snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques 2012/04/28 18:56:09
HEY LIBS: READ the subject matter through before making an ass of yourself! Might as well sound 'somewhat' intelligent!

“A funny thing happened on the way to stop Obama from signing HR 347 …”

by on March 9, 2012

A funny thing happened on the way to figuring how to get President Obama not to sign HR 347. Yesterday late afternoon, I was on an urgent national conference call to discuss how to stop the bill. HR 347 is a bill that was passed with lightening speed with almost no opposition just recently by the Senate and House.

During the call, we were told that the bill is on President Obama’s desk and that he had until March 12th to sign it or veto it. This national phone connect was a “call to action” against the bill.

The bill has been nicknamed the “anti-Occupy Wall Street” bill, the “No Trespass” bill, the “end of dissent” law, and various other terms to describe its potential draconian effects on protest and dissent in America. It authorizes restricted zones where all protest is banned in and around government buildings and facilities, and bans protest around those receiving Secret Service protection. It does more and I’ve included its text – scroll down. “It kills protest around these people,” a moderator flatly stated at the beginning of the call.

So, a funny thing happened while on this conference call to urgently figure out what we could to prevent Obama from signing it. After all, he was a constitutional law professor before he became a politician.

During the conference call, a woman broke in, and said: “I have some very bad news. Obama signed this bill – HR 347 – March 8thThe bill was now LAW!

This depressing news set us all back and changed the tenor and attitudes expressed over this national network of activists.

On the phone we had folks from Georgia, Connecticut, New York, DC, Salem Oregon, southern Massachusetts, Minnesota, Detroit, Dallas, Oakland, Indiana … and San Diego, of course. Most of those hooked up to this line were or are involved with the Occupy movement, and in fact, the call had been set up by Occupy activists in Washington, DC – (including San Diego’s own Michael B. – whose voice I recognized 3,000 miles away).

The earlier urgency we had all expressed evaporated. In its place was exasperation and despair. But for many on the phone call, their determination remained. So, it wasn’t really a “funny thing” that had happened – no, more like a devastating thing had happened – but it sure was ironic.

These points about HR 347 and its Senate companion SB were made. It severly curtails protests, and keeps us from protesting the very people who are responsible for putting the country where it’s at today. It’s restrictions apply to some government functions. It criminalizes protest around federal buildings and agencies – even those in a labor strike could be subject to criminal charges.

We were not certain when the bill actually goes into effect, but we believed that unless The Senate passed it with unanimous consent and there were only 3 “nay” votes in the House, there’s a challenging road ahead for those who wish to repeal it. Within the bill itself there isn't any language indicating EXACT date the bill - NOW LAW - will officially go into effect but most likely will do so on January 1, 2013.

Still, troubling aspects of the new law are certainly disquieting. The signified “special events of national significance” could be the political party conventions coming up, or the Super Bowl. People could be banned from protesting any government or quasi-government function that the Department of Homeland Security decides upon.

Plus, protesters could be arrested in these restricted zones even if they didn’t know it was a crime to be there. If convicted of being in a restricted zone, you’d get a misdemeanor – but it would be a felony if there was some kind of weapon – would a Swiss Army knife do the trick? – or if there were injuries … The felony conviction calls for up to 10 years of imprisonment – certainly a chill on dissent.

A news anchor sounding alot like Dan Rather – stated that the near-unanimous consent and speed with which this bill was passed by Congress and now signed into law shows the degree to which the President and the governing elites believe the American people are tired of the Occupy Movement. The new law bans protests that the movement has targeted over the last 6 months.

Halfway through its second hour, the conference call seemed to be winding down. Most wanted to think about the law and what to do, now that the urgency had vanished. What would you propose?

Here’s the text of the bill that actually was passed by both houses:

H.R.347 — Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)

One Hundred Twelfth Congress of the United States of America

Add Photos & Videos

Top Opinion

  • tncdel 2012/04/28 19:15:43
    Here's the three nays:
    Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]
    Nay MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]
    Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest

  • Chi~Cat Red Branch 2012/04/30 23:26:39
    Hello, being facetious!
  • Red Branch Chi~Cat 2012/05/04 21:09:06
    Red Branch
    You or me? I've been very tired this week and I am not even sure what I mean part of the time.;-)
  • Chi~Cat Red Branch 2012/05/05 03:15:35
    Same here! It's been crazy busy, but a good busy~ You get your rest, I have one more day, then watch the Derby. lol...I was one day behind all week, so funny! What say you in re: of this?

  • Red Branch 2012/04/28 21:51:59 (edited)
    Red Branch
    Was this even on the 'docket' so to speak? Was anyone aware that this was about to happen?

    HR347 has nothing to do with OWS. There was no condemnation of their actions emanating from the White House or Capitol Building. So it must be aimed at that other bunch of terrs, the ones that have been condemned before, veterans, taxpayers, church goers, gun owners, last but not the least, foes of abortion. Is it safe to toss in global warming deniers?

    I don't see this a comparable to 1984. This has nothing to do with covert surveillance or eavesdropping.

    It is almost a "Go Directly To Jail" statute.

    People have long complained about the Patriot Act. But I am beginning to get the idea that it was not all that bad. It is was that bad, why the need for these 2 laws.

    1. A month or two ago, the National Defense Authorization Act was passed and it provided for unlimited detention without a trial if suspected of being a terrorist.

    2. Now HR 347, appears to call any expression of disapproval as grounds for prison.

    Keep in mind that Islamic terrs were given the Constitutional rights accorded to American citizens, by specific legislation.

    American citizens have lost our traditional Constitutional rights, yet Islamic terrs still get them.
  • Chi~Cat Red Branch 2012/04/28 22:26:09
    RB check out the above link.
  • Red Branch Chi~Cat 2012/04/29 03:56:53
    Red Branch
    Thanks, I did.
  • D D Red Branch 2012/04/29 00:09:22
    D D
    Hey! That is from one of my posts.

    Anyway, yes, I knew this was coming.
  • Red Branch D D 2012/04/29 03:57:35
    Red Branch
    No, I've used that for a while now. I've never seen it any where except in my posts. Honest.

    But great minds think alike.
  • Chi~Cat D D 2012/04/29 06:24:11
    And this is OURS: Jan 3, 2012.

  • Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥ 2012/04/28 21:26:22
    Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥
    OMG.....So that means the libs protesting CAN get arrested. ??OWS,,no trespassing Bill...That is a good thing.....
  • Red Branch Pearlie... 2012/04/28 21:54:15 (edited)
    Red Branch
    Momi, you know I really hate to disagree with you. But do that I must. I don't see this aimed at OWS types.

    For the most part, OWS did not protest in areas covered by this bill and theoretically, they were protesting against Wall Street.
    Besides, it appears that voter intimidation laws do not apply to Black Panther types and maybe not to any minority.
  • Pearlie... Red Branch 2012/05/02 08:14:45
    Pearlie Momi♥Patriot Warrior♥
    Ok .......wow.....I did'nt know that......The Bill should apply to all..
  • zbacku 2012/04/28 21:19:59
  • Jack Sprat zbacku 2012/04/28 23:06:25
    Jack Sprat

    big brother obama
  • Gooky 2012/04/28 20:41:53
    OH MY GOD!
  • Chi~Cat Gooky 2012/04/29 06:19:11
    May God thunder on these plunderers.
  • Gooky Chi~Cat 2012/04/29 09:52:37
  • Chi~Cat Gooky 2012/04/29 06:24:20
  • Ken 2012/04/28 20:33:08
    First, let me correct Mr. Gormlie - Barack Obama was not a constitutional law professor - he was a "lecturer!" Obama's understanding of the Constitution is limited to how he will be able to change it, not by legitimate amendment but by the "living document" theory of interpretation which progressives love so much -- because it renders the Constitution meaningless.

    Regarding H.R. 347 I amazed surprised and disappointed that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed it. It is obviously unconstitutional and its enforcement will violate the First Amendment on three levels: Denying the right to freedom of speech; denying the right to freedom of peaceable assembly; and denying the right to petition the government for change. I will be surprised if the first time it is enforced against peaceful protestors it isn't struck down.

