Add a rally, forum, town hall, or other event to collect RSVPs, give attendees directions and more.
Add events from your existing Ning or MeetUp groups to share with other FreedomConnector activists.
Let other FreedomConnector activists join your cause to mobilize for freedom!
Good post with bad news, Earl. Thanks. Judge Andrew Napolitano is creditable, and he should be in our next president's cabinet.
Mike, I agree with you 100% What I would give for one hour with this Great American ! The value ?
Rand and Andrew would be an excellent team.
(Updated 2/27: I have to back off this a little bit. It was a premature rant. However, I still believe Mr. Soetoro to be a maniacal monster)
This is simply appalling! Just wait until someone takes this to court. It is patently unconstitutional, an outright violation of the 1st Amendment. I cannot say what I am thinking at this particular moment!
Mr. Soetoro aka Obama is suffering from terminal malignant narcissism...
and it is deplorable that he thinks he can dash a pen stroke across a piece of paper and violate the Law of our Land...in secret no less!!! Barry Soetoro is beyond immoral, he is criminally wicked. He's INSANE.
The bill states, “Whoever knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so; 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; 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 knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished.
“A person eating in a diner while a presidential candidate is trying to score political points with the locals could be arrested if government agents determine that he is acting ‘disorderly.’ Mind you, depending on who’s making the assessment, anything can be considered disorderly, including someone exercising his right to free speech by muttering to himself about a government official. And if that person happens to have a pocketknife or nail clippers in his possession (or any other innocuous item that could be interpreted by the police as ‘dangerous’), he could face up to 10 years in prison,” Whitehead warned.
We Conservatives ARE a problem because we want our country back and we will not shut up. The left are scared of us and should be. As for the RNC we will not shut up and you better grows some balls because we are here to stay. We will be a problem for you too. We want a smaller government, we want our rights to bear arms, we want our free speech back (not all this PC crap).
We will NOT get anything back but in fact we will Lose even more. because WE are unwilling to take it back by force..So until they come to get us and shut us up permently, then maybe WE might get some balls a fight to the death.
Although I would not put it past obummer to initiate such a bill if he could... A bit of reading by me turned up this information, which appears to be relevant.
This link seems to be one copy of the actual bill. I have not yet compared it to the supposed final bill offered on the second link word by word.
This link offers SEVERAL assorted versions of the bill reflecting their changes of wording. The last one on the list is considered to be the most recent according to the site and poster of the information,
This link is from the Huffington Post, which thus far in life, I've not found to always be the most accurate information presentation in general, for conservative views. However, since the author seemed appalled at the thought of Americans loosing their freedom of speech, I decided to read it over. Unfortunately, true to form, the link provided within the article to SHOW the bill, did not take me to the bill or anything related to the bill when I clicked, "here."
Having read the bill (or what is being touted as the bill), it clearly says that it is applicable to AREAS that have been cordoned off as being RESTRICTED.
H. R. 347—2
‘‘(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 conjunc-
tion with an event designated as a special event of national
‘‘(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, when such person has not declined
In and of its self, this is NOT new. When I was in the traffic division of San Diego PD and worked the Republican Convention there, there were RESTRICTED areas in which the public, including protesters and supporters were NOT allowed to be standing, protesting or supporting. As long as they stayed OUT of the taped off restricted areas, they could and did say, chant and sign carry whatever they jolly well wanted to.
So, I guess my point is that while I put NOTHING past this POS we are saddled with currently....or his little minions in Congress, it sure seems to me, unless I've missed something in what is being shown as the bill, that it does NOT intrude or threaten FREE SPEECH as being claimed.... as long as those supporting or protesting stay out of a visually restricted AREA.
Not that it comforts me profoundly...I wouldn't put it past a single one of THEM, to twist it anyway they can to mean anything they want.
o's writes eo's on a whim
I agree with you Laura. I have read all versions of H.R. 347, including the final bill as enrolled and passed by both houses of Congress.
I think the major issue, is that it seems overly broad in it's definitions and could be applied to almost anything that was uttered in close proximity to anyone having been assigned SS protection, even temporarily, or in a temporary location being visited by someone under the watchful eye of the SS. (SS...hmmm was that a Freudian slip? Didn't the Nazi's use the SS for protection?? LOL)....it's like beauty...it lies in the eyes of the beholder.
So the interpretation can be broad, as to fit various situations, depending on how someone felt that day. I think part of the concern, is that it can be applied to holding a dissenting placard in the view of a public official who is a hardliner "Progressive", and could use the measure to have someone detained. It's just a slippery slope. I must rescind my rant above. It was premature.
Also, I wonder why the "outrage" now, since this was presented back in 2011 and 2012?? Seems manipulative toward the public, to me.
Michelle Obama Gets It Wrong; ABC Edits Video
Your support keeps freedom alive!