing on the rights of the people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m00

Yeah, I'm not really laughing. If you read the text of HR 347...

c) In this section--

`(1) the term `restricted 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 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 or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.'.

So, no unauthorized persons allowed at any location where a person protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting, or plans to temporarily visit. Also, no unauthorized persons allowed on a building or grounds designated as a special event of national significance.

This pretty much destroys any right to peaceably assemble. Just imagine next time the Tea Party holds a rally somewhere, and some Democratic Senator who is authorized to be protected by the secret service decides (wait... I mean "plans") to pass through the neighborhood. Result: everyone gets arrested.

Obviously, all house democrats except for 1 voted Yea, and all house republicans except for 2 voted Yea. The parties work together wonderfully when it comes to infringing on the rights of the people.

---

...and they wonder why the people don't like them