Trespass Bill

[Tammy Fielder]

It seems that the White House is no longer the people's anymore! I made sure to grab the governments copy of the bill so there would be no misleading.  :)   Thoughts anyone?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr347enr/pdf/BILLS-112hr347enr.pdf

[nicholas fowler]

the only reason we have these bills is because someone in a dark room with an equally dark mind wanted them and they are not merely some fancy words so someone can show of their command of English,!!!!!  they are designed to be used and in that case someone must have envisioned a case where they will be used. . they are as much a part of the security apparatus as the patriot act , one thing reinforces the other. you cannot one thing in isolation from the rest. If someone as distinguished as Paul Craig Roberts, not t your run if the mill militia man, if he can get worked up about these bills, then we must start worrying, they are not fantasy. Nor is our concern a fantasy.

[Tammy Fielder]

In as much as I see your point of view Alex I think you're being too narrow in your focus.  I know you'll blast me and I'm a big girl I can take it.  :)

If you think that these bills were written just to put words on paper I feel sorry for you.  Take all these bills and let's just say for arguments sake they are put into action.  What will you do then?  It is not okay to arrest peaceful protesters. The first amendment states:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The President takes an oath that is as follows:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."  

With these bills he and our representatives have failed to up hold the very Constitution they swore to protect.

[Byron wilkins]

In this time when all the bills that are being passed seem to have nothing to do with helping our economy but are designed to only suppress our freedom. Alex you need to close the government manual you are reading and join with the american people to fight the Faciast government that has taken over our country and even take you and your family to a Fema camp. There are no free tickets to this upcoming event and few survivors. How anyone can think that this is a free country is beyond belief. I know you have a job to do, but it is time to come to the reality that even you are cannon fodder like the rest of us and need to join and defeat the depopulation of this planet and once great country. I can not believe at this point that anyone who can not see it must be on the wrong team.

[Alex Cortes]

Look,

I do not see NDAA as the end of the world, I do not see SOPA as the end of the world.  Honestly speaking just because its written does not mean it will ever be enforced, of the hundreds of thousands of laws that appear on the books across this nation only a fraction are ever enforced.  If we were to take a fine tooth comb to each and every word that appears in our legal documents, we would discover that a lot of the laws out there are extraneous and outright ridiculous and unenforced.  Do you realize it is illegal to walk your giraffe down the street in Chicago.  On the books, seriously.  Or that it is illegal to spit on the sidewalk in Chicago.  Done that a few million times in my life with 0 fines....

People I am not ignoring the scope of what is being enacted yet it is being enacted by our government who got voted into office by we the people.  So if there is truly an issue with a law that affects you take it before the court, that's the purpose of courts.  If I felt that it would have any impact on me whatsoever, I would probably be screaming from the rafters but from what I have read, I do not see it as a way to circumvent the constitution nor as a way to subjugate the people, there are more than enough laws on the books that allow for that reality without the need of NDAA, just more words to paper in my opinion but it seems that whenever I have this opinion I am in someway failing to live by the spirit of descent....  Sorry but I think that at times we are trying to fix a dam that is about to break with our finger and we honestly believe that our finger will work.....

[nicholas fowler]

I think the problem we seem to be seeing is the totality if it all, taking thus bill in the same context of the NDAA Provision, instead of simply looking at this bill in isolation see it in terms of all the other police state measures.  I am too tired to go any further but hope to do some reading on all this in the morning.

[Alex Cortes]

Who qualifies for a secret service detail....a lot of people other than the president current/past.  I am failing to see what the problem is regarding anyone who happens to have a security detail having this apply to their homes or place they are staying.... 

(1) the term ‘restricted buildings or grounds’ means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area; Not sure how this is different from what currently exist.
(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds; Holds true before ever reading this document, not sure how this is a problem.
(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; Personally I like the idea that visiting diplomats are being giving the same rights where they may be staying.
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; The G8 summits will be held in Chicago within the next few weeks.  The laws here have already been tampered with simply in preparation for this event. And what is currently active at the state level bugs me significant more than what is listed here.
‘‘(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 such protection.  Still don't see any difference from what currently is in place nor how it would affect anyone negatively.

Just my thoughts as always.

 

Yes its sad the White House is considered restricted but keep in mind that the President lives there along with his family.  Keep in mind that two years ago a shot was fired at the white house.  How much risk do you think there would be if there was unfettered access to the White House, and honestly how long do you think it would be before someone visited simply to cause harm.....  I think the stipulations are ok considering how many people around the world as well as here dislike or outright hate the president.

[nicholas fowler]

Juts save a copy, many thanks. another way of tying people down, I a sure there is some big earthchanging event that will take down society, and these security measures are ways of keeping people under control. Our turn will come at the Olympics, it will give them many precedents for bring my own country under more control, where you go we follow and vice versa.

[Tammy Fielder]

It was passed in the House today.  FYI, Rick Santorum is now guarded by the Secret Service by request.

[Tammy Fielder]

Alex, I see your point.  But how about this:

‘‘(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, when such person has not declined
such protection.

Now, you may ask, "Doesn't the Secret Service only protect the President?".  

Who is the Secret Service authorized to protect? 

By law, the Secret Service is authorized to protect:

• 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

Have you ever tried to visit the White House? You can't just walk up there and knock because it is a restricted area.  Sad if you ask me.

[Alex Cortes]

I personally don't make much of it, most governmental sites as well as restricted areas already have their laws and penalties in existance.  I understand the need for it and it doesn't seem to be signed by either the president/vice president/speaker of the house of representatives.... just a document at this point.  But even if it were law currently it still falls well into the range of what already exist pertaining to the topic, it is not claiming that the White House if off limits.  What it says is......

‘‘(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;

I don't know about you but seems very reasonable.  Just my opinion.

 

Thanks Tammy, interesting post.