Quantcast

NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH!! Obama secretly signed bill!!!

PJ Sweet Cheeks 2012/04/23 18:52:21
I can't believe both parties signed this!
Politicians need to be safe from the people and their remarks!!
This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
OBAMA SIGNED THIS BILL IN SECRET. HAD ENOUGH? HE'S MESSING WITH OUR
FREEDOMS!

EVERYONE NEEDS TO WATCH THIS. ANOTHER OF OUR RIGHTS TAKEN AWAY!!!!!!


Obama signed no free speech into law this week

This affects YOU!!!



> PLEASE LISTEN TO THIS ONE....IT DOES AFFECT YOU, ME AND EVERYONE. THEN

MAKE SURE EVERYONE YOU KNOW HEARS ABOUT IT.



This is from Fox, watch it!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg

or read about it...
http://www.inquisitr.com/206017/president-obama-signs-anti-pr...
http://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0oG7kDWnZVPZUAAry1XNyoA?...
read any of them!!!

Read More: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SGWH3kirzg

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

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

  • lisa.porter.79 2012/11/09 06:04:44
  • pdarkow 2012/04/26 03:07:29
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    pdarkow
    +2
    So much for this being a free country i guess thats what we get for electing a marxist
  • Joel Hammontree 2012/04/25 00:42:39
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    Joel Hammontree
  • lin sugar lips 2012/04/25 00:14:36
    Undecided
    lin sugar lips
    +2
    pj
    Read this the other day. Obama and his Radical Marxist followers are taking away Americans rights to protest if it is against him.
    Another nail in the freedom of speech coffin!!!!
  • urwutuis 2012/04/24 23:13:00 (edited)
  • SIMPLE MAN urwutuis 2014/07/03 18:25:07 (edited)
  • Chief 2012/04/24 21:32:29
    I can't believe both parties signed this!
    Chief
    Politicians just don't want to deal with us rif raf so they pass these kinds of bills. But we the people let them pass the Patriot Act twice so I guess they can do whatever they want!
  • Tom 2012/04/24 19:27:32 (edited)
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    Tom
    Another Reason We Need RON PAUL!!!!!! He is One of Only 3 to Vote Against it. Ron Paul Ron Paul Troops
  • Dave**Gay for Girls** 2012/04/24 16:46:59
  • Brightsprite62 2012/04/24 13:31:33 (edited)
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    Brightsprite62
    +1
    We need to elect an entire no (new) body of government. From POTUS down.
  • PJ Swe... Brights... 2012/04/24 16:41:37
    PJ  Sweet Cheeks
    +1
    Our government is all corrupt! This proves it...only 3 votes against it? What is wrong with this picture?

    I wish to God some how the entire US come voting day.....no one goes!!!!!!!
  • All American 2012/04/24 10:34:58
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    All American
    +1
    I'm disappointed that both sides voted for this. No doubt this will be challenged and hopefully overturned.
  • PJ Swe... All Ame... 2012/04/24 16:42:05
    PJ  Sweet Cheeks
    Not with only 3 votes against it :(
  • All Ame... PJ Swe... 2012/04/24 16:50:41
    All American
    Maybe in the Supreme Court.
  • Uranos7 2012/04/24 09:47:42 (edited)
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    Uranos7
    +1
    This isn't all they are doing Pelosi is sponsoring a bill that would allow the government to ban, edit, or restrict television adds, books, and newspapers realted to elections.

    http://www.sodahead.com/unite...
    first amndment

    They are eliminating the first amendment bit by bit.
  • PJ Swe... Uranos7 2012/04/24 16:42:33
    PJ  Sweet Cheeks
    +1
    It is scary!
  • thecutesttentacle 2012/04/24 05:23:24
    Undecided
    thecutesttentacle
    lol if you say so.
  • PJ Swe... thecute... 2012/04/24 16:42:58
    PJ  Sweet Cheeks
    Why is this funny? Are you an American?
  • thecute... PJ Swe... 2012/04/24 23:50:03
    thecutesttentacle
    yes, i am. you can't change the constitution even if you're president. i can't believe people are believing this.
  • Isabel ... thecute... 2012/11/07 18:59:34
    Isabel berd
    +3
    You need to crawl out under the rock your living in, read, and become educated. They can and are doing it.
  • thecute... Isabel ... 2012/11/10 21:57:30
    thecutesttentacle
    IF YOU SAY SO
  • Gale.Bu... thecute... 2013/09/26 11:59:46
    Gale.Buckhannah
    +1
    You'll need to pull your head out of your ass, the Constitution has been 'changed' many times. The word of the day is 'amendments', they can alter or even completely ignore any part of the Constitution. Please take some time to learn the fundamentals of your country's government, this should be elementary material for most students.
  • TJ 2012/04/24 03:40:41
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    TJ
    I read the full text of the Law is says that People who are in restricted areas that are clearly posted can be arrested. if you want to protest go ahead just don't break in to do it.
  • TJ TJ 2012/04/24 03:48:23
    TJ
    The full text of the bill can be found here read it before you jump to conclusions.

    http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/...
  • David William 2012/04/24 01:59:47
  • John Hall 2012/04/24 01:56:29
    I can't believe both parties signed this!
    John Hall
    +1
    we the people are at fault we elect these f@#king idiots.
  • Ev Rom 2012/04/24 01:18:08
    Undecided
    Ev Rom
    +1
    Will any of you complain when Romney does the same thing? He said he would have signed NDAA. Ron Paul is America's only hope.
  • AdLib 2012/04/24 00:01:32
    Undecided
    AdLib
    +1
    Nobody is taking your freedom of speech away........good lord get a grip!
    Signed in secret...LOL.

    "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.”

    Thanks for the link.
  • evangelism_vision 2012/04/23 21:51:57
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    evangelism_vision
  • jgh57 2012/04/23 21:22:45
    Undecided
    jgh57
    +2
    Paranoia runs deep in the republican Party.
  • Mike jgh57 2012/04/23 22:25:10
    Mike
    +1
    who signed it
  • Maria 2012/04/23 21:20:05
    This is NOT RIGHT!!!!
    Maria
    +5
    The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
    get pension and impeach and the pink slip for congress,Legislature and Obama for not announcement of our speech rights been taken away... pink slip for congress and Obama
    senate pension impeach pink slip congresslegislature obama announcement speech rights
  • Raymond Allamby 2012/04/23 20:39:58
    Undecided
    Raymond Allamby
    +4
    you'd better shut up, before they come and get you.
  • Isabel ... Raymond... 2012/11/07 19:01:05
    Isabel berd
    +3
    "shut up, before they come get us?". Really? Living in fear is not an option.
  • Raymond... Isabel ... 2012/11/07 19:41:33
    Raymond Allamby
    1. facetious.
    2. you've been living in fear since reagan. it's all the retardlicans have to sell you.
  • frank 2012/04/23 20:32:03
    I can't believe both parties signed this!
    frank
    +5
    Just another step to do away with our Constitution; first it’s the second amendment, now they are after the first amendment. Can we afford another 4 years?
  • Mrkando 2012/04/23 20:29:58
    Undecided
    Mrkando
    +1
    I assume you are aware of who presented this bill in the first place. The article you pointed to says this....

    "Michael Mahaffey, Representative Tom Rooney’s (R-Fla. and the man responsible for introducing the bill to the House) communication director dismissed concerns that the bill violates civil liberties by saying, that the protests against H.R. 347 are, “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever. ” He went on to say that, “… right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

    This bill passed the house with only three dissenting votes. The HOUSE! The Senate passed this bill. Now this bill is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Protect both the President and any other public official from harm in this political climate. You yourself are pointing directly at Obama and implying that he is the one that made this happen. He only signed the bill into law because both the House and Senate approved it. And the bill's sponsor is a republican.

    This whole bill came about as a result of some person standing outside the gates of the Whitehouse and shooting at it. Regardless of who the President is, in this day an...

    I assume you are aware of who presented this bill in the first place. The article you pointed to says this....

    "Michael Mahaffey, Representative Tom Rooney’s (R-Fla. and the man responsible for introducing the bill to the House) communication director dismissed concerns that the bill violates civil liberties by saying, that the protests against H.R. 347 are, “a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This (HR 347) doesn’t affect anyone’s right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever. ” He went on to say that, “… right now it’s not a federal violation to jump the fence and run across the White House lawn, this bill makes it a federal violation.”

    This bill passed the house with only three dissenting votes. The HOUSE! The Senate passed this bill. Now this bill is designed to do one thing and one thing only. Protect both the President and any other public official from harm in this political climate. You yourself are pointing directly at Obama and implying that he is the one that made this happen. He only signed the bill into law because both the House and Senate approved it. And the bill's sponsor is a republican.

    This whole bill came about as a result of some person standing outside the gates of the Whitehouse and shooting at it. Regardless of who the President is, in this day and age, he must be protected. It does not effect anyone's right to free speech. It makes it a federal crime to attack a public official and that is what this country has come to.

    I have seen countless e-mails like this that are either completely false or stretch the truth to suit the authors agenda and it is getting disgusting.
    (more)
  • Uranos7 Mrkando 2012/04/24 09:57:17 (edited)
    Uranos7
    +1
    I don't care wich side introduced it the supreme court needs to reject it as unconstitutional.
    I read the actual bill and it does a little more than protect the white house. As the video said it also allows the SS to set up safe zones. The idea may have been benign but the potential for abuse is too great.
    Besides it is not like someone trying to kill a politician is going to carry a sign from the opposition or yell like a madman.
  • Mrkando Uranos7 2012/04/24 15:49:14
    Mrkando
    I am not saying I agree with this bill, but this is the political climate we are in. There was a time when they actually took public tours through the Whitehouse and Capital Building and you were able to see all the public areas. Following 9-11 I think that stopped. Not sure about the Capital but I would be surprised if they still do that. So carry that to a situation where the public has access to those politicians and there is no safe place anymore.

    And in a day where people will gladly sacrifice themselves for a cause they will do anything to gain access and carrying a sign would work very well.

    My objection to this post is not the bill itself, it is the fact they are trying to make Obama look like he is taking away free speech and nothing could be further from the truth. He only signed a bill sponsored by a republican and passed by almost every congressmen in Washington.

    However as you can see from all the responses to this post a lie or misstatement like this will make people believe it's true without any of them verifying that it is true. We all believe what we want to regardless of the truth and all we need is something like this to prove to us what we think is right, is right.

    I have seen this very same subject countless times and not once is the whole truth been told. This is a perfect example that when the whole story is told it changes the perspective completely. Of course who would ever want that because it becomes a non-story.
  • Gale.Bu... Uranos7 2013/09/26 12:05:54
    Gale.Buckhannah
    +1
    ... So the White House should not be protected and the secret service should not be allowed to set up safe zones. And this is all due to your fear that it could be abused. Rather than crying about something that hasn't been abused, how about you take a step outside your bubble and relax a bit? Any reasonable person would look at this and say 'ah, this makes sense'. If we forbid everything that could possibly be abused we wouldn't even be allowed to sell kitchen utensils for fear that someone might gouge out another's eye. This is silly, and most of the crap I see here is the stereotypical 'the government is out to get us' mentality. They have their flaws, for certain, it is run by humans no different than you and I so it is bound to be less than perfect. People can piss and moan about it all day but by comparison to the majority of countries around the world we still live very well. Stop fearing change and assuming the worst, it creates an atmosphere of ignorance and intolerance.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/09/01 13:44:23

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals