Congress Passes Anti-Protest Law

[WNYBuckHunter]

I saw this on another site, and am pretty surprised at the latest attack on our rights. While I dont agree with what the Occupy protesters stand for, the Federal Government used it as an excuse to pass this set of laws, and it doesnt bode well for anyone...

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/mar2012/prot-m03.shtml

[nyantler]

I am anxious to hear from those on the forum that continually say that those of us that don't trust the government are just paranoid... how about that.. our trustworthy congress has just turned the 1st amendment on it's head without so much as a small warning.. yet they still can't get a budget passed for years... its absolutely sickening... we are doomed!!

[Mike G]

That information was published on the World Socialist Web Site. I question anyone who reads that crap and question anything on that site!

[hunter49]

More Gov't. BS . Check out u tube: congress woman Maxine Walter slips on the truth about the gov't. socializeing the oil co's. We are looseing this country .

[WNYBuckHunter]

That information was published on the World Socialist Web Site. I question anyone who reads that crap and question anything on that site!

So instead of look into it for yourself, you shoot the messenger? Do some looking into what the bill entails and see for yourself. I am not a reader of that site, but the info in that particular article is 100% accurate. All it takes is a simple Google search.

The attitude you are professing is exactly the one that will and is currently killing this country.

[Fishin Magician]

good one fellows...goggle ...One World Union...as well....

it gets uglier....or ..

Bilderburg Mettings....

Fish On..

[nyantler]

If we protest this bill is it against the law as well??..LOL

[WNYBuckHunter]

Lol. My best guess is it will be challenged in the supreme court and struck down as unconstitutional. The frightening part, is that all but 3 of our reps in congress voted yes on it. Pretty telling on the true intentions of our "leaders" if you ask me.

[sits in trees]

does this mean i wont have to see those old T-party wackaloons sitting on lawn chairs in front of the post office under umbrellas protesting this summer?

[nyantler]

Lol. My best guess is it will be challenged in the supreme court and struck down as unconstitutional. The frightening part, is that all but 3 of our reps in congress voted yes on it. Pretty telling on the true intentions of our "leaders" if you ask me.

King George would have loved these guys!!!

[adirondackbushwhack]

Lol. My best guess is it will be challenged in the supreme court and struck down as unconstitutional. The frightening part, is that all but 3 of our reps in congress voted yes on it. Pretty telling on the true intentions of our "leaders" if you ask me.

Excepting that the judges are politicians too right up until they are appointed by the other politicians to the higher courts and then only after the other politicians are assured that they will rule just as they want them to.

[Doc]

It is possible that the reaction to this bill is being exaggerated a bit. I do believe that there should be places where disruption of government function, and the creation of dangerous and uncontrolled crowds in certain public places should be restricted. There very well may be legitimate reasons for the fact that only 3 legislators voted against it. I know that the World Socialist Web Site is probably not a source that I would be expecting to be reporting on such things in an unslanted and unbiased way. They definitely represent a faction that has an axe to grind. I think the suggestion that was made to investigate more neutral and credible news reporting via an internet search probably was a good one. This is definitely a subject that can be given a severe spin by those that have a vested interest in doing so.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Again, source doesnt matter, read the law and youll see that the article is just reporting the facts.

[Doc]

Again, source doesnt matter, read the law and youll see that the article is just reporting the facts.

I've got to say that when I hear news coming from a self-avowed socialist organization, red flags go up and I immediately start looking for the socialist slant to whatever the subject is. And yes as I said in my reply, if ever there was a source that absolutely requires an independant verification, the words of the Socialists probably qualify.

I believe the article may be quite correct in terms of representing the content of the law (at least in generalities), but grossly overstated in terms of the dire consequences that they are trying to apply to it. I personally do not subscibe to the notion that protesters should have access to all official government buildings and properties. And passing a law that says that is not something that I get particularly concerned about.

[Grouse]

Seems to me the elected officials passed this law to keep protestors out of their areas of official-dom, but are fine with protestors "occupying" our areas of living. Seems this law was passed in the total self interest of the government. It will also be strictly enforced by the employees of the Police State. All hail the ruling class!! The rest of us are but peasants.

[hunterman7956]

It seems to me this was a reaction to OWS which protests against Crony Capitalism and the have it alls against the have nothings.There really is 1 percent that control everything I am not the brightest bulb in the bunch and my interest is learning the truth about politics . What i have learned is that lobbyists control the vote not us the people and after watching Bill Moyers on T.V. I now now am better equipped to understand politics in general much better.His guests explain this situation much better than I can and have opened my eyes.We The People is a farce and our votes and wants get pushed aside by politicans for their own greedy agendas.This will never change untill ALL those in office are Voted out and we start fresh with goverment watchdogs protecting OUR interests.

[wooffer]

I saw this on another site, and am pretty surprised at the latest attack on our rights. While I dont agree with what the Occupy protesters stand for, the Federal Government used it as an excuse to pass this set of laws, and it doesnt bode well for anyone...

http://www.wsws.org/.../prot-m03.shtml

Sort of makes you wonder who was really behind the protesters, and this wasn't the real goal of those who organzied them. Since the government actually endorsed them.

Edited March 20, 2012 by wooffer

[wooffer]

Here's a little summary: In short this president or any president that may come after him, may suspend the constitution for any emergency. No, a definition of "emergency" is NOT provided in the order. A hurricane, tornado, power failure, stock market crash, his dog pee'd on the rug. They can call an "emergency" anything they like.

For those of you who don't find this troubling or understand what is going on I ask you to keep your opinion to yourself and mouth shut. You see I am invoking this "order" here on the forum and taking away your right to free speach. Doesn't sound quite fair, does it? Get the point now???

President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order

on March 16 giving the White House absolute control over all the

country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a

time of war.

In the order, the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order,

the President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing

of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water

supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped

in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself

does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific

sections of the order make it clear that the President may take complete

command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as

well.

In fact, the President may invoke the powers of this order to “meet

national defense requirements” in “the full spectrum of emergencies.”

The relevant sections read:

Section 101. Purpose. This order

delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies

and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the

"Act").

Sec. 102. Policy. The United States

must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting

national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the

technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime

and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and

technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.

The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this

base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense

needs of the United States.

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive

departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs

relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this

order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and

programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

( assess on an ongoing basis the

capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy

requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically

evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production

sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled

labor, and professional and technical personnel;

The underlying legal authority for the execution of such a radical

order is found in the Defense Production Act of 1950, the President

claims. That law combined with the rights vested in him as

Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces supposedly empowers the

President to endow himself with these expansive powers.

Just how expansive are the claimed powers and what resources are

included in their scope? Livestock? Yes. All food “resources” and

“resource facilities?” Yes. Veterinary clinics? Yes. All forms of

energy? Yes. Will the President control the water supply? Yes.

Read on:

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities.

(a) The authority of the President

conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require

acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than

contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over

performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials,

services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote

the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with

respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock

resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the

domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

( The Secretary of each agency

delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource

departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and

allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the

authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both

emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize

the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings

on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed

in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

© Each resource department shall act,

as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities

assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame

consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where

there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the

resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the

required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary

shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which

program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency.

In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required

determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall

coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program

requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational

urgency.

(d) If agreement cannot be reached

between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the

President through the Assistant to the President and National Security

Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and

Counterterrorism.

(e) The Secretary of each resource

department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under

section 101( of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071( . This finding shall be

submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the

President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the

President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such

approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding

may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App.

2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including

applicable services) in the civilian market.

That’s right. The last line of the quoted material gives the

President of the United Staes the power to “control the general

distribution of any material (including services) in the civilian

market.” This seems to be no less than the nationalization of all food,

energy, water, and healthcare pipelines and providers in the country.

And to help him keep tabs on all this responsibility, he assigns a

cabinet member to each category of control.

Presidents have issued similar orders in the name of national defense. For example, during the Civil War,

President Abraham Lincoln famously (infamously) suspended habeas corpus

and the right to an impartial trial as protected by the Sixth

Amendment.

Then, during World War I,

President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated with Congress’s reluctance to

grant him a full panoply of power over natural resources, invoked the

powers given him under an executive order to assume absolute and

unilateral authority over the same range of resources as are included in

President Obama’s latest fiat.

As any student of history can testify, when government begins to

interfere with the free flow of goods and commodities (especially

life-giving resources such as food and water), then it may manipulate

the availability of these items, as well as the prices thereof.

Typically, such fluctuations result in civil disturbances and a demand

for greater security from those unwilling to abide by the new “laws.”

And, in exchange for greater security, those clamoring for it are often

willing to give up their fundamental freedoms.

The White House has issued no statement regarding the purpose for

the signing of this Executive Order. There is no accompanying

explanation of why this power should be placed before the President at

this time — or at any time for that matter. Is it in place to prepare

for expansion of the hostilities in the Middle East, or is it something

to do with his vaunted algae initiative?

Perhaps the President is taking the first few steps necessary to

cloak himself in the powers required to "legally" (albeit

unconstitutionally) step outside the boundaries of his constitutional

authority and ascend to a level of supervision witnessed in all the

former republics of history just before their devolution into mobocracy

and mayhem.

Edited March 20, 2012 by wooffer

[jhog1]

The bill—H.R. 347, or the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011”—was passed by unanimous consent in the Senate, while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

Ron Paul In 2012

[virgil]

...while only Ron Paul and two other Republicans voted against the bill in the House of Representatives (the bill passed 388-3). Not a single Democratic politician voted against the bill.

So, just for the record, it was 3 out of 242 Republicans, and 0 out of 191 Democrats?

[wooffer]

Ron Paul In 2012

This has nothing to do with the Executive Order mentioned above. Congress is NOT part of an Executive Order.

[WNYBuckHunter]

I've got to say that when I hear news coming from a self-avowed socialist organization, red flags go up and I immediately start looking for the socialist slant to whatever the subject is. And yes as I said in my reply, if ever there was a source that absolutely requires an independant verification, the words of the Socialists probably qualify.

I believe the article may be quite correct in terms of representing the content of the law (at least in generalities), but grossly overstated in terms of the dire consequences that they are trying to apply to it. I personally do not subscibe to the notion that protesters should have access to all official government buildings and properties. And passing a law that says that is not something that I get particularly concerned about.

Doc, I checked the info by reading the law and seeing what it said. Im not a big proponent of shooting the messenger, whomever they may be. Facts are facts.

This law doesnt say JUST government buildings or properties, its basically saying ANY property they say a government official is "scheduled" to visit. That seems pretty vague to me, they could schedule anyone to be anywhere they want.

Here's a little summary: In short this president or any president that may come after him, may suspend the constitution for any emergency. No, a definition of "emergency" is NOT provided in the order. A hurricane, tornado, power failure, stock market crash, his dog pee'd on the rug. They can call an "emergency" anything they like.

For those of you who don't find this troubling or understand what is going on I ask you to keep your opinion to yourself and mouth shut. You see I am invoking this "order" here on the forum and taking away your right to free speach. Doesn't sound quite fair, does it? Get the point now???

President Barack Obama issued an Executive Order

on March 16 giving the White House absolute control over all the

country’s natural resources in case of a natural disaster or during a

time of war.

In the order, the National Defense Resources Preparedness Order,

the President granted to himself the authority to approve the dispensing

of all domestic energy, production, transportation, food, and water

supplies as he deems necessary to protect national security.

Despite the national defense hurdle that ostensibly must be jumped

in order for the order to take effect, the text of the document itself

does not limit implementation to a time of war. In fact, the specific

sections of the order make it clear that the President may take complete

command and control of the country’s natural resources in peacetime, as

well.

In fact, the President may invoke the powers of this order to “meet

national defense requirements” in “the full spectrum of emergencies.”

The relevant sections read:

Section 101. Purpose. This order

delegates authorities and addresses national defense resource policies

and programs under the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (the

"Act").

Sec. 102. Policy. The United States

must have an industrial and technological base capable of meeting

national defense requirements and capable of contributing to the

technological superiority of its national defense equipment in peacetime

and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial and

technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.

The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this

base and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense

needs of the United States.

Sec. 103. General Functions. Executive

departments and agencies (agencies) responsible for plans and programs

relating to national defense (as defined in section 801(j) of this

order), or for resources and services needed to support such plans and

programs, shall:

(a) identify requirements for the full spectrum of emergencies, including essential military and civilian demand;

( assess on an ongoing basis the

capability of the domestic industrial and technological base to satisfy

requirements in peacetime and times of national emergency, specifically

evaluating the availability of the most critical resource and production

sources, including subcontractors and suppliers, materials, skilled

labor, and professional and technical personnel;

The underlying legal authority for the execution of such a radical

order is found in the Defense Production Act of 1950, the President

claims. That law combined with the rights vested in him as

Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces supposedly empowers the

President to endow himself with these expansive powers.

Just how expansive are the claimed powers and what resources are

included in their scope? Livestock? Yes. All food “resources” and

“resource facilities?” Yes. Veterinary clinics? Yes. All forms of

energy? Yes. Will the President control the water supply? Yes.

Read on:

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities.

(a) The authority of the President

conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require

acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than

contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over

performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials,

services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote

the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with

respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock

resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the

domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

( The Secretary of each agency

delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource

departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and

allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the

authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both

emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize

the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings

on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed

in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

© Each resource department shall act,

as necessary and appropriate, upon requests for special priorities

assistance, as defined by section 801(l) of this order, in a time frame

consistent with the urgency of the need at hand. In situations where

there are competing program requirements for limited resources, the

resource department shall consult with the Secretary who made the

required determination under section 202 of this order. Such Secretary

shall coordinate with and identify for the resource department which

program requirements to prioritize on the basis of operational urgency.

In situations involving more than one Secretary making such a required

determination under section 202 of this order, the Secretaries shall

coordinate with and identify for the resource department which program

requirements should receive priority on the basis of operational

urgency.

(d) If agreement cannot be reached

between two such Secretaries, then the issue shall be referred to the

President through the Assistant to the President and National Security

Advisor and the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and

Counterterrorism.

(e) The Secretary of each resource

department, when necessary, shall make the finding required under

section 101( of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071( . This finding shall be

submitted for the President's approval through the Assistant to the

President and National Security Advisor and the Assistant to the

President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. Upon such

approval, the Secretary of the resource department that made the finding

may use the authority of section 101(a) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App.

2071(a), to control the general distribution of any material (including

applicable services) in the civilian market.

That’s right. The last line of the quoted material gives the

President of the United Staes the power to “control the general

distribution of any material (including services) in the civilian

market.” This seems to be no less than the nationalization of all food,

energy, water, and healthcare pipelines and providers in the country.

And to help him keep tabs on all this responsibility, he assigns a

cabinet member to each category of control.

Presidents have issued similar orders in the name of national defense. For example, during the Civil War,

President Abraham Lincoln famously (infamously) suspended habeas corpus

and the right to an impartial trial as protected by the Sixth

Amendment.

Then, during World War I,

President Woodrow Wilson, frustrated with Congress’s reluctance to

grant him a full panoply of power over natural resources, invoked the

powers given him under an executive order to assume absolute and

unilateral authority over the same range of resources as are included in

President Obama’s latest fiat.

As any student of history can testify, when government begins to

interfere with the free flow of goods and commodities (especially

life-giving resources such as food and water), then it may manipulate

the availability of these items, as well as the prices thereof.

Typically, such fluctuations result in civil disturbances and a demand

for greater security from those unwilling to abide by the new “laws.”

And, in exchange for greater security, those clamoring for it are often

willing to give up their fundamental freedoms.

The White House has issued no statement regarding the purpose for

the signing of this Executive Order. There is no accompanying

explanation of why this power should be placed before the President at

this time — or at any time for that matter. Is it in place to prepare

for expansion of the hostilities in the Middle East, or is it something

to do with his vaunted algae initiative?

Perhaps the President is taking the first few steps necessary to

cloak himself in the powers required to "legally" (albeit

unconstitutionally) step outside the boundaries of his constitutional

authority and ascend to a level of supervision witnessed in all the

former republics of history just before their devolution into mobocracy

and mayhem.

Woofer, the original order has been standing since 1939, and has been modified a bunch of times, the last being 1994. The newest rendition mostly changes wording to include the Dept of Homeland Security, which didnt exist in 94.

Also, jhog was referring to my original post. Paul was 1 of the 3 that voted against the law.

[wooffer]

Yes, but this executive order is unlike any signed before. For one thing, those had expiration dates and this one doesn't.

[Doc]

Doc, I checked the info by reading the law and seeing what it said. Im not a big proponent of shooting the messenger, whomever they may be. Facts are facts.

This law doesnt say JUST government buildings or properties, its basically saying ANY property they say a government official is "scheduled" to visit. That seems pretty vague to me, they could schedule anyone to be anywhere they want.

I will not say that occasionally the Socialists don't stumble on to the truth when it suits them, but I do say that it is probably not my favorite source of info and always comes with the red flag of required special scrutiny. I guess I have a personal bias against spending a lot of time on their sites since these people have a political leaning that is about as far left as you can get. I don't shoot the messenger ... I simply choose a different, more reliable messenger.

However, I think I have a sense of what is bothering people and I still have to say that it sounds like a tempest in a teapot. When I consider all the real serious incursions of government on our lives, this one is simply a small blip on the radar. There are a lot of changes that we are seeing in the name of "homeland security". Some we may agree with and some we may not. Some we may accept and most that we wish were not necessary. One thing we have to acknowledge is that this has become a dangerous world with our legislators wearing a sizeable target on their backs ..... literally. And while a lot of time has passed, and we may be already forgetting the resolve of our enemies (external and internal) that are constantly looking to upset our way of life, I think there may be something that all those legislators saw (except for 3 of them) that may make this legislation a lot more reasonable than some would paint it. Had the vote been a lot closer, perhaps I would be a bit more concerned ...... but it wasn't.

[WNYBuckHunter]

Doc, you are shooting the messenger. The article merely reported the facts, get over it.

Small blip on the radar? Its an attack on the 1st amendment.