moonbattery logo

Feb 29 2012

Big Government Goes After Right to Protest

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say about this?

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.

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. …

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… 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.

No doubt this was inspired by the increasingly alarming behavior of Occupy radicals, but it will be applied equally — if not more than equally — by liberal officials to the law-abiding Tea Party.

One of the three Reps principled enough to vote against this latest attack on our Constitutional liberties was Justin Amash (R-MI), who observes,

“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.”

Every time the federal government passes a law, those rights are diminished, and our soft tyranny takes another step toward becoming a hard one.

On a tip from Mattius Maximus.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Google+Share on StumbleUponEmail this to someoneShare on Facebook


  • mojo

    No one can touch the King.

  • http://moonbattery czuch

    Hold on, this is gonna be a FAST ride.
    1st amendment will be lessened, then 2nd will be gone, then all gone. Wonder why?
    2012/2013

  • StanInTexas

    The government has tried multiple times to limit or criminalize the right to protest. We all remember the laws put inplace that restricted or banned abortion protests.

    Again, typical of the Liberal mindset in this country. Citizens can only exercise their rights when the government says it is OK.

  • Uneducated Moonbat

    BUT BUSH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Sinister66

    Voting roll call

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2011-149

    “No doubt this was inspired by the increasingly alarming behavior of Occupy radicals, but it will be applied equally — if not more than equally — by liberal officials to the law-abiding Tea Party.”

    I doubt it. The tea party really doesnt do anything anymore. I think the main target is the OWS people. The government will use this to crush any opposition both Righ and left wing.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinsiter, I hope you are right. But as with ALL legislation that is designed to limit our Constitutional rights, I predict that this new law will be SELECTIVELY applied.

    Some animals are more equal than others, you know!

  • dan

    Been here and done it:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9GXtQfXBAmM&feature=related

    It’s gonna be a rough summer

  • IslandLifer

    It’s US vs THEM

  • Sam Adams

    Sinister, thanks for the link to the roll call vote. Not that it will do any good, but I sent a message to my congressman asking why he voted for this bill.

    These federal offenses aren’t to be taken lightly. I met a nun who was doing 10 years for protesting in front of a nuclear plant.

    As to “Some animals are more equal than others, you know!” that is exactly why the father of our country set the precedent of being referred to as “Mr. President.”

  • Mattius Maximus
  • Sinister66

    StanInTexas says:

    “I predict that this new law will be SELECTIVELY applied.”

    Your probably right. Whomever is running the government will use this against their opposition regardless of political persuasion.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister,

    And I further predict that Liberals will support this legislation when it is used against their political enemies and scream about it when it is used against them; while Conservatives will see this law for the evil that it is REGARDLESS of who is in power or who is targeted.

  • http://netministries.org/see/charmin/CM10085 Gordy

    Say, how many “freedom-loving, Constitution-backing” REPUBLICANS voted for this abomination? Sounds like we got a load of chameleons in the House!

  • Mattius Maximus

    Gordy says:
    February 29, 2012 at 11:47 am
    Say, how many “freedom-loving, Constitution-backing” REPUBLICANS voted for this abomination? Sounds like we got a load of chameleons in the House!

    Here’s the list of chameleons:
    http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/2/votes/73/

  • Jay B.

    How convenient. They can now selectively arrest protests who get too close and who might bring negative media attention, as well as deny protest applications to all tea party gatherings, by simply stating an official is nearby.

  • Paul Revere

    With such a stiff penalty possible for expressing 1st amendment rights near a bureauweenie, shouldn’t we be able to petition for their whereabouts at all times under freedom of information act? Also, it’s obvious we need to clear out all of washington and start over if that list of who voted for this abomination is accurate… Food, Water, and AMMO!!

  • Sinister66

    StanInTexas says:

    Going buy the voting results, I would say your wrong. There were 2 Republicans that voted against it. 224 voted for it. Including Michele Bachmann. I guess conservatives dont think its such a bad idea after all.

  • StanInTexas

    Sinister,

    And the only Democrat that voted against was Keith Ellison. Not counting the 27 gutless Democrats that did not vote.

    Sorry, but my point still stands. And history is on my side.

  • Sinister66

    StanInTexas says:

    Your point of “Conservatives will see this law for the evil that it is REGARDLESS of who is in power or who is targeted” is proven wrong by the conservatives that voted for it.

    If you were refering to conservatives outside of government then you are probably correct.

  • AC

    He who shall not be mentioned voted against it.

  • http://netministries.org/see/charmin/CM10085 Gordy

    NO Dems voted against this bill. Only 3 Repubs voted against it: Amash of MI; Broun of GA; and Paul of TX. Thirty ducked the issue by not voting: 16 Dens, 14 Repubs.

  • Eric

    So much for town hall meetings.

  • Jodie

    If they wanted to go after the OWS protestors, they could easily arrest them for drugs, weapons, trespassing, arson, assault, etc. These protestors are blatantly breaking the law in full view of the cops and the country. This is not intended to stop them at all. As usual, this is all about Obama and will be enforced only on those who oppose HIM.

  • Paulster

    The liberal battle cry: “Free Speech for ME but Not for Thee!”

Alibi3col theme by Themocracy

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial