Skip to comments.Can the Secret Service Tell You To Shut Up?
Posted on 03/15/2012 11:57:06 AM PDT by America_Right
click here to read article
They are not the “SS” for nothing.
So...the Contitutuon is the supreme law of all land OTHER than that designated by the Secret Service, right?
That seems logical.
What if the Secret Service fancies MY HOUSE? I could not then speak about things I wished in my own house, right?
THIS SOUNDS VERRRRY KENYAN.
F U B O !!
Obama - just shredding one Bill of Rights at a time.
"Shut up!", they explained.
"That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government..."
Not just a right, but a responsibility. I wonder what it is gonna take to get the ball rolling?
Amazing...I watched over the past 20 years, government building/facilities become fortress like, complete with CCTV cameras, armed guards, bullet resistant glass, scanners, card locks, metal detector, dogs, searches, pat downs, automated vehicle barriers...Costing hundreds of billions in tax dollars.
Now government designated areas prohibiting free speech?
Was all this for terrorist?
Or something else?
And who controls the house where this was passed???
The use of ‘secret service’ is just lpart of the smoke of this bill.
I won’t be the SS who arrests you. It will be some local cop or state trooper assigned to some event ‘of national importance’.
This law will keep you from raising your voice at a state convention or primary event. It will make it a felony to protest anywhere near a national convention or the white house.
Standing peacefully with a sign anywhere along the presidential motorcade’s route is now a felony.
Standing on the elipse, turning your backside to the white house and ‘mooning’ the south lawn is cause to send you to a FEMA camp.
Lets remember gang that Barry’s part is only a 1/3 of the equation. The GOP lead House and Dem lead Senate is the other 2/3s. So, it seems the GOP is lock step w/ the liberals on this one....just like the Patriot Act et al.
I'm guessing it will come with the economic crash, 5 to 10 years is my best guesstimate.
” If peaceful public assembly and public expression of political demands on the government can be restricted to places where government officials cannot be confronted, then those rights, too, have been neutered.”
Now O has the tools necessary to run a “Putin style” election. All this with the willing assistance of the Republicans. Is there any doubt this is aimed directly at the Tea Party? No doubt in my mind.
You only have to obey this if you are a slave to the Federal Corporation called “The United States of America”...
He’s a bisexual Muslim who HATES America —a man from Kenya WOULD sign this type of law.
Who really thinks he was born here? I used to consider those people crazy, lo and behold it’s all the OTHERS who are the crazy ones, apparently.
UnAmericans laws signed by an UNamerican.
Emperors New Clothes Act
The Tea Party and the Occupy folks. Both sides got the crappy end of this stick. I just read another article about this called "The First Amendment Needs A Rape Kit". It went into more legal detail. Apparently, they just reworded an old statute to get rid of language that made it harder to convict people for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Is there a Constitutional lawyer in the house?
They CAN, if you will is your choice.
You don't really need one for this case. It is beyond obviouse that it is a first amendment violation.
Which will result in many, many deaths.
Of course the GOP supported this. They don’t want to ever have to answer to irate constituents at town halls again. Politicians united in perfidy.
Police State ping
The GOP is for this due to the sch-lacking they took in 2010 from their constituents when they “went home”. This monstrosity keeps us “little people” in line so our beloved “leaders” don’t have to respond to actual problems we are dealing with out here and feel passionately about.
Has the Supreme Court scheduled a review of this abomination yet?
How much of the Constitution are we willing to forfeit to protect the orderly working of the executive branch? An attack upon the person of the President of the United States is a very serious matter because it is an attempt to undo the results of elections. Elections which, not incidentally, are constitutionally provided for. As such, they are an unconstitutional act, that is, they are repugnant to the Constitution and they must not be permitted.
Recently we have seen a series of movies in which the hero is in the business of saving the President from bad guys or the President himself if he happens to be Harrison Ford saves his own life while saving the world. This has conditioned the public to accept the idea that the person of the president must be protected at all costs.
Moreover, we have seen the assassination of President Kennedy in my lifetime and the attempted assassinations of Presidents Truman, Ford and Reagan. In 1968 we witnessed the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King and at about that time we saw the attempted assassination of Gov. Wallace.
These crimes have further conditioned the country to accept the violations of the First Amendment represented by this statute. In this climate it is very difficult to raise the question I started this reply with, what price are we willing to pay to preserve the orderly functioning of government? In other words, is it more important to protect the President from physical harm than it is to facilitate the free expression of ideas, the right to petition the government, the right to associate? Is it a good idea for the President to be entirely free of concern about the mood of the public, or should the man who has so much power be subconsciously reminded that there are limits?
If we place the chief executive in an impervious bubble how can he learn his limits? As an individual, he is no more important than any other citizen. As a President he is the embodiment of one branch of government and that branch must be permitted to function without the will of the people being distorted by assassination. On the other hand, an isolated President is likely a tyrannical President, certainly an imperious President. While it is harmful to society to distort government by harming the person of the President, when does it become more harmful to society distort the President's psyche by isolating him from the people and their will?
Today we have come to the point at which if one is not careful in the very language he uses in addressing the issue, he might very well be visited by some very unsmiling men and women in sunglasses and with ear pieces who make a habit of talking into their cufflinks. I am sure the experience is daunting.
In short, free speech has already been chilled.
It is regrettable that the Congress the United States concerning this issue, as it has on so many issues lately, has failed its duty fully to debate and consider these questions.
224 of the House bill’s 388 “aye” votes were Republicans.
Only three House Republicans voted “nay” on Roll Call Number 149 to suspend the rules and pass the bill on February 28, 2012. One of those US Representatives is running for the Republican nomination for President, and is particularly despised and ridiculed by most Freepers.
Another bit of America gone, every day....
The DOJ holds Texas and a few other states hostage on making changes to our voting laws or redistricting due to civil rights legislation that was extended in 2006, and this same legislation gives just about any group of liberals standing to sue the state. This is why our Texas primary is delayed. The power given to the left by this legislation is immense, and even impacts local elections.
Only 33 Republican Congressmen voted against this anti-states’ rights travesty in 2006. I think you know the rest of the story.
Who sponsored the bill in the House?
US Representative Thomas Rooney (R-FL).
It passed the Senate with unanimous consent. They didn’t even bother recording a vote.
“This abominable legislation enjoyed overwhelming support from both political parties in Congress because the establishment loves power, fears dissent and hates inconvenience, and it doesn’t give a damn about the Constitution. It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and only three members of the House voted against it. And the _resident signed it in secret.”
Well, both the RNC and DNC will have ‘free speech zones’ setup. Where you can demonstrate and scream. Enjoy your cages, slave.
Now, now don’t get all worked up there were all of Two votes against it.
What two party system?
This is probably the scariest thing,yet..and Republicans overwhelmingly supported it?
I think the rebelion starts when they do one, or a combination of the following: Seize people’s private property (large scale). Start arresting people for political reasons. Shut down talk radio or conservative internet sites. Definitely a serious attempt to seize guns.
Probably what would start a Civil war more than anything eale is if they removed American Idol or the Office off the airwaves with no explanation.
By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect:
Acceptable political opinion ranges from Mitch McConnell to Harry Reid. Opinions falling outside of that range are dangerous and extremist (for example, the tea party movement before it was co-opted by the Republicans.) The MSM will, however, make exceptions on an ad hoc basis (see, for example, the OWS crowd.)
The differences between the two parties are mainly about how the vast sums of wealth seized in the form of income taxes and other forced exactions are to be divvied up among the various political constituencies. Voters get to select between Coke and Pepsi according to their tastes.
So where do we go to get our NOTAMs?
Will this law also prevent the audience from applauding Newt Gingrich when he scores a major debating point?
“It passed the Senate by unanimous consent, and only three members of the House voted against it.”
Here is a hint: a bill that passes by that margin in the GOP House is NOT some Obama-conspiracy.
“The new law re-writes an existing 1971 trespass law, which stated someone had to act willfully and knowingly when committing the crime.
Now, the language has been changed so that the actor only need behave knowingly, which would mean knowing one was in a restricted area but not necessarily that he or she was committing a crime. This small change would allow the Secret Service to arrest protestors more easily, the ACLU said in a statement.
The law makes it an offense to knowingly enter the certain areas without legal authority. The following areas are off-limits:
(1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice Presidents official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.”
Well, guess what? If someone is knowingly trespassing in the White House, arrest them. For this law to affect you, you first need to be trespassing.
Courage and violence, I would guess. (I am not hopeful.)