LOST!!!! More freedom lost with HR347 signed into law by the Tyrant Obama

Umm restricted buildings or grounds. Besides being an obvious violation of the freedom of speech, the secret service could have used this to remove and prosecute Congressman Joe Wilson for yelling out you lie during an Obama speech, maybe? There are many other examples. Where does it end people? How long do we spit on the graves of our founding fathers?

We are betrayed by all of the House but 3 who did not vote for this bill. Three guys who had the guts to stand up for freedom! And the Senate, passed by unanimous consent? I thought we had a few senators with a backbone? Look at what is happening to us, freedom after freedom lost. Make a list since Obama and Bush have been President we have lost more freedoms than I can name from the patriot act to Obama care. I read today that the Justice Department has blocked Texas voter ID law. This passed by a large margin in a proper election. This is a state rights issue and the Federal Government needs to back off.  How about the violation of the freedom of religion under the Obama care banner? Forcing the Catholic Church to provide contraceptives, a direct violation of their believes. I am not a Catholic but this raised the hair on the back of my neck.  Look out America instead of Hail Hitler, our youth maybe yelling Hail Obama and doing the Obama salute and step! Strong words you say. Well open your eyes, pull your head out of the sand. The lion is about have lunch and dessert both.  Remember freedom is not free. When good men do nothing evil men prevail. Now for the article. GRW

Quiet time: New federal law expands anti-free speech powers

by Joel McDurmon on Mar 15, 2012

Tired of 2,000-page bills heaping tyranny upon us? Well, how about just a 2-page bill instead? That’s right, H.R. 347 is here to prove that size doesn’t matter: government can squash your rights as easily with a few words as it can with the whole federal register.

Last week, Obama quietly signed H.R. 347, a bill innocuously titled, “An Act, To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752 (relating to restricted buildings or grounds) of title 18, United States Code.” Zzzz. . . .

Well, wake up America. The President just put new teeth into a law that creates roving “restricted ground” around himself and anyone else protected by the secret service—at their discretion. The restriction can apply at the Secret Service’s discretion whether the protected person is actually there or not. The law defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as, “a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.”

And now, you don’t even have to be violating it “willfully” in order to be arrested and convicted of a felony.

Judge Napolitano joined Fox News to comment upon the law very few mainstream media outlets covered.

“It puts a lot of unbridled discretion in the hands of secret service agents,” he criticized. This discretion can easily lead to “suppressing speech on the basis of it’s content,” under the guise of public safety.

“This is a slow, creeping destruction of some of our basic liberties, and the President signed it in secret.”

And Obama by no means deserves all the blame for this: the bill passed the House 399 to 3, and passed the Senate by “unanimous consent.”

Ironically, the secrete service is providing protection for some political candidates during the campaigns. This means, unequivocally, that it is now, technically, a felony to protest or shout at any such political candidate, because wherever they go under such protection will automatically be considered “restricted ground” by the law.

So the question will be enforcement. To that Napolitano argues, it is “going to be enforced when the government wants it enforced.”

Napolitano argued there are at least three constitutional infractions in this bill: against 1) free speech, 2) freedom of assembly, 3) right to petition the government for redress of grievances. He asks, “What good is free speech if the people in the government are so far away from you that they can’t hear you?”

But as an article at Salem-News.com points out, the restrictions in this bill have actually been on the books since 2006. What’s new and particularly egregious is the removal of the “willfully” requirement. Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, Executive Director of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, writes,

Fact: What is new about the H.R. 347 amendments?

1. The existing law required that for a person to be prosecuted under it, they would have had to carry out those described acts both “willfully” and “knowingly.” The requirement of “willfulness” generally means that a conviction requires proof that the person knew his conduct was unlawful. H.R. 347 strikes the “willfully” requirement. The new amendments appear to intend for a person to be convicted only by “knowingly” taking the actions described even if the person does not know that the actions are unlawful. As amended, a conviction arguably only requires proof that a person “knowingly entered” a certain area.

This is an effort to lower the bar for prosecutors who would, arguably, no longer have to prove that a person knew his conduct was unlawful.

2. The other major change is the inclusion of the White House and grounds and the Vice President’s residence and grounds as fixed zones of designation. You might wonder why this is even necessary. Of course, entering into the White House and its fenced-in grounds is already a federal violation. We think this particular change is to target demonstration activity, specifically that which occurs on the White House sidewalk just outside the perimeter fence (as detailed in 36 C.F.R. §7.96 it is lawful to protest on the White House sidewalk, which is under National Park Service jurisdiction). We think that the Government wishes to make it easier to prosecute protestors who step up off of the White House sidewalk and stand on the concrete ledge supporting the fence, something which tourists can be seen doing all the time.

We are also concerned that the Secret Service seeks to be able to expand its jurisdiction and authority to create pop-up cordoned off restriction zones in front of the White House extending to areas where demonstrators lawfully assemble.

Someone on Sean Hannity’s forums commented, “I am a staunch conservative, but I would vote for a liberal democrat before I voted for a republican that supported this measure.” Well, you don’t have to. While not present for the final vote due to campaigning, one GOP candidate was among the three Representatives who opposed this expansion of powers. During a previous roll call vote on the same bill last year, Ron Paul stood firm against this “creeping destruction.”

The legislators responsible for bringing this legislative excrement to life are Representative Tom Rooney (R-Fla.) in the House of Representatives and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT.) leading the Senate version.

The House vote tally which took place 02/28/12, was 338 for and 3 against. The three dissenters were Rep.Paul Broun R-Georgia, Rep. Justin Amash R-Michigan and Rep. Keith Ellison D-Minnesota. Rep. Ron Paul was reported earlier as having voted against the bill, but that was based on the original vote conducted 02/28/11. Rep. Ron Paul ABSTAINED on the final vote.

About Republic of Texas (Conservative/Libertarian state)

Apostolic/Christian, Conservative/Libertarian, Husband & Father, Hunter, Mountain biker, hiking, camping, outdoors love em. Business man etc.
This entry was posted in Politic's and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to LOST!!!! More freedom lost with HR347 signed into law by the Tyrant Obama

  1. mpbulletin says:

    This bill is part of the 18 USC Chapter 84 – PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT and ONLY clarifies some of the language in the Restricted Building and Grounds section.

    This only applies to this code of regulations as it pertains to the safety of the President, VP, their staffs and other government officials like the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate.

    This particular part that is raising such concern has been around since 1971 so any fears of this being a “slippery slope” should be tempered as any banning of speech or protests would have happened long ago. This bill simply has nothing to do with protests or the banning of them or speech. The most significant part of the amendment (and it’s not all that significant) is that “ignorance of the law is not a defense against breaking it” just like virtually any other law on the books. Can you you get out of speeding ticket because you didn’t know it was 25 mph zone?

    Please look through the actual language of the bill ( http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112A8HMTd:: ) and the more detailed descriptions on the Cornell Law School’s website:

    • By a quick glance at your blog it appears you are pro Obama and you would come to his defense. I have had my fill of them all. We have been loosing freedom since the first congress meet. But more so since President Wilson and FDR. We have been on the slippery slope for some time. But it is getting more so with each time the congress meets. Republican or Democrat. The original bill may have been for list above, but it is such that could be used for other purposes. I wish their was a strong Conservative/Libertarian Party that could become effective, I would leave the Republican Party in a heart beat. Thanks for your comment.

      • mpbulletin says:

        Obama supporter or not, the facts are in the text of the bill. It is simply an amendment to a larger piece of legislation which was more than likely a response to the JFK assassination. It was also amended twice under Reagan in response to his assassination attempt. It is very easy to get carried away with over-speculation but if this was so controversial to begin with then it would not have passed with SOoooo many “yea” votes. Plus, given the recent intrusions onto the White House grounds including the individual that snuck over the fence and the bullet shot at the window not to mention the threat of homegrown terrorism, these measure are common sense. They are NOT Obama banning free speech. This is not a new tool for prevent protests. I mean christ, the Occupy movement is helping him and the Democrats. WHY would any of them want to restrict that? You’re giving in to over-hyped speculation aimed at scaring you. I’ve provided legitimate NON-partisan sources for you to look through but I suppose it will be your choice as to whether or not to continue believing the unsubstantiated spin.

  2. L Mcdonald says:

    I think that you might be the one that fails to see the facts. If the law is on the books, no matter if there has been a prosecution of someone that broke that law, it is still there. And at the descretion of the Secret Service, anyone can be arrested for what they consider an infraction of the law. Plus, this law can be enforced if you even talk about or plan to have a protest in any area that is protected. This is a zone that they can set up, and change the boundries, at will. And, when is this restriction in force? 24 hours prior to the event? Or a week prior? This law is too flexible. There were already laws in place to prosecute someone that shoots at or breaks in to government property.

  3. Becky says:

    I am outraged that both parties almost unanimously voted thumbs up on this Bill. What on earth can any GOP be thinking? I can see Obama wanting this but the GOP? You know, I have a septic tank at my home. There are active germs in there that have a job to do and they know what to do. We have a Congress that is so useless they can’t even eat shit correctly. I am over it. I am a 31 year veteran of the Air Force, many deployments under my belt. I would not serve under Obama nor anyone in this Congress. I don’t know one person who would actually take a bullet for anyone of them. All of the House is a waste and should be replaced. They are nothing but a bunch of self-serving, self-centered bastards. At least the germs in a septic tank do their jobs. I need to find a country where freedom means something where I can live out my life in peace. The US is long gone. Rebecca

  4. Can I just say what a relief to locate someone who actually knows what theyre referring to around the web.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s