So I have some great news folks! The Republicans and the Democrats in Congress and the White House FINALLY came together and agreed on something. This is HUGE. These guys disagree on EVERYTHING! Getting them to see eye-to-eye is like getting the Jews and the Palestinians to do a trust fall together. Or getting Eskimos and polar bears to play Jenga.
I'm referring to the bill H.R. 347 that was signed by President Obama the other day, passed unanimously in the Senate, and 388-3 in the House. That's nearly EVERY SINGLE lawmaker. The last time they agreed that closely on something, it was a bill raising monthly Congressional pay to include a box of Ding Dongs, two erotic cakes featuring Bonanza star Pernell Roberts, and a gentle yet inquisitive prostate exam every Tuesday.
What did this magical universally-loved bill say? Well some are calling it the anti-Occupy law and it allows the government to bring charges against Americans involved in many kinds of political protest at any location the secret service, quote, "is or will be temporarily visiting." So basically if the government wants to shut down a protest, they just send a secret service officer down there to scratch his balls, and then they can start putting people in jail for a year or more.
This is all lovely except for that bitchy bothersome document, the Constitution. I believe somewhere in the back it says, "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . or the right of the people peaceably to assemble." Aw shit! That musta sucked when Congress found that out! To get that close to passing it and then shot down? It musta been like getting hired to rub baby oil on the contestants of Miss Universe before the bathing suit portion of the competition and then losing your hands in a freak exploding cell phone accident! So when Congress heard about that first amendment they musta been like, "God damnit! That really f**ks up all our plans. That f**king line in the Constitution says not to do EXACTLY what we just did." That's what they must've said, right? ... They didn't just pass it anyway ... Right?
But the bill doesn't stop there. I mean, when you have the entirety of Congress with the exception of Ron Paul agreeing on something, why not swing for the fences? The bill also says it could be a federal crime to protest near an event of, quote, "national significance." Well, that's not vague at all. So you could be convicted of a federal crime and locked away for a year or more for the following things:
1) Marching outside the Democratic or Republican National Conventions
2) Yelling "C**k-face corporate whore" outside a barber shop where Mitt Romney is getting his ear hair trimmed.
3) Marching in front of the entrance of the New York Stock Exchange
4) Sprinkling magic homosexual glitter on Rick Santorum, or even anyone near Rick Santorum, or even just making fun of his stupid sweater vest!
5) Going to the gates of the White House and demanding the President read the Constitution. ...You know, if he gets a chance.
Well, Congress gets to stomp on the Bill of Rights, I want to do it too. I want to bring back cruel and unusual punishment, and then we could demand that every man or woman who voted for the Anti-Protest Law or signed it from the Oval Office be tied up in the town square naked for a week while everyone gets to throw fire ants and bumble bees at their naughty parts. Deal??
Follow Lee Camp on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LeeCamp
They are on the ropes. American Spring here we come.
-`Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
`(a) Whoever--
`(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
`(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
`(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or grounds; or
`(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;
or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
`(b) The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is--
`(1) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if--
`(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
`(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
`(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case."
HR 347:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
The law before HR 347:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
And forever after we would have wondered what he was going to say.
"I have a headache," maybe. Or "I have a new Volkswagen Beetle and I really love it."
Or maybe "I have a question...who the hell is this statue behind me supposed to represent???"
We would never have known.
But, this law wasn't around back then so we know precisely what he had.
A dream.
A very beautiful dream.
But WE are living a nightmare.
With something as serious as this, never trust a comedian or news source that thrives on controversy.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:7:./temp/~c112bIfGgU::
You can protest, as long as you don't do any of the following:
(1) Enter a restricted building or premises, or stay there after it's been restricted. (you never need to do this at any protest)
(2) Engage in conduct, within a restricted building or premises, which disrupts the government's ability to do it's business. (again, you don't need to do this at a protest)
(3) Block the entrances or exits (you don't need to ....)
(4) Engage in violence in a restricted building or premises. (..don't need to)
. `(2) a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, in any other case."
meaning any case not involving weapons and/or bodily injury. When were you planning to sign up for that remedial reading course you so desperately need?
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752
Not much has changed; in fact, it's more of a clarification. Read the actual text of the bill for yourselves and draw your own conclusions, rather than letting the media do your thinking for you:
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf
If you want to live in fear, be my guest, but if you believe what this article is saying about the bill in question, you're being seriously misled.
So since the Constitution i.e first Amendmaent is the law then this whole thing is irrelevant then?
This is all just standard security stuff anyway, designed to allow the Secret Service to do their jobs during things like Presidential speeches and the Olympics. This is in no way an "anti-protest" bill, and neither is the law that it amends.
The hysteria surrounding legislation this year is unbelievable. NDAA, SOPA, PIPA, and now this. When you actually read and understand the bills (rather than being sheeple and getting your information from journalists and bloggers), you come to realize that none of them are the Big Bad Wolf that everyone wants you to think they are.
Now, who would you rather have in office? Someone like Obama who betrays everything he SAID he stood for or a man that you know is going to do his best to uphold the Constitution and his oath of office even when it's not popular?
I'll take Ron Paul.