Goodbye, First Amendment: ‘Trespass Bill’ will make protest illegal

RT
February 29, 2012

 

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.

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. 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. And 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.

 

Veterans for Ron Paul DC March Feb 20 2012

Leaked Email: Military Top Brass Warn Troops Off March For Ron Paul

“High importance” message  distributed by Senior Navy official

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
February 17, 2012

An email leaked by multiple active duty personnel shows that the military has issued a warning to troops encouraging them not to take part in the upcoming Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 march in Washington on Monday.

The email, posted to the group’s facebook event page and sent to organiser Adam Kokesh by several unconfirmed sources, lays out several directives on participation in political events by active and non active duty military.

Referring to the event as a “partisan political march”, the insinuation is clear – any active duty personnel, whether in uniform or not, and any reservists marching in uniform or otherwise deemed to be endorsing Ron Paul, could be reprimanded.

The email, apparently sent by Joel A. Weger, Senior Attorney at the Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics) in the Department of the Navy, was sent on high importance and warns recipients “You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel”.

The full email is below:

—–Original Message—–
From: Weger, Joel A CIV OGC, Ethics [mailto:joel.weger@NAVY.MIL]
Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:17
To: ETHICS@LISTSERV.LAW.NAVY.MIL
Subject: [ETHICS] Partisan Political March

Importance: High

It has come to our attention that a partisan political march targeting
military personnel is being organized for February 20, 2012. See link
below:

http://www.facebook.com/events/192677970828185/?ref=notif&notif_t=event_invite

As a reminder, active duty personnel are prohibited by DoD Directive 1344.10
paragraph 4.1.2.10 from marching in a partisan political parade regardless
of whether they are in uniform or civilian clothes. Reservists not on
active duty and retirees may not march in uniform pursuant to paragraph
4.1.4. Reservists not on active duty and retirees may march in civilian
clothes provided that they do not otherwise act in a manner that could
reasonably give rise to the inference or appearance of official sponsorship,
approval, or endorsement.

The directive is a lawful general regulation. Violations of paragraphs 4.1.
through 4.5. of the Directive by persons subject to the Uniform Code of
Military Justice are punishable under Article 92, “Failure to Obey Order or
Regulation.”

In addition, DODI 1334.01, paragraph 3.1.2 prohibits the wearing of the
uniform by members of the armed forces (including retired members and
members of reserve components) during or in connection with political
activities.

You may wish to advise your command regarding this particular event because
of the apparent solicitation of active duty personnel.

Joel A. Weger
Senior Attorney
Department of the Navy
Office of the Assistant General Counsel (Ethics)
703.614.XXXX

Adam Kokesh, co-founder of Veterans for Ron Paul 2012 and himself an Iraq war veteran, responded to the email by thanking the Navy for inadvertently promoting the event.

Watch the video:

The directives cited in the email were recently highlighted when it was revealed that someone within the military had taken exception to Reserve Corporal Jesse Thorsen’s endorsement of Ron Paul during the Congressman’s post-Iowa caucuses rally.

After mysteriously being cut short during a CNN interview, Thorsen, who has served two tours in Afghanistan and was due to head back for a third, was invited on to the stage by Paul himself to address Paul’s cheering supporters.

Thorsen, while not currently on active duty, duly received threats of reprimand for appearing in uniform with Paul.

As has been repeatedly noted, Ron Paul is the presidential choice of the troops. Paul has received more campaign donations from active duty military personnel than any other presidential candidate, including Barack Obama.

To date, Paul has collected $95,567 from individuals who listed their occupation as one of the branches of the US military or US Department of Defense.

 

Donor	Obama	Romney	Gingrich	Paul	Santorum
National Guard	$1,262	$0	$0	$4,068	$0
US Air Force	$9,785	$4,400	$4,400	$23,736	$0
US Army	$15,600	$3,500	$250	$24,503	$250
US Coast Guard	$6,002	$0	$0	$3,716	$0
US Dept of Defense	$27,613	$2,150	$0	$9,527	$0
US Marine Corps	$1,700	$250	$0	$7,662	$0
US Military	$200	$0	$0	$2,083	$0
US Navy	$10,454	$3,000	$250	$20,272	$500
TOTAL	$72,616	$13,300	$4,900	$95,567	$750

——————————————————————

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.net, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham in England.

