Obama signs anti-protest Trespass Bill

Published: 10 March, 2012, 00:52 RT
Only days after clearing Congress, US President Barack Obama signed his name to H.R. 347 on Thursday, officially making it a federal offense to cause a disturbance at certain political events — essentially criminalizing protest in the States.
RT broke the news last month that H.R. 347, the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011, had overwhelmingly passed the US House of Representatives after only three lawmakers voted against it. On Thursday this week, President Obama inked his name to the legislation and authorized the government to start enforcing a law that has many Americans concerned over how the bill could bury the rights to assemble and protest as guaranteed in the US Constitution.
Under H.R. 347, which has more commonly been labeled the Trespass Bill by Congress, knowingly entering a restricted area that is under the jurisdiction of Secret Service protection can garner an arrest. The law is actually only a slight change to earlier legislation that made it an offense to knowingly and willfully commit such a crime. Under the Trespass Bill’s latest language chance, however, someone could end up in law enforcement custody for entering an area that they don’t realize is Secret Service protected and “engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct” or “impede[s] or disrupt[s] the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions.”
The Secret Service serves as the police that protects not just current and former American presidents, but are also dispatched to monitor special events of national significance, a category with a broad cast of qualifiers. In the past, sporting events, state funerals, inaugural addresses and NATO and G-8 Summits have been designated as such by the US Department of Homeland Security, the division that decides when and where the Secret Service are needed outside of their normal coverage.
Mara Verheyden-Hilliard of the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund tells the International Business Times that the Trespass Bill in its current form “means it’s easier to prosecute under ‘knowingly,’” instead of both knowingly and willfully, “which is an issue because someone could knowingly enter a restricted but not necessarily realize they are committing a crime.” Speaking with IB Times, Verheyden-Hilliard tries to lay to rest claims that the Constitution will be crippled by the Trespass Bill, but acknowledges that it does indeed allow law enforcement to have added incentive to arrest protesters who could be causing a disturbance.
“[HR 347] has been described as a death knell for the First Amendment, but that isn’t supported by the facts,” Verheyden-Hilliard adds. “This has always been a bad law.”
Gabe Rottman of the American Civil Liberties Union adds to IB Times, “Bottom line, it doesn’t create any new violations of the law.” So far, however, it has raised awareness of the levels that the US government are willing to go to in order to make it harder to express ones’ self.
Under the act, protesting in areas covered by Secret Service could land a demonstrator behind bars, and the thing about the Secret Service (in case you couldn’t tell by their name), is that they don’t always make it clear where they are. You could even say that the service they provide, at times, is kept secret.
Presidential hopefuls Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum are now officially covered under Secret Service protection, making it a federal offense to disrupt a campaign stop. That means whether it’s by way of a glitter bomb protest or causing a disturbance on the same Holiday Inn hotel floor that Santorum is staying in, doing such could cause a bit of a legal battle for the persons involved.
Although the G-8 Summit originally scheduled for Chicago this spring would have made much of the Windy City a protected area where crimes could easily be tacked on to arrested protesters, the event was moved this week to the presidential retreat at Camp David. In turn, many have suggested that the White House is only going out of their way to limit protesting rights. While a Chicago summit would have meant the Trespass Bill could have been enforced in the same area where thousands of demonstrators were expected to protest, moving the event to a heavily fortified rural location will instead deter protesters from likely coming close atto the meeting at all.
And before you forget, the president can now detain you for getting too close to his front yard, order your assassination if the country considers you a threat and lock you away for life with no charge if you’re alleged to be a terrorist. You, on the other hand, can’t yell obscenities at Newt Gingrich without risking arrest.

LINK: http://rt.com/usa/news/trespass-bill-obama-secret-227/

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

Published: 29 February, 2012, 02:13

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.LINK:  http://rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/


      In order for the Tea Party movement to be successful and restore and protect our constitution, civil liberties and property rights. We must encourage Pastors and Churches to become involved in our cause. The first step for us to do that, is through information.

Contained in this email is information concerning Churches and Pastors and what they can and cannot do, without losing their tax-free status.
Please share this information with your Pastor and Church.
Dean Kelley
Walker County

Could Shale Oil Save America ?

Since the congressional Pickett Act of 1910, the U.S. Government controls most of the nation’s shale oil reserves. An astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil or more than five times the stated reserves of Saudi Arabia. The U.S. has within its borders the mother lode of potential domestic oil production that can no longer be ignored.

New technologies will now allow for the safe and economic development of these newly accessible oil reserves through a new process called “in sita”, mining which heats the oil while it is still in the ground to the point where the oil leaches out of the rock.

This new technology along with America’s tremendous shale oil reserves creates economic opportunities that are incredible. Imagine our country no longer dependent on other nations, some of which are hostile to the U.S., for our energy needs.

The good new is the development of these oil reserves has already begun on private property in North Dakota and other states. The bad news is the U.S. government will not open up oil production on federal land.

An increase in domestic oil production to the point of energy independence would be of remarkable benefit to the economy and people of the United States. As of the date of this report the U.S. has $425 Billion of oil imports, $169 Billion from OPEC nations. Oil independence will eliminate this trade deficit and most probably result in a trade surplus. The result of which would be, no longer sending American dollars overseas to our enemies in the Middle East, thereby reducing the available funds for international terrorism. Hundreds of thousands of jobs would be created for the American people. Resulting in lower unemployment, increased tax revenue, and a balanced budget. Lower prices at the pump, which will result in more discretionary income for individuals, thereby continued expansion of the economy. These are just a few of the obvious benefits from energy independence.

Energy Independence is the most pragmatic course to take for an economic recovery, the benefits are bountiful.

As we consider this election cycle for President of the United States and other elected officials, it is imperative that we know where these candidates stand on domestic oil production on federal lands and energy independence. Any candidate for President of the United States that is not for energy independence is not serious about the economic recovery of our nation. It is very unlikely that any austerity measures of any real consequence will be implemented by congress or the President of the U.S. Therefore, we must grow ourselves out of this economic hole we are in and Energy Independence is the path to economic prosperity.

Dean Kelley
Walker County Tea Party Coordinator

Obama State Department set to cede oil-rich Alaska islands to Russia | World Tribune


Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin. … The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.

The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.

The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.

Government corruption The Invisible American Workforce

The American Legislative Exchange Council (or ALEC), which helps
corporations write model legislation, has paved the way for states
and corporations to replace unionized workers with prison labor.

In fact, prison labor here in the US is cheaper than Chinese labor
because corporations can save on shipping costs.

Also, this video lays bare the strange intersection between the War
on Drugs, the privatized prison industry, and the wonderful chicken
products that state agents are forcing kids to eat in school


http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/9587.htmlGovernment corruption The Invisible American Workforce.

No Apologies by Newt Gingrich

President Obama’s apologies keep getting more outrageous and more destructive.

They started in the summer of 2008, before he was even elected president. Then-Senator Obama travelled to Berlin to introduce himself as “a citizen of the world,” and said, “I know my country has not perfected itself…We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.”

Next came the Apology Tour of 2009, when President Obama travelled to France to apologize for our “failure to appreciate Europe‘s leading role in the world,” saying “America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” (It’s hard to know where to begin with that one.)

He told the Turkish Parliament that “the United States is still working through some of our own darker periods in our history.”

He apologized to Central and South America for the United States having “at times been disengaged and…having sought to dictate on our terms.”

In Cairo, he explained American actions after the Sept. 11 Attacks by saying, “The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals,” and said tensions between the U.S. and Muslim world were due in part to “a cold war in which Muslim-majority countries were often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations.”

An illegally leaked diplomatic cable from Japan to the U.S. even seems to suggest President Obama wanted to visit Hiroshima to apologize for the atomic bombing during World War II, until Japan nixed the idea.

For all this apologizing the president was rewarded with a Nobel Peace Prize, but his actions weakened the United States diplomatically and made America less secure.

As damaging as President Obama’s compulsion to apologize has been, however, it was not until last week that we saw its true potential to put American lives and military objectives at risk. By apologizing unnecessarily to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the inadvertent burning by U.S. forces of Korans which had been confiscated from imprisoned extremists, the president made the situation in Afghanistan even worse.

Apparently the prisoners were writing in the books—and the books were inadvertently burned with the military’s trash outside Bagram Air Base, where they were spotted during the incineration process by local Afghans.

The violence that has erupted in Afghanistan in response to this mishap has been completely disproportionate. Riots and protests across the country have resulted in more than 30 people killed and hundreds injured. At least four Americans have died in targeted attacks since the crisis began. In one incident, an Afghan official apparently murdered his counterparts in the U.S. military, inside a base.

Instead of the United States treating this issue as it was—an accident, not reflective of any American policy or attitude—our leaders behaved as though the protests were based on a legitimate grievance. Afghanistan received apologies from “Afghanistan commander Gen. John Allen, the White House, NATO’s International Security Assistance Force and other Pentagon officials,” as Fox News reported.

The United States apologized for this accidental disposal even though the military intentionally burned a significant number of Bibles in 2009 that had been sent unsolicited from an American church, on the fear that “if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslim.” Clearly there’s no endemic lack of sensitivity in the military leadership.

Yet finally, on Thursday, President Obama apparently could resist no longer. He wrote President Karzai a letter in which he expressed his “deep regret,” offered his “sincere apologies,” and promised to “take appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

Tens of thousands of American men and women are in Afghanistan fighting to maintain security and prop up President Karzai’s government. Thousands of American and coalition troops have died. Four have been killed as a result of the protests. And President Obama is promising to “hold accountable those responsible” for the unintentional burning of a few books prisoners were themselves desecrating to pass messages.

The president’s letter is outrageous, and he first owes an apology to the men and women in uniform for his failure as commander-in-chief to defend their honor. What’s worse, he may have made their jobs even more dangerous. By apologizing he inflamed the sense that Afghans had been wronged and gave anti-American forces there the message that their violent, senseless protests were achieving something. It might come as a surprise to the president, but not all of his apologies win people over. Most of the time, they just make America look weak.

There’s no doubt that President Obama has a lot to apologize for. But before he continues diminishing the United States on the world stage, he should start by apologizing to the American people.

Your Friend,