RSS Feed
March 1st, 2012 
FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda
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.
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.
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. 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.
February 29, 2012 – RussiaToday
digg
muti
del.icio.us
google
reddit
facebook
Related posts:
Views: 0
Posted in 
Tags: 