 

Ron Paul Is Secretly Taking Over The GOP — And It’s Driving People Insane

By now, it is clear that the Maine caucuses were a complete mess.

Evidence is mounting that Mitt Romney’s 194-vote victory over Ron Paul was prematurely announced, if not totally wrong. Washington County canceled their caucus on Saturday on account of three inches of snow (hardly a blizzard by Maine standards), and other towns that scheduled their caucuses for this week have been left out of the vote count. Now, it looks like caucuses that did take place before Feb. 11 have also been left out of final tally.

As the full extent of the chaos unfolds, sources close to the Paul campaign tell Business Insider that it is looking increasingly like Romney’s team might have a hand in denying Paul votes, noting that Romney has some admirably ruthless operatives on his side and a powerful incentive to avoid a fifth caucus loss this month.

According to the Paul campaign, the Maine Republican Party is severely under-reporting Paul’s results — and Romney isn’t getting the same treatment. For example, nearly all the towns in Waldo County — a Ron Paul stronghold – held their caucuses on Feb. 4, but the state GOP reported no results for those towns. In Waterville, a college town in Central Maine, results were reported but not included in the party vote count. Paul beat Romney 21-5 there, according to the Kennebec County GOP.

“It’s too common,” senior advisor Doug Wead told Business Insider. “If it was chaos, we would expect strong Romney counties to be unreported, and that’s not what’s happening.”

The Maine Republican Party won’t decide which votes it will count until the executive committee meets next month. But Wead points out that even if Mitt Romney holds on to his slim lead, it will be a Pyrrhic victory.

“He will have disenfranchised all of these people,” Wead said. “It could be a costly victory — it is a mistake.”

The (alleged) bias against Paul may also be the product of an organic opposition to the libertarian Congressman and his army of ardent fans. Paul volunteers tend to be young and relatively new to party politics, and their presence has many state GOP stalwarts feeling territorial.

“People feel threatened — they don’t want to see a bunch of kids who may have voted for Barack Obama take over,” Wead said. “They feel a sense of ownership over the party — but there has to be an accommodation.”

But state party machinations are already starting to backfire. The Paul campaign believes it has won the majority of Maine’s delegates — and the perceived election fraud has galvanized Paul supporters to demand their votes be counted in the state’s straw poll ‘beauty contest.’

Caucus chaos has also proved to be fertile ground for Paul’s quiet takeover of the Republican Party. Since 2008, the campaign and Paul’s Campaign for Liberty PAC have made a concerted effort to get Paul sympathists involved in the political process. Now, tumult in state party organizations has allowed these supporters to rise up the ranks.

“We like strong party leadership when it comes from us,” Paul campaign chair Jesse Benton told Business Insider. “Our people work very hard to make sure that their voice is heard.”

The fruits of this labor are evident in Iowa, where Paul’s former state campaign co-chair A.J. Spiker was just elected as the new chairman of the Iowa Republican Party. Spiker replaces Matt Strawn, who stepped down over this year’s Iowa caucus dustup. In Nevada, the state chair has also resigned over caucus disaster, and several Ron Paul supporters are well-positioned to step up to fill the void. These new leaders not only expand Paul’s influence at the state level, but also help protect Paul and his hard-won delegates from state party machinations as the delegate-selection process moves to district and state conventions, and eventually the Republican National Convention this summer.

“We are always trying to bring people into the party,” Benton said. “I think that is a very positive thing for Republicans. Ron is the person who can build the Republican base, bring new blood into the party. That’s how you build the party.”

In Maine, the caucus disaster has made the state GOP prime for a Ron Paul takeover. And that means that Paul’s hard-won delegates will be protected as the delegate selection process

“We are taking over the party,” Wead told BI. “That’s the important thing — and that is what we are doing in Maine.”

 

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ron-paul-maine-caucuses-gop-takeover-2012-2#ixzz1mYwFqY00

Al-Qaeda Leader Voices Praise For Obama Administration’s Syria Policy

Satire or reality? Truth or fiction? You decide.

(Al-Qaeda’s HQ)—Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri praised President Barack Obama and his administration’s policy to oust the hated dictator of Syria, President Bashar al-Assad.

Appearing on video on Monday morning, al-Zawahri said his organization has made some changes since the assassination of its former head, Osama Bin Laden, in May of last year. “We in Al-Qaeda learned our lesson. We now know not to mess with America. We want to be friends because of our common interests and goals. We have decided to work with the Obama administration in Syria, Libya, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and throughout the Middle East.”

In Washington, Al-Qaeda’s stunning change in its policy towards America has received support among the most hawkish elements. “Al-Qaeda is obviously not the perfect ally. But we desperately need troops to change the regime in Syria, and if Al-Qaeda fighters want to assist us in this international effort, whether directly or indirectly, I’m all for it,” said a Pentagon official who spoke to us on the condition of anonymity.

Meanwhile, in Syria the Free Syrian Army is anticipating a rise in its recruitment levels because of Al-Qaeda’s call to Jihadists across the region to join the democratic revolution in Syria.

Many anti-Assad rebels are wearing Bin Laden t-shirts reminiscent of the famous Che t-shirt as a sign that they will carry on their martyr’s heroic cause. In cities captured by the Free Syrian Army the image of Bin Laden graces the walls of many government buildings.

At the United Nations, news of Al-Qaeda’s entry to Syria has been greeted with enthusiasm. International human rights groups have intensified their criticism of the Assad regime in recent weeks and call on President Assad to give up power.

American, French, Israeli, and British special forces are expected to join the Free Syrian Army’s quest for freedom and dignity next month. It is very possible that Al-Qaeda fighters will fight alongside American veterans from the successful freedom operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Whether or not they will recognize each other from their previous interactions is an impolite question that should be suppressed in order to advance the greater cause of revolution in a badly governed country run by a despotic and demonic dictator.

Posted by Saman Mohammadi at 8:47 PM

Satire: Anonymous Hacks DHS Video

Infowars.com
February 9, 2012

The mysterious hacktivist group Anonymous has captured the following clip from a Department of Homeland Security video feed. It shows King Dung Beetle Napolitano and her minions during a DHS feeding frenzy, eating their favorite dish.

 

Of course, the above is obviously satire, but you get the point.

The New York Times Agrees With G. W. Bush, Implies The Constitution “Is Just A Piece of Paper”

Saman Mohammadi
Infowars.com
Thursday, February 9, 2012

 

“Wolverine: Magneto’s right: there is a war coming. Are you sure you’re on the right side?
Storm: At least I’ve chosen a side.” – X-Men (2000, Director Bryan Singer/Screenwriter Tom DeSanto).

“Col. Claus von Stauffenberg: I’m a soldier, I serve my country. But this is not my country. I was lying out there bleeding to death, thinking, if I die now, I leave nothing to my children but shame.” – Valkyrie (2008, Director Bryan Singer/Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie).

“The Constitution has seen better days,” declares Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court correspondent of The New York Times, in his new piece called: ‘We the People’ Loses Appeal With People Around the World.

Liptak won’t tell you, but the Constitution is dead thanks in large part to the fact that the New York Times has judiciously covered up the Bush administration’s crimes against the Constitution, beginning on day one when G. W. and company stole the White House.

 

The article seems mild and tame on the surface, but once you scratch away the sugar-coated propaganda you see the total contempt for the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. It is obvious why the “paper of record” is not interested in sticking up for the foundation of the United States of America: it wants to destroy the United States of America.

Indeed, the New York Times is an anti-American paper in the most clear sense of the term. It has let administration after administration chip away at the Constitution with the chisel of globalist and CIA propaganda, so why stop now? In these last days of the American empire, the shadow CIA is scattering the Constitution to the wind. So it would be backward and stupid for the Times to turn back the clock this late in the game and restore what it has tried to destroy for the last fifty years.

After the CIA’s assassination of JFK and the CIA-Mossad attacks on 9/11, how can any propaganda outlet like the New York Times save face and say sorry? The editorial staff of the New York Times, as well as the editorial staff of most other American and Western papers, have given up on America and on the rule of law. They are part of a treasonous globalist plot to force America and all nations to obey a global dictatorship run by criminal banks and fascist corporations.

In the past, these fascist globalist revolutionaries waged a covert and psychological war against the U.S. Constitution and the American people. But they have grown tired of pretending. 9/11 was their coming out party. A nuclear 9/11 may be finish off America for good.

The media traitors and globalist revolutionaries may be out of touch with reality and the common people, but that isn’t stopping them from showing their true fascist and authoritarian colours. Snakes like to show skin and stick out their tongue at their unassuming prey. That’s what they do.

If you think the Globalist and Zionist snakes have had fun raping the laws of America and plundering public treasuries from Washington to Baghdad, just wait for the next round of wars and bailouts. We haven’t seen nothing yet. Iraq was a prelude to Iran, and the 2008 bank bailout was a prelude to the coming global economic breakdown.

But there is a problem. Washington’s crisis of legitimacy is rearing its head into the popular, mainstream consciousness of America and the world. 91% of the American people disapprove of Congress. Pretty soon it will be 99%. Members of Congress have lost the people and the military. The only support they have is from an evil gang of international banksters who steal trillions of dollars from American taxpayers to pay their bills and keep them in office.

But the globalist crooks have an escape plan: global genocide and an authoritarian world government. They want to build a Global North Korea on the ashes of the American flag and the flags of other nations such as Iraq, Iran, Israel, Canada, and England. Nothing stands in their way but the truth of history and the good people of Earth.

Why are Washington’s planetary terrorists so hostile to the U.S. Constitution and the American people? Because they are deathly afraid of the power of both.

Kurt Nimmo and Alex Jones write in their article, “Globalist Campaign Calls for Abolishment of Constitution,” that, “what really irks the elite is the idea that government only exists by the consent of the governed and “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,” as the Declaration of Independence states. In other words, it is the right of the people to revolt against government – preferably through peaceful means, but by violent revolution if need be, as Thomas Jefferson argued – when it becomes an oppressive tyranny, as it now is.”

On his radio broadcast on Wednesday, February 8, Alex said that the globalist criminals “have got to openly say ‘get rid of the Constitution’ in front of everybody because they’ve basically already gotten rid of it, and their criminals and they know it indicts them.”

We will find out the weight of the Constitution once the weight of the Dollar falls. G. W. called the Constitution “a piece of paper.” The paper of record agrees him, as does the current deranged and sociopathic President.

The question we should be asking is does an eighteenth century political document written by enlightened and liberty oriented philosophers apply to bloodthirsty and genocidal psychopaths in the 21st century who murder innocent people in a global game of terror? Can any law restrain lawless, shameless, amoral, and ruthless power brokers? If they don’t follow the golden rule, then how can we expect them to follow the U.S. Constitution and international law?

In my eyes, the Constitution can’t be destroyed by criminals who don’t recognize any laws. The Constitution and Bill of Rights can come alive again if a new generation of brave men are willing to pour their blood into these dead documents and sacrifice their lives for the cause of freedom.

The values of freedom, personal responsibility, and individual conscience that have raised America to the status of a global empire and enriched Western Civilization above every other civilization must be preserved in our time. Why despoil the sacred ground of liberty that produced such a rich and glorious civilization?

The mean-spirited fascist globalist revolutionaries want the people to live in poverty and ignorance, and accept permanent slavery as a fact of 21st century life. But there is another, more brighter future, if we can only see it.

Instead of degrading man, and trashing America and the West, as the globalist terrorists want us to do, we should preserve the best of the West and leave the rest behind. The U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Declaration of Independence are among the treasures of Western civilization and must be preserved, both in spirit and in form. If they are just meaningless pieces of aged paper then what does that make America? Nothing but a pile of dirt.

America must not settle for dirt. It can aim higher.

Freedom is the heart and soul of America and Western man. The New York Times aka the globalist paper of misinformation needs to relearn this basic truth, and stop bashing the very thing that made America great in the first place.

Saman Mohammadi is the writer and editor at The Excavator Blog