    One area the Supreme Court is not all that divided on is on the enforcement of the Bill of Rights. While they may not agree on some details as to what free speech is, e.g. when it comes to pornography, there can be no question that the attempt to stifle peaceful protests is a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
  • Jack Sprat Ken 2012/04/28 23:09:16
    Jack Sprat
    To throw salt in the wound, his lectures only centered around the 14th amendment, so for a C average student, where we can get at his grades, even knowing there were at least 14 Amendments is pretty good, for a Kenyan/Indonesian/Commie.
  • Ken Jack Sprat 2012/04/29 00:34:15
  • D D Ken 2012/04/29 00:27:22
    D D
    "Regarding H.R. 347 I amazed surprised and disappointed that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives passed it. It is obviously unconstitutional and its enforcement will violate the First Amendment on three levels: Denying the right to freedom of speech; denying the right to freedom of peaceable assembly; and denying the right to petition the government for change. I will be surprised if the first time it is enforced against peaceful protestors it isn't struck down. "

    I agree with all except the part about the first time it is enforced it will be struck down. We know that authorities love to charge you with all they can. They use as many charges as they can find. They could use 3 I know of against the the person, this one, the patriot act and NDAA. If they did that, especially NDAA, you are toast. With NDAA you get no rights to a trail right off the bat, so there is nothing to "strike down".
  • Ken D D 2012/04/29 00:37:10
    If they arrest a group participating in a peaceful protest at one of Obama's speeches this summer, where they obviously pose no threat to the president, I believe it will be challenged and struck down. I don't care how many Patriot Act charges or NDAA charges they throw in to justify the arrest.
  • D D Ken 2012/04/29 00:48:54
    D D
    OK. I agree that just about most everyone does not pose any kind of threat to the president. A true threat as in bodily harm.

    I don't think you quite understand how the Patriot Act and NDAA work or else you would realize that with those there is no going before court to strike down anything.
  • Ken D D 2012/04/29 00:51:14
    If that happens we will truly have lost.
  • Chi~Cat Ken 2012/04/29 06:25:22
  • Ken Chi~Cat 2012/04/29 16:55:09 (edited)
    Thanks for the link. As I read it, it isn't as bad as it has been made out to be, because it requires that one must "Knowingly and with the intent to impede and disrupt the orderly conduct of Government [I love how they capitalized "Government"!] business or official functions. . . ." to be guilty under the act.

    It will be interesting to see how silent protesters with signs at Obama campaign events are treated.
  • Chi~Cat Ken 2012/04/29 17:08:50 (edited)
    You are very welcome, Ken.

    However, it can be quite contraire....in re: of what is happening out here starting this week in our "red zone", and if the protests get out of control, and let's just say, hypothetically, in the future ML is called if Oblunder feels IT can't win, and declares ML, that would be very bad for anyone to protest or enter any meeting/proceedings to exercise their "freedom of speech and the right to assemble" at any governmental building, I am sure that will be included in some form of an amended version to include State, City, County, Library, Teacher's, heck anything; as the link provided was a green light on Jan, 3, 2012. Don't mean to be the Devil's advocate here, but it very well could happen.

    With ya, on that latter. Jack provided a great video in re: of silent, then it didn't get so silent. I will provide a link for you on that.
  • Ken Chi~Cat 2012/04/30 01:29:49
  • Chi~Cat Ken 2012/04/29 17:13:16
    Here is the link you really should check this out, another great one by snell.

  • Chi~Cat Ken 2012/04/29 06:25:07
  • Chi~Cat D D 2012/04/29 06:24:48
  • snell/G... D D 2012/05/01 04:30:48
    snell/GOD & COUNTRY-zero cliques
    im not so sure they had much of a choice seeing as who it is that was instrumental in its' passage - was just a matter of time.
  • Apache 2012/04/28 20:15:38
  • Jack Sprat Apache 2012/04/28 23:10:07
  • Chi~Cat Apache 2012/04/29 06:25:31
  • Apache Chi~Cat 2012/05/01 13:55:20
  • Chi~Cat Apache 2012/05/01 15:30:22
    Oh, yes, absolutely. Always, You must show id. Even when I go to chambers to deliver a "for your eyes only", heck yeah. You cannot get in without an id. Fact.
  • keeper 2012/04/28 20:09:34
    Some laws are not to be obeyed...
  • Jack Sprat keeper 2012/04/28 23:16:50
    Jack Sprat
    This is the saddest thing I think I have ever written…..Our Fore Fathers warned us from the beginning and through the toughest of times…..

    "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined..." GEORGE WASHINGTON

    “Thomas Jefferson said, “….What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure….”

    "We, the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution." Abraham Lincoln

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2016/02/12 03:39:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals