Goddam Politics (Us v. Them Is @#$!ing Childish)

A relative emailed me this recently:

"AJAX'S KIN"	7:49 PM (45 minutes ago)
to AJAX, "ANOTHER KINSMAN"

I don't usually pass political stuff on but this is alarming!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "POLITICO"
Date: Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Fw: New law just signed by the President
To:

Subject: New law just signed by the President

 YOU DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW!  PRETTY SCARY FOLKS!!! 

This is really frightening.  Why did I not know about this?   sneaked another one in on us.

New law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's presence

This  means that, wherever Obama is, you do not have a right to ask him anything you want to. His secret service can have you arrested, fined, and imprisoned for  more than a YEAR if you ask him something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like Hitler than Lincoln to you?   

WATCH  AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A TAKEOVER OF  AMERICA ...

Guess  you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on anyway. It’s probably the  scariest thing this guy has done yet.

 Are you aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early March  2012?

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7SGWH3kirzg&vq=medium

 
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________

My (Ajax's) response:

It's only alarming if you take the news at face value, which I don't.  Here's the Library of Congress text of the bill:

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

In order to protest, it has long been established that you may need a permit and that those permits are typically freely given though with minor restrictions to location for security purposes.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protest_permit)  That's to ensure "orderly" protest and so police and officials don't consider you a threat.  On the face of it, this bill does not violate that.

We'll go line by line by this bill for the relevant parts:

(a)Whoever,
(1)  knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so

 "restricted buildings or ground without lawful authority to do so".  Think about that couple who purposely crashed a White House dinner a few years ago for a publicity stunt.  They knew they were entering the White House and knew they weren't supposed to be there (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Salahi-Special-78131427.html).  Surely, you can understand why the government wants to criminalize things like that.  Fines may not stop attention whores; time in prison will.  If you think those people are harmless, think about the distraction they can cause for the Secret Service that could open up the President or VP to assassins/danger.

(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;

This the one that journalists are using to play up the "Obama is EVIL and taking away our right to protest just because he doesn't want to hear dissent!" angle.  The only problem is that it has nothing to do with people disagreeing with the President.  It has to do with people making a scene at events where the President is.  At a town hall meeting, if someone wants to hold the President's feet to the fire when they are given the microphone, they are in no way "in fact" impeding or disrupting the function.  If the President's at a townhall meeting though, and someone who hasn't been given the microphone suddenly stands up and starts shouting at the President and his conduct is so egregious that the Secret Service has to intervene, well, yes, that person would be violating.  Free Speech does not allow you to endanger the President or VP.  Causing a scene out of context, again, would distract the Secret Service and open up the President or VP to assassins/danger.

(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

What this will prevent is people knowingly blocking the president's (and VP's) ability to enter and exit his residence, which I'm fairly certain is illegal as it is (and should be), or places where he is speaking.  If our nations' enemies were able to foment protests that blocked evacuation or entry of the Pres or VP, then they would be easier targets for assassination.  Regardless of party, this is unacceptable.

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

Surely this is straightforward.

_____________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________

There are only a handful of people that I've ever discussed my political affiliation with so this isn't a matter of me "siding" with the President.  Outside of Republican or Democrat, this bill is not akin to "Hitler" ramming anti-dissent legislation through.  The Republicans control the House.  They don't help Obama with squat if they don't want to.  This got passed because it's common damn sense and reasonable. 

If you hate Obama or hated Bush, good for you.  Stick with "@#$! that guy"; that's enough; people get that.  The only thing that happens when you try to pump up stuff like this to justify/class up your "@#$! that guy" and manufacture a controversy where there isn't one is that you're showing you don't really have any idea what you're talking about.

But then you'd be like most people I've met who are into politics, so what do I know?