Last New Visitor Iraq  Visited March 6, 2012 |  |
Monday, March 5, 2012
11-12-07 U.S. Military Program Arming Local Police Expands // Militar de EE.UU. Policía Local amplía su programa Armado // 美国军事计划布防当地警方展开// Американская военная программа Постановка Местная полиция расширяет
Written by Alex Newman
Wednesday, 07 December 2011
Billions of taxpayer dollars are being used by the U.S. Department of Defense to provide military-grade weaponry to local law-enforcement departments, and the shadowy “1033” weapons program is expanding at a record pace. But critics of the scheme are concerned as even small-town police forces are building up arsenals that include amphibious tanks, helicopters, armored personnel carriers, robots, grenade launchers, and more.
According to Pentagon data cited by The Daily, the Defense Department gave away almost $500 million worth of surplus military equipment to state and local law enforcement in 2011 — a new record. And next year’s orders are already up more than 400 percent.
“The trend toward militarization was well under way before 9/11,” Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal justice, told The Daily. “But it’s the federal policy of making surplus military equipment available almost for free that has poured fuel on this fire.”
The Daily, a relatively new media organization making use of emerging technologies, interviewed several current and former law-enforcement chiefs for the story. Opinion varies widely and some police support the idea. For others, however, it is a sinister and troubling trend.
It is also risky and counterproductive, he said.
“We have a lot of evidence on how to prevent crime and the major component is to win support for police, that we’re not this aloof occupation army.
”
Two days before The Daily’s article by Benjamin Carlson appeared and drew worldwide attention to the issue, theNew York Times also examined militarization of law-enforcement, but from more of a mindset perspective. The Times’ piece and other analysts have noted that the roles of law enforcement and the military are completely different.
Taxpayers hire police officers to protect and serve their local communities — essentially to keep the peace. They hire soldiers, on the other hand, to smash, kill, and destroy an enemy with overwhelming force.
“Some say this adds up to the emergence of a new, more militaristic breed of civilian police officer.”
And the process has served to significantly weaken local citizens’ control over their law-enforcement agencies.
A 2006 study by the Cato Institute called “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America” examined the ever-increasing number of military-style raids across the country — around 50,000 per year according to some estimates — that end in needless tragedy.
“Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work,” the executive summary explained, noting that the “SWAT” raids often inflict unnecessary terror on non-violent drug offenders, bystanders, and even wrongly targeted civilians.
“The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects,” the paper explained, detailing numerous accounts of abuses and botched operations that left innocent people dead.
But record billions worth of military equipment are still being handed to local police.
American citizens deemed by government bureaucrats to represent a “threat” to the “Homeland” under the legislation could be picked up by the military and detained indefinitely — no charges, no jury, no trial.
“The trend toward militarization was well under way before 9/11,” Tim Lynch, director of the Cato Institute's project on criminal justice, told The Daily. “But it’s the federal policy of making surplus military equipment available almost for free that has poured fuel on this fire.”
The Daily, a relatively new media organization making use of emerging technologies, interviewed several current and former law-enforcement chiefs for the story. Opinion varies widely and some police support the idea. For others, however, it is a sinister and troubling trend.
It is also risky and counterproductive, he said.
“We have a lot of evidence on how to prevent crime and the major component is to win support for police, that we’re not this aloof occupation army.
”
Two days before The Daily’s article by Benjamin Carlson appeared and drew worldwide attention to the issue, theNew York Times also examined militarization of law-enforcement, but from more of a mindset perspective. The Times’ piece and other analysts have noted that the roles of law enforcement and the military are completely different.
Taxpayers hire police officers to protect and serve their local communities — essentially to keep the peace. They hire soldiers, on the other hand, to smash, kill, and destroy an enemy with overwhelming force.
“Some say this adds up to the emergence of a new, more militaristic breed of civilian police officer.”
And the process has served to significantly weaken local citizens’ control over their law-enforcement agencies.
A 2006 study by the Cato Institute called “Overkill: The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America” examined the ever-increasing number of military-style raids across the country — around 50,000 per year according to some estimates — that end in needless tragedy.
“Over the last 25 years, America has seen a disturbing militarization of its civilian law enforcement, along with a dramatic and unsettling rise in the use of paramilitary police units (most commonly called Special Weapons and Tactics, or SWAT) for routine police work,” the executive summary explained, noting that the “SWAT” raids often inflict unnecessary terror on non-violent drug offenders, bystanders, and even wrongly targeted civilians.
“The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects,” the paper explained, detailing numerous accounts of abuses and botched operations that left innocent people dead.
But record billions worth of military equipment are still being handed to local police.
American citizens deemed by government bureaucrats to represent a “threat” to the “Homeland” under the legislation could be picked up by the military and detained indefinitely — no charges, no jury, no trial.
> ----- <
Ron Branson Writes
Thomas Jefferson who wrote the famous words re
Standing Armies;
Standing Armies;
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered... I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."
12-02-28 Occupy London evicted, protesters arrested // Ocupar Londres desalojados, los manifestantes detenidos // 占据伦敦驱逐示威者被捕 // Занимайте Лондоне выселили, протестующих арестованы
Note: The City of London is administered as an extra-constitutional zone, entirely controlled by the bankers.
JZ
_______
“A Terrible Sight”: Police Evict Occupy London, Arrest 20 Protesters
by: Allison Kilkenny, In These Times | Report
Police dressed in riot gear evicted Occupy London and removed the camp's tents at St. Paul's Cathedral just after midnight on Tuesday.
Hundreds of police and around 100 bailiffs swarmed the campsite and arrested about 20 individuals, some of whom reportedly tried to form a barricade and set off smoke bombs to prevent officials from clearing the area.
The City of London Corporation commented that it "regretted" having to evict the protesters.
A group of protesters at one point chained themselves to some wooden pallets as part of a "last stand," according to a witness on The Guardian live stream.
MSNBC reports that protesters were dragged from the platformsand several key protesters leading the chants were restrained by officers holding onto each limb.
Police also removed one activist from a tree overlooking the site.
BBC:
The Rev Giles Fraser, who resigned as canon chancellor of St Paul's in support of the protesters, said: "This is a sad day for the Church."Riot police clearing the steps of St Paul's Cathedral was a terrible sight."The St Paul's spokesman said: "In the past few months, we have all been made to re-examine important issues about social and economic justice and the role the cathedral can play."We are fully committed to continuing to promote these issues through our worship, teaching and Institute."
According to the Telegraph, protesters are now considering a proposal from St. Paul's Cathedral to allow general assemblies to take place outside the building.
Under the plans, which were tabled at the beginning of the protest but remain "on the table", would involve allowing debates and meetings on the steps of the cathedral once a week on a Saturday afternoon.The debates, backed by Cathedral officials, would last a couple of hours but would have to finish by 5pm to allow the evening church service to occur.Senior clergy would consider speaking at the assemblies on a case-by-case basis. Cathedral officials met with Occupy protesters last week to thrash out the details but no agreement was reached. No further meetings were "pencilled in".Meanwhile the St Paul's Institute was continuing to hold its own debates and publishing research on similar topics of "inequality".
The Occupiers themselves remain ever-vigilant.
"It's only tents and materials the injunction applies to so I think some protesters will be back here tomorrow," Gary Sherbornetold The Associated Press.
"It's really sad what's happening today but I think we can be proud of what we've achieved," said Kai Wargalla, a 27-year-old student from Germany who had camped outside St. Paul's since October. "Our community is being attacked here, but we're going to reconvene and come back stronger."
12-03-05 The end of the right "peacefully to assemble" // 和平集会的权利 // El extremo de la derecha pacíficamente para ensamblar
First Amendment: a) House approved a "Trespass Bill", as reported by Russia Today, and b) Failure of "mainstream" US media to cover the same.
Google query results for "H.R. 347" suggests that coverage by "mainstream" US media is scant. Russia Today is again an important source of reliable news on the US.
Text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a 74-foot tall display on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, DC.
Goodbye, First Amendment: "Trespass Bill" will make protest illegal
By RT
February 29, 2012 "RT" -- Just when you thought the government couldn't ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn�t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president�s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting � even temporarily � is covered, as is any building or grounds �restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It�s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn�t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn't stop with just him. Santorum's coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone � rather it�s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney � will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of �official functions,� engaging in disorderly conduct �within such proximity to� the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate�s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don�t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance � a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security � extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don�t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don�t fret. It�s not like the country will really try to enforce it � right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a �terrorist� under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, �The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.�
�Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity � even if that activity is annoying to those government officials � violates our rights,� adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don�t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with asigning statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn�t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don�t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act._________________________
Query results for "H.R. 347"
Outlawing Occupy: H.R. 347 Makes Free Speech A Felony - Digg
digg.com/.../outlawing_occupy_h_r_347_makes_free_speech_a_felo...
1 day ago � Once signed, HR 347 will empower federal agents to arrest and bring felony criminal charges against citizens engaged in political protests ...
19 Jan 2011 � {link: 'http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr347',title: 'THOMAS - Bill Summary and Status - H.R.347' }. H.R.347. Latest Title: ...
6 hours ago � On Ron Paul's website it was duly noted that H.R. 347 could make the First Amendment illegal. No one is really covering this bill and the major ...
3 days ago � Once signed, HR 347 will empower federal agents to arrest and bring felony criminal charges against citizens engaged in political protests ...
4 days ago � A couple links for information. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/houses-passes-new-bill-that-would-make.html ...
H.R. 347: Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make ...
breakthematrix.com/.../hr-347-goodbye-amendment-trespass-bill-pro...
5 days ago � ShareJust when you thought the government couldn't ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on ...
Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make protest illegal ...
5 days ago � The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor ofH.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted...
Forum Post: HR 347: The anti-Occupy law | OccupyWallSt.org
1 day ago � US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law.
H.R. 347: The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds ...
4 hours ago � H.R. 347: The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 � The �anti-Occupy� law by Bruce Gagnon. Posted on March ...
HR 347: One more step towards Neo-Feudalism - Global Guerrillas
2 days ago � Sorry for the typos/errors on GG. I write fast and without an editor. ______ In feudal times, you could be put to death if you didn't kneel when the ...
Google query results for "H.R. 347" suggests that coverage by "mainstream" US media is scant. Russia Today is again an important source of reliable news on the US.
Text of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and a 74-foot tall display on the facade of the Newseum in Washington, DC.
Goodbye, First Amendment: "Trespass Bill" will make protest illegal
By RT
February 29, 2012 "RT" -- Just when you thought the government couldn't ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.
The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn�t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.
Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president�s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting � even temporarily � is covered, as is any building or grounds �restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."
It�s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn�t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn't stop with just him. Santorum's coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone � rather it�s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney � will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of �official functions,� engaging in disorderly conduct �within such proximity to� the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate�s concession speech would be a federal offense, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don�t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.
Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance � a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security � extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton. Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.
When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offense under the act.
And don�t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own. In the state of Illinois, videotaping the police, under current law, brings criminals charges. Don�t fret. It�s not like the country will really try to enforce it � right?
On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occuring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a �terrorist� under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.
United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, �The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.�
�Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity � even if that activity is annoying to those government officials � violates our rights,� adds the representative.
Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don�t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with asigning statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn�t mean he thought it was right.
Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don�t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act._________________________
Query results for "H.R. 347"
Outlawing Occupy: H.R. 347 Makes Free Speech A Felony - Digg
digg.com/.../outlawing_occupy_h_r_347_makes_free_speech_a_felo...
1 day ago � Once signed, HR 347 will empower federal agents to arrest and bring felony criminal charges against citizens engaged in political protests ...
Bill Summary & Status - 112th Congress (2011 - 2012) - H.R.347 ...
hdl.loc.gov � THOMAS Home � Bills, Resolutions19 Jan 2011 � {link: 'http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.uscongress/legislation.112hr347',title: 'THOMAS - Bill Summary and Status - H.R.347' }. H.R.347. Latest Title: ...
H.R 347 could be making the First Amendment illegal. - Philadelphia ...
www.examiner.com/.../h-r-347-could-be-making-the-first-amendme...6 hours ago � On Ron Paul's website it was duly noted that H.R. 347 could make the First Amendment illegal. No one is really covering this bill and the major ...
Outlawing Occupy: H.R. 347 Makes Free Speech A Felony ...
open.salon.com/.../outlawing_occupy_hr_347_makes_free_speech_a...3 days ago � Once signed, HR 347 will empower federal agents to arrest and bring felony criminal charges against citizens engaged in political protests ...
The House passed bill H.R. 347. A bill that makes it illegal to protest ...
www.reddit.com/.../the_house_passed_bill_hr_347_a_bill_that_make...4 days ago � A couple links for information. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/02/houses-passes-new-bill-that-would-make.html ...
H.R. 347: Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make ...
breakthematrix.com/.../hr-347-goodbye-amendment-trespass-bill-pro...
5 days ago � ShareJust when you thought the government couldn't ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on ...
Goodbye, First Amendment: 'Trespass Bill' will make protest illegal ...
rt.com/usa/news/348-act-tresspass-buildings-437/
5 days ago � The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor ofH.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted...
Forum Post: HR 347: The anti-Occupy law | OccupyWallSt.org
occupywallst.org/forum/hr-347-the-anti-occupy-law/
1 day ago � US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law.
H.R. 347: The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds ...
dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/.../h-r-347-the-federal-restricted-build...
4 hours ago � H.R. 347: The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 � The �anti-Occupy� law by Bruce Gagnon. Posted on March ...
HR 347: One more step towards Neo-Feudalism - Global Guerrillas
globalguerrillas.typepad.com/.../hr-341-neo-feudal-rights-bill-.html
2 days ago � Sorry for the typos/errors on GG. I write fast and without an editor. ______ In feudal times, you could be put to death if you didn't kneel when the ...
