Our Ruling Class Hate Us For Our Freedoms

Operation Enduring Slavery: Now In Its Tenth Year of Protecting Our Richest and Most Powerful Citizens from the Blunder of the United States Constitution

Why anybody would vote for any member of the two major parties who support this is a mystery to me. Any member of Congress on record for support this bill should be tried for treason and sent to Afghanistan to sweep for landmines or clean toilets in a VA hospital.

  • Jordan Henderson

    “Any member of Congress on record for support this bill should be tried for treason and sent to Afghanistan to sweep for landmines or clean toilets in a VA hospital.”

    There are no VA hospitals in Afghanistan.

    • Mark Shea

      I was writing fast. You know what I mean.

      • http://jordanhenderson.blogspot.com Jordan Henderson

        Yeah, I was just trying to be funny.

  • Jordan Henderson

    The claims of this poster seem unfounded by what I’ve read on the Bill.

    http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill

    http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/01/does-hr-347-the-trespass-bill-change-any

    Seems like there’s no new right to arrest anyone engaged in protests “anywhere”. It only refines trespass laws surrounding certain federal properties.

    Can someone point me to support for the claims made here?

    • Ted Seeber

      As far as I’m concerned- any politician you can’t walk up to and punch in the nose, is a politician that is not sufficiently afraid of his constituency.

    • Michaelus

      Well if you read the details of the Bursey case you will see that back in the Nixon days the government conceded that protesting on public areas of an airport is not illegal because it was not trespassing. Today is is a federal crime. I think that is a big deal. It is not as big a deal as assassinating a guy that you invited to the Pentagon to give a talk – but it is still a big deal.

  • Scott

    Any member of the two major parties? Out of 535 members of Congress you don’t think there is even one worthy of being voted for? No wonder good people won’t run for office when we act so cynically towards them.

    • Jordan Henderson

      Congressmen Amash (R-MI) and Paul (R-TX) voted against it.

      • Richard Johnson

        Represenatatives Ellison (D-MN), Amash (R-MI) and Broun (R-GA) voted against the bill on final passage. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) abstained on the final vote for this bill.
        http://www.opencongress.org/vote/2012/h/73

    • Richard Johnson

      “Any member of Congress on record for support this bill…”

      If they are on record supporting this bill, how can you consider them worthy of being voted back into office?

  • Elaine S.

    I realize this is a Ritually Impure Source of information, but here’s what the ACLU has to say about it:
    http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/how-big-deal-hr-347-criminalizing-protest-bill
    “The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971 and amended a couple of times since, that covers areas subject to heightened Secret Service security measures.”
    In a nutshell, the ACLU says the bill doesn’t create any “new” crimes, or make illegal anything that wasn’t already illegal, but it may make it slightly easier for the government to prove its case against protesters who illegally enter secured areas. They seem to be concerned, but not panicking.

    • Richard Johnson

      “Also, while H.R. 347, on its own, is only of incremental importance, it could be misused as part of a larger move by the Secret Service and others to suppress lawful protest by relegating it to particular locations at a public event. These “free speech zones” are frequently used to target certain viewpoints or to keep protesters away from the cameras. Although H.R. 347 doesn’t directly address free speech zones, it is part of the set of laws that make this conduct possible, and should be seen in this context.”

      The habit in the current and recent past administrations has been to move such “free speech zones” farther and farther away from the main venue. Not only does this isolate those protesting it also makes it easier for the law enforcement agencies to restrict free speech rights out of the glare of the press, which will be safely away from the messy protesters.

      Of course, the corporate free speech zones will not be affected by this. They will still have unfettered access in the meeting rooms in the Capitol and White House.

  • Thomas R

    Hmm I think many of us are aware that even if we’re not “of the world” we’re still in the world. I’m willing to vote third party, but I do vote for one of the two parties most of the time as I’m not yet ready to totally withdraw from the system. Maybe you’re a better person for rejecting the US political system entirely, because really that is what your doing please don’t delude yourself otherwise, but I’m just not ready to do that yet. When/If I am that far I hope I have the money to just leave this country outright. (I know Chesterton’s thing about a country being your mother, but if you think your “mother” is constantly abusive I think separation is acceptable.)

  • Michaelus

    Well yesterday his Imperial Majesty visited Westport Connecticut. He arranged for the Secret Service to shut down one large, popular public beach and one smaller public beach for the entire day so he could land his fleet of helicopters near Harvey Weinstein’s house. According to the new law if I had showed up and yelled at one of the Praetorians I would now be charged with a Federal crimes. In the past I would have been detained by a local policeman. That is a big deal.

    • Ted Seeber

      Had the same thing happen in Portland, which made me seriously consider suggesting a law for metro requiring politicians from any party to contract with Tri-met for special trains rather than use motorcades, thus avoiding tying up *all* potential transportation in a given area.

  • http://www.patheos.com Deacon Tom

    “Why anybody would vote for any member of the two major parties is a mystery to me. Any member of Congress on record for support this bill should be tried for treason and sent to Afghanistan to sweep for landmines or clean toilets in a VA hospital.” Please Mr. Shea, don’t minimize a serious question like this with your broad-brush, condemnation of “any member of the two major parties.” You are not a lawyer, and there could be rational arguments to support increased security on certain federal properties. I personally do not know. But any rational arguments are not defeated by your knee-jerk, belittling comments about any member of Congress who vote for it. The proposed law very well could be a significant, unconstitutional restriction on free speech, and if so, we should oppose it. But your terse, spiteful blogs on major issues and your ridicule of Congress does not help lead to the truth, and is not conducive to thoughtful discussion. Also, your suggestion that your decision not to vote for anyone in either of the 2 major parties must be shared by all good Catholics is way over the top, and is certainly not in keeping with the principles articulated by our Bishops, e.g., see all the materials they have published on issues a conscience and voting.

    • Mark Shea

      I wrote too quickly. I have amended what I meant to say.

  • Jon S.

    Mark,

    Other commenters have noted the falsehood in the image you post. It is not protests anywhere, it is trespassing on certain sensative grounds that is at issue. You really need to stick to what you know about, our Catholic faith. When you write about politics you sound like my over enthused and underinformed freshmen.

    • ivan_the_mad

      Yes, compartmentalize. Only declaim on things (other people might grant that) you’re an expert in. This isn’t utter foolishness or anything.

    • Ted Seeber

      Yep. Protest on certain sensitive grounds, such as anywhere that the protesters *might* actually be *accidentally seen* by the person they are protesting.

  • Marya

    FYI, since I can’t tell if this is already known. HR347 was signed into law 5 months ago. There were 3 votes against the bill in the House; it passed by “unanimous consent” in the Senate.

  • MumbleMumble

    A few people have argued that HR 347 does not, in fact, mean that the federal government can arrest anyone engaged in a political protest anywhere in the United States. They have cited a few sources to back up their claims, which talk specifically about the language in the bill, and what it means. Do you have any response to these comments? Do you have an argument that speaks to why and how HR 347 would do the things that you are claiming?

  • Max

    HR 347, meet Magnum 357.

    • Ted Seeber

      Magnum 357 *caused* HR347

  • Kirt Higdon

    The bill defines restricted areas as anywhere a person under the protection of the US Secret Service is or will be present. That could indeed be anywhere in the US. And it is not required that the arrested person know that the area he is in has been temporarily declared restricted because a protected person is passing through. Restricting protests? Hell, this could be used to arrest a person just trying to walk down the sidewalk to his apartment at a time when streets were blocked off for a campaign motorcade of a presidential candidate.

    • SecretAgentMan

      As I read it (before my browser froze, so I’m not going back there to check), the bill requries proof that the defendant (protestor) intend to disrupt the orderly administration of government functions within a restricted area. This isn’t a “strict liablity” crime. Eager as I am to catch and damn US fascism, which is a very real and prevalent philosophy on the left and the right, I’m not sure this qualifies as a move in that direction.

  • john

    Our superiors must be shielded from us underlings…they are better than us…they should not have to listen to what we rabble think or say…just leave them be and let them go about preserving our peace and security…which we could not possibly understand becaus we are not as bright as they are…oh and if you disagree then you are an enemy and must be destroyed inorder to presevre the peace and security.

  • Richard Chonak

    Mark, have you fallen into a habit of publishing civil-liberties scare stories?

    If you publish scares like this one because they fit a narrative template that you like, how are you any better than the MSM with their BS template stories?


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X