Congress gives President new domestic powers to suppress free speech | Eastern North Carolina Now

    H.R. 347/S. 1794 passed
    "It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." - Daniel Webster

    Congress just eviscerated a decades-old law which was intended to protect the implementation of United States policy and interests. The existing law (18 USC 1752) was designed to protect the individuals, under certain circumstances and at certain times, who are carrying out these policies, and the "orderly conduct of Government business or official functions."

    Congress altered the intent of the existing law by authorizing the President to direct protection to "individuals" who may not be involved in implementing U.S. policy at all, to include for example, individuals who are the President's affiliates, or who are engaged in carrying out his personal political agenda. This would allow the President to use the power of the federal government as a perk of crony capitalism, placing them in a protective bubble, thereby protecting them from public embarrassment and inconvenience of being confronted by the citizenry.

    Some of the modifications made to 18 USC 1752, The PRESIDENTIAL AND PRESIDENTIAL STAFF ASSASSINATION, KIDNAPPING, AND ASSAULT ACT by H.R. 374, "The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" are akin to what became known as "The Sedition Act" of July 14, 1798.

    Both the "Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011," and "The Sedition Act" allow[ed] the President to protect his personal political interests by suppressing opposing political speech.

    This newly established domestic power of our nation's "leader" certainly gives rise to the specter of his quashing the 1st Amendment Rights of U.S. citizens by either intimidating against or denying them their constitutionally-protected right to voice their opinions in the "public square."

    One Member of Congress who voted against H.R. 347, stated:

    "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," - Rep. Justin Amash

    What Congressman Amash did not address is that the expansion of the President's domestic power, which doesn't require that the "individuals" he can expand protection to be "government officials," or even that they are serving in the country's interest.

    "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." - George Santayana, American philosopher

    Under the omitted law, the President could only extend such protections to "...distinguished foreign visitors to the United States and official representatives of the United States performing special missions abroad..."

    H.R. 347 expands the authority of the President to significantly increase the responsibilities of the Secret Service in that it grants the President the power to designate "other person[s]" to be afforded Secret Service protections that were not previously authorized.

    This expanded the authority of the President to shield these new domestic "protectees" from the public by criminalizing what was previously protected 1st Amendment activity.

    Even worse, it exposes a citizen to potentially face criminal charges under the revisions of "The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011" in that a person exercising his or her 1st Amendment right may not even be aware that the person, or event they are protesting has among its participants, a person that the President has granted this 'extraordinary domestic' protection.

    H.R. 347 was marketed to Congress in the same fashion as the NDAA. The drafters and promoters of both bills represented that only non-substantive changes were being made to existing law. H.R. 347 was marketed to Congress "To correct and simplify the drafting of section 1752...," and the NDAA legislation as simply affirming the pre-existing authority in the 2001 AUMF.

    In reality, both bills made substantive changes that greatly expanded the scope of their application and gave additional power to the President to use domestically. The Secret Service protecting the President is a good thing. The President having the authority to use the Secret Service to protect his cronies is a bad thing.

    Senators Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Claire McCaskill (D-MO) have launched a bi-partisan investigation into "taxpayer-funded spin" by the Obama Administration. A March 01, 2012 Fox News article references a 2010 House Oversight and Government Reform Committee report which explores the nature and lawfulness of undercover activities by the Obama Administration, and includes these revelations:

   • “The Obama Administration frequently used federal resources to promote the President’s agenda.”

    • "...using the resources of the federal government to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of office and a betrayal of the President's pledge to create "an unprecedented level of openness in Government."
    • "Many of the Obama Administration's propaganda activities are unlawful because they are covert. Furthermore, several programs closely resemble those decried by Democrats and ruled unlawful by GAO during the Bush Administration."

    Certainly, the President can, and may assert in a signing statement that accompanies H.R. 347, that he will not abuse this newly acquired authority, just as he did in his NDAA signing statement in regard to the "indefinite detention" of U.S. citizens. That would likely satisfy many trusting individuals, but it begs the following questions:

    • If we entrust our current President with extraordinary and extra-constitutional powers, would we trust those same powers in the hands of his successor?
    • Should the President have these powers in the first place, regardless of his intent to use them?

    Perhaps we would be better served by listening to the wisdoms of our Founding Fathers instead of being so trusting of our leaders. The blind trust in men has led to the eventual downfall of every great nation in world history.

    The author of the Declaration of Independence said the following:

    "In matters of power, let no more be heard of the confidence in man, but bind them down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution." - Thomas Jefferson

    Jeff Lewis
      National Director, Patriot Coalition
      National Director, FIRE Coalition

      http://blog.patriotcoalition.com
      http://livestream.com/WRCG
      Email: Jeff@PatriotCoalition.com
      Phone: (252) 876-9489

    Stewart Rhodes
    Founder, President
      Oath Keepers

      http://oathkeepers.org
      http://oathkeepers.net
      Email: DTHelms@cox.net
      Phone: (702) 353-0627