DiscussMormonism.com

...the Nazi party.
On another thread people clamored about exalting Obama for his love of and support for "freedom" in our country. Claiming that he is nothing like the fascists we have seen in history and so often the source for his comparison. They, like KG, have so faithfully held his such high regard as being so different from the Repubs, so different from any that came before...for he was "change"...for he was "forward".....

So, while H.R. 347 has been on the books, and enjoyed mostly bipartisan support, Obama has unceremoniously goosestepped his way into the long line of people that history has proven to be ineffective or detrimental towards the cause of freedom and true democratic leadership.

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.
These restricted areas include locations where individuals under Secret Service protection are temporarily located, and certain large special events like a presidential inauguration. They can also include large public events like the Super Bowl and the presidential nominating conventions (troublingly, the Department of Homeland Security has significant discretion in designating what qualifies as one of these special events).
...
H.R. 347 did make one noteworthy change, which may make it easier for the Secret Service to overuse or misuse the statute to arrest lawful protesters.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/free-speech/ho ... otest-bill

The government says the anti-protest bill was just a small tweak of the existing law. Don’t believe it.
...
But it’s important to understand what has changed since the original law was enacted in 1971, because it shows how much a tiny tweak to the intent requirement in a statute can impact the free speech of everyone.
For one thing, the law makes it easier for the government to criminalize protest.
...
Here’s one way the new legislation becomes doubly problematic: The exclusion zones imposed by Section 1752 have no natural or intuitive spatial boundaries. They can be as large as law enforcement claims is necessary to ensure the security of whoever the Secret Service is protecting. The “free speech zone” is a moving target, not a delineated area.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... eech_.html

Achtung Mr President

The bill question legally formalizes a policy ramped up under the Bush administration regarding the arbitrary and politically manipulative use of free speech zones to wrangle protests. Bush was notorious for expanding the use of that tool. Yes, it is an atrocious affront to free speech and the right of people to peaceably assemble, but if you think this makes Obama Hitler, you probably should think the same of George W. Bush. The formalization is worrisome because it greenlights the full potential of this policy, which is expand the "no-speech" zones over larger and fluctuating territory. One would hope the courts would strike this down, but you never know. The Bush admin tried, but failed to amend the Patriot act with similar language.

What makes this bill a further assault on civil liberties is removing the mens rea requirement for violating these "free speech zones." If you are not aware, this is part of a much larger pattern in federal criminal law of removing the need for criminal intent when bills get renewed. This is pushed by federal prosecutors making it easier for them to rack up convictions.

Yet again, we have an example of an assault on civil liberties traceable to Bush that Obama embraces and makes somewhat worse.

By the way, here's the shameful vote tally on that bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149

You got lots of Nazis there to criticize subgenius. The three people who voted against it were Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Paul Broun. 223 Republicans went the other way.

(Looking at the no votes, I can tell several of them are doing that out of protest rather than simply not being there.)

I'm surprised there are so many Nazis in our government, including all of the Utah reps. Or is Sub suggesting that Nazi Obama forced all those people to do his will?

So does this mean that President Barack Obama is not a Progressive after all?

EAllusion wrote:By the way, here's the shameful vote tally on that bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/112-2011/h149

You got lots of Nazis there to criticize subgenius. The three people who voted against it were Ron Paul, Justin Amash, and Paul Broun. 223 Republicans went the other way.

(Looking at the no votes, I can tell several of them are doing that out of protest rather than simply not being there.)

The relatively quiet and bipartisan support is the most troubling aspect of this entire issue. A mass distraction has just been successfully executed.

and the goosestep is definitely more poetic when performed en masse.

krose wrote:I'm surprised there are so many Nazis in our government, including all of the Utah reps. Or is Sub suggesting that Nazi Obama forced all those people to do his will?

I think the rhetorical evidence supports the fact that the system has digested Mr Obama. He originally ran on a platform of "Change" not realizing that it was he that was going to change...little else.
People may often criticize Obama for an inability to compromise - but alas he has compromised almost all of his integrity.
A better political example of in over the head or sell-out I have yet to ever witness.