Metal Sludge Gossip Board

Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President
Posted: 03/14/2012 10:49 am

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??

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lee-camp/ ... 43728.html

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."

That's not what it says. It says a building or grounds where the President or someone protected by the Secret Service will be visiting, not where the secret service will be temporarily visiting. That article is crap.

(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
‘‘(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
‘‘(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112h ... 347enr.pdf

Okay, lets get rid of that part.

Are you okay with this law?

You must be one of those stinkin' hippie Occutards. Take your America hatin', terrorist lovin' lieberal bullshit elsewhere.

I think their message is so convoluted the Occupy group has made a mess of things.


So, congress making laws and the President signing them in order to prosecute people for freedom of speech isn't anti-American?

brotherplanet wrote: So, congress making laws and the President signing them in order to prosecute people for freedom of speech isn't anti-American?

They made a few minor changes to a law that has been in effect for over 40 years. Don't know when it was passed but it was first amended in 1971. It was probably passed during the anti-war movement during the 60s when protesters were disrupting hearings. The purpose is to keep protesters from disrupting official business. It's not intended to stop a public protest.

Go to this page and click on the notes tab to see the amendments since 71.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1752


Originally it said the following:

18 USC § 1752 - Restricted building or grounds
a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons—
(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting;
(2) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance;
(3) willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds described in paragraph (1) or (2) when, or so that, such conduct, in fact, impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions;
(4) willfully and knowingly to obstruct or impede ingress or egress to or from any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2); or
(5) willfully and knowingly to engage in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any building, grounds, or area described in paragraph (1) or (2).
(b) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be punishable by—
(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.
(c) Violation of this section, and attempts or conspiracies to commit such violations, shall be prosecuted by the United States attorney in the Federal district court having jurisdiction of the place where the offense occurred.
(d) None of the laws of the United States or of the several States and the District of Columbia shall be superseded by this section.
(e) As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection.


Now it says:

§ 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.
‘(c) In this section—
(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any
posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice
President’s official residence or its grounds;
(B) of a building or grounds where the President or
other person protected by the Secret Service is or will
be temporarily visiting; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction
with an event designated as a special event of national
significance; and
(2) the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’
means any person whom the United States Secret Service is
authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by
Presidential memorandum,

What was I supposed to do, vote McCain/Palin? I didn't but...

MY STATE DID MOTHERFUCKER!

As long as the Bush tax cuts are still going strong, everything's good in America.

brotherplanet wrote:Anti-Protest Law Passes Nearly Unanimously And Is Signed By The President

MurrayFiend wrote:As long as the Bush tax cuts are still going strong, everything's good in America.

You're right, DEATH ROW JOE, just adding a few more adjustments that take a little bit more of our freedom of speech away from us is no big deal. The slippery slope we're on is A-Okay!

Though if Bush was President this would have made the cover of the NYTimes as an act of fascism, but we've got a Dem President so it's all right.


Between this, Obama extending the Patriot Act and his singing of the NDAA, which can have American citizens thrown in jail for life without trial, Obama should be known as the Articulate Tyrant.

Of course the Republicans are holding his hand in all of this so both parties gladly tear up our Constitution

I'm guessing Cliffenstein.

Didn't Cliffenstein and his child bride just have a baby?

Luminiferous wrote:So BP? What was your previous nym on here?

None. Just signed up about a month ago.

Cough up the name faggot!

brotherplanet.

Seriously, you don't know me.

Why do you think I'm someone else?

It's because you spout the same pseudoconservative bullshit half a dozen other assclowns have cribbed from Rush, Hannity and their kind as if it were original thought.

Have you paid attention to my Republican comments on this very thread?

brotherplanet wrote: Of course the Republicans are holding his hand in all of this so both parties gladly tear up our Constitution

I voted for Obama.

He's turned out to be a grave disappointment.

He extended the Patriot Act and his signing of the NDAA and this new thing would have been handled much differently by the press and the Left if it was Bush. Am I wrong here? Would we not have heard cries of "Fascism!" ?

I'm not voting for him again. We've been sold out.

I don't listen to Rush or Hannity. They're fucking idiots, but they're very anti-Obama. Just because someone doesn't like Obama doesn't mean they're getting their information from those guys. Sometimes it means that someone reads the news and draws their own conclusions, which may or may not be spoken aloud by other people.

If I supported Obama would that mean I always watched MSNBC?

brotherplanet wrote:I voted for Obama.

brotherplanet wrote: If I supported Obama would that mean I always watched MSNBC?

You don't?

brotherplanet wrote:I voted for Obama.

He's turned out to be a grave disappointment.

He extended the Patriot Act and his signing of the NDAA and this new thing would have been handled much differently by the press and the Left if it was Bush. Am I wrong here? Would we not have heard cries of "Fascism!" ?

I'm not voting for him again. We've been sold out.

Brother Planet,

I have a lot of respect for you, you are an intelligent american not like Ophra Hussein and his sidekick Jack Bieden. The nazi must be defeated but you know what? The low life no good democraps are gonna cheat beacuse they have no honor. Real intelligant americans know that Miss Palin never lose to Hollywood 2 faced jabroni Obama because he cheated!!!

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

brotherplanet wrote:I voted for Obama.

brotherplanet wrote: If I supported Obama would that mean I always watched MSNBC?

You don't?

Read what I wrote between those two comments.

Constantine wrote:

brotherplanet wrote:I voted for Obama.

He's turned out to be a grave disappointment.

He extended the Patriot Act and his signing of the NDAA and this new thing would have been handled much differently by the press and the Left if it was Bush. Am I wrong here? Would we not have heard cries of "Fascism!" ?

I'm not voting for him again. We've been sold out.

Brother Planet,

I have a lot of respect for you, you are an intelligent american not like Ophra Hussein and his sidekick Jack Bieden. The nazi must be defeated but you know what? The low life no good democraps are gonna cheat beacuse they have no honor. Real intelligant americans know that Miss Palin never lose to Hollywood 2 faced jabroni Obama because he cheated!!!

Here's the problem. Mitt Romeny, in one of the debates back in January, said he would have also signed the NDAA, making it legal to throw an American citizen in jail for life without trial.


We're being sold out on both sides.


Ron Paul's stance on civil liberties is simply fantastic, and I do like the fact that he wants us to no longer be the policemen of the world, but he's missing a lot when it comes to foreign affairs. For example, he would be okay with Iran getting their hands on a Nuclear weapon, which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't really REALLY want to actually use one. Most countries want a nuke as a deterrent. Iran wants one so they can use it as soon as possible.

brotherplanet wrote:

Ron Paul's stance on civil liberties is simply fantastic,

If you're white. There's a reason he pals around with people like Don Black, KKK grand wizard and founder of Stormfront, a neo-Nazi website.

and I do like the fact that he wants us to no longer be the policemen of the world, but he's missing a lot when it comes to foreign affairs.

He understands exactly what he is saying. If we stop being the world's cop, we don't need much in the way of foreign affairs.

For example, he would be okay with Iran getting their hands on a Nuclear weapon,

I don't think he's OK with it. When we're not the cops, it's not our business what anyone else does unless they do it to us.

which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't really REALLY want to actually use one. Most countries want a nuke as a deterrent. Iran wants one so they can use it as soon as possible.

How the fuck do you know? Did Ahmadinejad call you up like some kid with an M80 and a match looking for a mailbox to throw it in?


BTW, Constantine is trolling you.

We're being sold out on both sides.

of course, America needs more viable political parties, but that won't happen

joey64 wrote:We're being sold out on both sides.

of course, America needs more viable political parties, but that won't happen

America needs more and it's all Obamas fault.... 4 more years

Danzig in the Dark wrote:

brotherplanet wrote:

Ron Paul's stance on civil liberties is simply fantastic,

If you're white. There's a reason he pals around with people like Don Black, KKK grand wizard and founder of Stormfront, a neo-Nazi website.

and I do like the fact that he wants us to no longer be the policemen of the world, but he's missing a lot when it comes to foreign affairs.

He understands exactly what he is saying. If we stop being the world's cop, we don't need much in the way of foreign affairs.

For example, he would be okay with Iran getting their hands on a Nuclear weapon,

I don't think he's OK with it. When we're not the cops, it's not our business what anyone else does unless they do it to us.

which wouldn't be so bad if they didn't really REALLY want to actually use one. Most countries want a nuke as a deterrent. Iran wants one so they can use it as soon as possible.

How the fuck do you know? Did Ahmadinejad call you up like some kid with an M80 and a match looking for a mailbox to throw it in?


BTW, Constantine is trolling you.

So, if Ron Paul got ride of the NDAA and the Patriot Act and this new shitty Anti-Protest Law it would only help white people?


Well, the President of Iran said he wants to destroy Israel. Should we hand him a nuke? You think he doesn't want to use one? Did you think Osama didn't want to attack the US either before he did?

Ron Paul's comment about letting them get a nuke came from one of the debates back in January.

Ron Paul doesn't wanna be the world's policeman means he doesn't want to support Israel when they want it or need it IMO.

Skate4RnR wrote:Ron Paul doesn't wanna be the world's policeman means he doesn't want to support Israel when they want it or need it IMO.

In that same debate back in January I believe he said he wants to bring all of our troops home.