The King's New Law: Attack on the First Amendment, H.R. 347 Signed into Law Granting Odd Powers of Arrest

March 23rd, 2012

The King's New Law: Attack on the First Amendment, H.R. 347 Signed into Law Granting Odd Powers of Arrest

Posted by: Kim Stallings
Published on March 23rd, 2012 @ 04:03:08 pm , using 1662 words

Posted in Events and Issues: Credible Resources

Conservative Refocus

Conservative Refocus Reports

Kim Stallings and Barry Secrest

On March 7, 2012, H.R. 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” was signed into law. At the core of this bill is a blatant assault on the First Amendment, which guarantees U.S. citizens the right to freedom of Religion, freedom to peacefully Assemble, freedom of the Press, freedom to Petition, and freedom of Speech (RAPPS). Now, it is a Federal crime to assemble to petition and freely speak out against government whenever the Secret Service is in the area.

At present, there are approximately 4,500 Secret Service agents who are authorized to protect the following:

The president, the vice president, (or other individuals next in order of succession to the Office of the President), the president-elect and vice president-elect
The immediate families of the above individuals
Former presidents, their spouses, except when the spouse re-marries
Children of former presidents until age 16
Visiting heads of foreign states or governments and their spouses traveling with them, other distinguished foreign visitors to the United States, and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad
Major presidential and vice presidential candidates, and their spouses within 120 days of a general presidential election
Other individuals as designated per Executive Order of the President and
National Special Security Events, when designated as such by the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security

So, basically, the President now has the power to use the Secret Service at his discretion (read: convenience) to silence U.S. citizens and strip them of their most basic Constitutional right--as he sees fit and for his purposes (which, as we know, are most often self-serving to his Statist agenda and are not in the best interest of We the People).

How did this bill ever make it through Congress in order to become law?

H. R. 347 was first introduced on January 18, 2011. It was passed in the House on 2/28/2011 and in the Senate on 2/5/2012. President Obama signed it into law on March 7, 2012. In order to become law, a bill must receive at least 66% "Aye" votes; this bill received 89%.

WHO SAID YES?

164 Democrats voted "Aye." No surprise there. But here's the thing that has us fuming: 224 Republicans voted "Aye," two voted "Nay," and 42 voted "Abstain." Here is a list of Republicans who voted "Aye" and "Abstain" to this most recent and grievous trampling of the First Amendment:

Commentary

The point here, beyond the quite obvious, is that whether or not there may have been certain side bills or otherwise being parlayed for passage, crafting and voting in the affirmative for a bill that essentially denies several Constitutional rights in one fell swoop, is not exactly what we have hired our Representatives in Washington to facilitate.

Nor did the American people opt for a collection of Congressional pushovers, including those within the Tea Party, to go and represent them as, in effect, the establishment's "bitches" in Congress, to do with as they so please and at the pleasures of our newly crowned King.

Whatever else might the rational have been for voting such an egregious violation of the US Constitution into law, the wording within the bill leaves very little to congressional oversight and much to authoritarian abuse.

But there is one other thing that has us in a tizzy, in that we all know and understand that several GOP Presidential candidates have also been granted Secrest Service protection for the duration of the Campaign. Going back to the part of the law that states:

"Major presidential candidates and vice-presidential candidates within 120 days of a presidential election."

This, in essence, means that within approximately four months of an election, whatever you might be doing around one of either your most liked, or least favored candidates, you best not be protesting or holding up some sort of sign that seems to be protesting a particular "protected" candidate or you could find yourself in jail for one year.

Has everyone, in effect, gone insane?

This, I would submit, is the penultimate question.