Shared publicly  - 
This is sick. The House voted 388 to 3 in favor of it yesterday.
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 offi...
Adam A's profile photoDarrin Sutter's profile photomazie bent's profile photoSonny Wright's profile photo
What the f***? Pardon my French, but did they just outlaw protesting in
America!?!?! Land of the oppressed and home of the detained.....
Anyone have a list of all who voted for this? We should post it all over with a notice to "Vote These F%^&*#s Out Of Office"
gary f
just in case you were in any doubt about living in a police state...
So no political opposition when politicians are around but those crazies can protest a military funeral?!!!! This is just nauseating!
How dare they try to take away our first ammendment. Those 3 who voted against it are good people compared to the other 388
I will be having a hangout with People Against the National Defense Act at 9:00 pm ET to discuss this act and our strategy to fight the NDAA. Add me to your circles, and I'll send you an invite.
Well its not law yet- just most time being chewed up by the uber-conservative folks in the house working on their little fundamentalist agenda. It will most likely die a quiet death in the Senate.
Just one more example of why we so need a big change in Congress!
Look at the article closely. It was already passed in the Senate.
hey you senate mr. president whoever is reading this you might as well take me away now cuz im gonna go burn an american flag!!! wait im NOT AN AMERICAN ANY MORE!! NO ONE IS!!!!
Look around the globe, it's happening everywhere, that's NOT a coincidence. In this country they KNOW they cannot completely rewrite the Constitution overnight so they are doing it very slowly and very deliberately...
and it DOES NOT matter what side of the aisle you are on..
because no one cares any more look around you do you see what has happened in the last four years
If PRO is the opposite of CON,
Isn't Congress the opposite of Progress?
The thing is, unless they modify the Constitution? Then they can't do this. Just because it's a law doesn't make it Constitutional.
Sorry but I just have to laugh at those in the US that still maintain they are free, when every day that passes just proves they live in a fascist state and the rest of the world can see what they can't.
Don't get me wrong, no-one, in any country "democratic" or otherwise is free, but the Americans think they are the most free when in reality the couldn't be more wrong.
Yeah its a sad day when laws like this are passed, and being from the UK it won't be long before similar laws are passed here, but at least we know where we stand
+Dan Johnson my bad, S.1794, I should have verified. So really it comes down to Obama [hopefully] vetoing or at least trying to get some of the more ridiculous language removed.
+Leah Candelaria 4 years? It's been MUCH longer than that. Try since Reagan sold your country to wall street.
This is the beginning of the end of democracy in America...or are we too late?
This story is a load of crap. This bill just re-words existing law to simplify it. Everything there is already on the books – and this article woefully mischaracterizes it anyway.
That webpage is ridiculous, they've completely spun the bill in a different direction than intended. As much as I dislike our government, they didn't do much wrong on this one...
Im sorry but i think its stupid how they only think off any one else except themselves!!!!!!!!!!!!
this is just a little too much, it will b illegal to protest , illegal to videotape the police, china is getting a little more liberal and usa is going to more like china.
Our freedoms are not being taken from us - we are giving them away...
"First we will take Eastern Europe, then the masses of Asia. We will encircle the last bastion of capitalism, the United States of America. We will not need to fight. It will fall as a ripe fruit into our hands." - Vladimir Lenin
It's demoralizing that, as I write this, this post has been re-shared 91 times, and it's a total load of bollocks. Come on, people.
This goes against so many laws of our country
WOW! That's crazy ......WOW! That goes against so many laws!
what ever happened to the freedom of speech? freedom of the press? what has this world come to?
what do they think they are doing this country is supposed to be a free country
Well, I am thinking of my future! What has this world come to? I am only 13 and I know this is wrong sick and repulsive to do to us! This world is SO corrupt! What will happen to me when I grow up? Will I have the CHANCE to get a job? Will I be ABLE to get into COLLEGE? An what about taxes and our horrid economy? Also, will china just come on over and ask for their money? I am SO sad.
We need to rise up and take this country back from these politicians who trample all over the constitution.
Every Empire falls down one day
They have been busting people for gathering out in nature for 40 years.
should you be free to "glitter bomb" someone? (as the article points out, this would now be verboten) that can border on assault if it gets in the eyes.

how about throwing shoes? should that be legal?

I'm all for peaceful protest, but some folks cross the line. strange thing is, this is a republican house voting to protect a democratic president (as this covers him more than anyone else).
Guys, this bill is like, 2 pages long. Read it before exclaiming your outrage.

This doesn't prevent protest--it prevents protest on the grounds of select places of national significance (the white house, the vice president's house, places in which the secret service will be present). And furthermore, if you protest in the way people are supposed to protest (peacefully, and without being obnoxious, eg. intentionally blocking a congressperson's way), this bill won't apply to you.
skynet has arrived, its our own government
+darrin sutter Big brother has been watching everything for years. The internet and social media is just making it easier. Now you give them the info freely bypassing any laws to protect you.
Why wasn't this in the news when the senate passed it. This needs to be changed.
This is such jackbooted BS! Hope the republicans/tea baggers are out in 2012
Well, that's bullshit. Well, let's just believe in karma. What goes around will surely come around. No matter who you are.
"The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function"

What is wrong with that? Fucking do your protest outside, off the property. Seems legit and sound minded to me. You people get all bent out of shape whenever you hear 'first amendment rights'.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it" - United States Declaration of Independence

Am I the only who takes quote to mean we'd be completely justified in revolting against a government that has broken the rights listed in the Bill Of Rights?
your guys constitution needs a big overhaul anyway. I'm sure if they knew then what we know now, the constitution wouldn't be the way it is.
Wow that's not at all what this bill is about. This article was WAY off. It only makes it illegal to protest on the grounds of the White House or the permanent residence of the Vice President. That's it.
Attack Iran, hike the gas prices, second 9/11 or something to get busy, otherwise people will wake up!
+Ryan Wright lol maybe I should read the article instead of just the headline. I guess that's understandable.
Uhh no HR 347 is far more expansive, please read entire article or read the actual bill text over at LoC.
Has dangerous chilling effects on the right to protest. If you can't protest in your own nation's capital, how FREE are you?
+David Seaman, you want to clarify this please? This is a VERY misleading article and it's amateur hour reporting. Not at all what this bill is about.
Funny how some moonbats here are blaming the "teabaggers", yet this was passed with nearly 100% support. I also bet 99% of the commenters haven't read the actual article about it.
Lets not forget Obama supporting and putting in the NDAA, which is far worse than this stuff.
Steve S
Alex, being well informed is the opposite of believing the news. You are not well informed, yet you are basing your entire emotional state and outlook on information deliberately designed to discourage you. People are generally good and try to do good, and that is what matters. You do the same and stop listening to the garbage news and tap into better sources for your information.
The bill's provisions allow application even if you are unaware that there is any such individual present. That means that the powers can be put to use with naught but the claim that such an individual is present, and no proof is necessary before the arrests occur. This bill is nothing more than externalizing a known practice--stifling dissent through the arrest of protesters--by way of making it legal through statutory means. It's real purpose is to further legitimize the American police state using the bullshit War on Terror fearmongering ("protest" = "potential terrorist") we hear day-after-day in the U.S. media.

Bullshit. They are public servants. We are the stakeholders. Their lawful place is not as our masters, dictating orders to us, but quite as church mice awaiting our orders to them. It's not time to request shit from them; it's long past time to get mad and start barking orders to all of them, lest they find out the hard way that the authority they claim is all smoke and mirrors.
Adam A
Welcome back to the Wilson presidency, everyone. 100 years and still the same backwards idiocy driving policy making.
This has to be stopped, it is obviously aimed squarely at #OWS The politicians are making it very clear that they are not open to discussing the problems faced by most Americans today.
388-3 just awful. I don't even know what to say, but it is truly sick.
+Bradford Walker Actually, no, the bill makes it a point to say that it's only illegal if the protestor is knowingly doing it.
Peaceful protests are one thing, people have startes getting close and throwing stuff have caused this. Are you angry about this because of the Democrats, Republicans or the 388 to 3 vote?
these protests are doin absoultly nothing but this does contradict the first amendment
There are already laws against assaulting government officials, etc. No need to take away constitutional rights and suppress free speech-I could foresee the Secret Service tackling someone at a venue who would disagree with a politician-welcome to Russia.
Mike G.
I'm not sayin'...just sayin: Ron Paul voted against this as one of only three. Dr. NO strikes again (thank you good sir)!
All of the above +Mark Thomas. Between ear marks and scratching each others backs, it is just sick. There are other ways of handling this and if people are throwing stuff and causing a ruckus, they don't need this bill or any other new one to arrest them. When you start removing freedoms and peaceful demonstration, that is just crossing the line and this truly contradicts the first amendment.

Power corrupts and we are witnessing it.
When are we going to turn Communist?
+Grey Geek You can read the bill. Close proximity includes the actual buildings and property lines around the buildings. Additionally, it extends to probably no more than 100 feet outside the property only if your actions are preventing the procession of normal government functions.
Not soon enough, Lawrence... it seems we need to go through fascism first...
Obama aint no dummy he knows what he is in for if he keeps his monkey business up. Clever like a fox he is.
Hope that the supreme court overturns this!
this is plain stupid ... way to much power with them
What's sad is that the American people are too gutless and weak to do what needs be done. Get some guns, steal tanks, fighters, warships, bombers and nukes and cleanse this illegal government and its enablers(which includes anyone disagreeing with this post) from the face of our Earth.
WTF? I don't know what else to say. I think it's time to restock on ammo, b/c people are about to go apeshit. Not good.
sir havee you seen the american military?
So Republicans and Democrats can finally agree on something... destroying the constitution.
This is terrible and shows that nearly everyone in the House is corrupted and should be replaced. Keep the 3 and start anew.
That is sick; slimy and putrid!
+Grey Geek My favorite thing about our government is that our judicial branch is so fair. The legislative branch and the executive branch are cool with stretching truths, but the judicial branch remains objective. I'm sure they'd define "close proximity" as being just outside the property.

Anyway, the point in this particular section of the bill is not to apply the law to people outside the white house property, but specifies those who intentionally "[impede] or [disrupt] the orderly conduct of Government business." The law only applies to you if you're within close proximity and are intentionally and knowingly bothering the congresspeople. And I can assure you: in the court of law, the distinction of whether someone was intentionally being a d-bag is fairly easy to make.
First SOPA and PIPA, then ACTA, now this? How can it get any worse?
Look at the larger scale of things. Government wants nothing standing in its way. It never has. Look at history. Good luck stopping them. The people voting the bill are part of pocket group. The fact is, whose pocket. As for all politicians, get in the way. Pass a bill! Affect my way of life.Pass another! Every piece of government is corrupt, with puppets in every piece of the chain. Look what other nations are doing to their corrupt dictators. Civil war. Go ahead and do this. You will be at war with family, friend, neighbor or someone beloved to them. Where are you willing to give. We will have to decide soon enough.
This is not a good sign!

Broun (GA)
You three are our heroes who still care America and citizens!
Thank you for voting "NO!"
wow. your congress there sucks. Okay, our congress here sucks as well except for Manny Pacquiao.
+Alex James Haha, SOPA and PIPA died.

I read ACTA some time ago so I forget most of the details, but I don't remember it being that bad. Most of the stipulations of ACTA a) only applied if the government had the authority to do them and b) had to do with physical trade infringement. That is, I can't throw a ton of Gucci logos on my purses (excuse me if my analogy is wrong: I don't know fashion) that were made in China and ship them to the US for sale.

ACTA was really just the countries involved saying, "Hey, let's not change our legislature but still help each other out so we can catch these copyright infringers."

And with that, I need to get off this post, or I'll spend way too much time arguing with everyone.
Yan Tu
that seems innocuous
as if SOPA/PIPA wasn't enough of our rights to take... :(
No, it is the fault of the idiots that passed this either by voting for it or for not voting against staying silent. That is what is killing America, too much silence about the things that really matter, like our rights stripped from us every #%&# time we turn around. This looks like a perfect time for a "jail break", who has the balls to stand up to these bastards? I do.
We can never change it because those idiots run the world. They "will"keep us from trying to make them change.Look at the coordinated effort used to stop the occupy movement.Republican or democrat they are all against us.
+Mathieu Morrissette I share the same thought, however, actions like this tend to spread so we shouldn't lay back on our chairs and pretend that this sort of thing isn't going to happen to us. Never mind, the Canadian Government are trying to pass a bill to give police direct access to our online and cellphone information without the use of warrants ... love how stories like this doesn't end don't make it to the 3rd page of Canadian newspapers (entertainment industry seems to be the perfect decoy). I would love to see who voted for this ... is there a listing? Also, is there a way to flood the Presidents Google+ page with comments?
Yang Yu
We are truly the orphans of the american dream. I'm gonna get a drink.
America is (sadly) looking more and more like the governments they deem as 'oppressive' and then invade.

Why is this happening?
You guys are acting as if you didn't know America was complete shit already. Get used to it. It's only going to get worse. This world isn't how it used to be. It's full of stupid Republican/Democratic cunts.
(I'm only talking about the ones making America worse, no one else)
Just wow. Before long, it'll illegal to mention your beliefs or opinions on G+ or FB, too...
time to remember to say"Comrade " after every sentence. LOL.... no seriously.
Paul V
I'm dismayed that our government will give face time to supporting protesters in the Middle East, while silently stripping away our rights to do the same back home. Are we to be thankful that they're not shooting us?
....seem to recall something about
“Democracy is the government of the people, by the people, for the people”

I believe a bloke by the name of Abe said that...
The Congress wants river crabs in the US? I'm from China, and I thought it was a China GOV thing.
Good thing that Obama guy was elected president to expand the rights and abilities of all Americans as well as stopping foreign wars, closing down Gitmo, making laws that were transparent and posted online for 48 hours before being signed, bipartisan working on laws that would increase the security and prosperity of America, clean up the financial mess of the past administration, implement a pay-go budget that keeps spending limited to tax revenues through identifying spending waste and budget cuts, etc.
that is sad and wrong

what has this country come to and what will it become?
transition from constitutional republic to socialist democracy completed. russia and china will be proud.
This from the Russian Times News (RT), I'll wait till it's on Fox news.
Hopefully the next Sopa protest .. OH BUT I FORGOT >> WE CANT PROTEST
I would like to know who voted against this Out Rage, They need a pat on the back
+Mark Thomas From your comment I guess you weren't around Santa Cruz when the students, peacefully sitting down, were pepper sprayed. And that is but one incident. There are many cases of peaceful protesters beaten, arrested, their possessions, left on the street.
I do believe if this happened years ago we'd be in the streets with our rifles about to burn the white house down at this point....
found it on (read it and weep)

Number: House Vote #149 in 2011 [primary source:]
Date: Feb 28, 2011 7:03PM
Result: Passed
Bill: H.R. 347: Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011
Vote District Representative Party

Yea AL-1 Bonner, Jo [R]

Yea AL-2 Roby, Martha [R]

Yea AL-3 Rogers, Michael [R]

Yea AL-4 Aderholt, Robert [R]

Yea AL-5 Brooks, Mo [R]

Yea AL-6 Bachus, Spencer [R]

Yea AL-7 Sewell, Terri [D]

Yea AK-0 Young, Donald [R]

Yea AZ-1 Gosar, Paul [R]

Yea AZ-2 Franks, Trent [R]

Yea AZ-3 Quayle, Ben [R]

Yea AZ-4 Pastor, Edward [D]

Yea AZ-5 Schweikert, David [R]

Yea AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]

Yea AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]

Not Voting AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]

Yea AR-1 Crawford, Rick [R]

Yea AR-2 Griffin, Tim [R]

Yea AR-3 Womack, Steve [R]

Yea AR-4 Ross, Mike [D]

Yea CA-1 Thompson, C. [D]

Yea CA-2 Herger, Walter [R]

Yea CA-3 Lungren, Daniel [R]

Yea CA-4 McClintock, Tom [R]

Yea CA-5 Matsui, Doris [D]

Yea CA-6 Woolsey, Lynn [D]

Yea CA-7 Miller, George [D]

Yea CA-8 Pelosi, Nancy [D]

Yea CA-9 Lee, Barbara [D]

Yea CA-10 Garamendi, John [D]

Yea CA-11 McNerney, Jerry [D]

Yea CA-12 Speier, Jackie [D]

Yea CA-13 Stark, Fortney [D]

Yea CA-14 Eshoo, Anna [D]

Yea CA-15 Honda, Michael [D]

Yea CA-16 Lofgren, Zoe [D]

Yea CA-17 Farr, Sam [D]

Yea CA-18 Cardoza, Dennis [D]

Yea CA-19 Denham, Jeff [R]

Yea CA-20 Costa, Jim [D]

Yea CA-21 Nunes, Devin [R]

Yea CA-22 McCarthy, Kevin [R]

Yea CA-23 Capps, Lois [D]

Yea CA-24 Gallegly, Elton [R]

Yea CA-25 McKeon, Howard [R]

Yea CA-26 Dreier, David [R]

Yea CA-27 Sherman, Brad [D]

Yea CA-28 Berman, Howard [D]

Yea CA-29 Schiff, Adam [D]

Yea CA-30 Waxman, Henry [D]

Yea CA-31 Becerra, Xavier [D]

Yea CA-32 Chu, Judy [D]

Yea CA-33 Bass, Karen [D]

Yea CA-34 Roybal-Allard, Lucille [D]

Yea CA-35 Waters, Maxine [D]

Yea CA-37 Richardson, Laura [D]

Yea CA-38 Napolitano, Grace [D]

Yea CA-39 Sanchez, Linda [D]

Yea CA-40 Royce, Edward [R]

Yea CA-41 Lewis, Jerry [R]

Yea CA-42 Miller, Gary [R]

Yea CA-43 Baca, Joe [D]

Yea CA-44 Calvert, Ken [R]

Yea CA-45 Bono Mack, Mary [R]

Not Voting CA-46 Rohrabacher, Dana [R]

Yea CA-47 Sanchez, Loretta [D]

Yea CA-48 Campbell, John [R]

Yea CA-49 Issa, Darrell [R]

Yea CA-50 Bilbray, Brian [R]

Yea CA-51 Filner, Bob [D]

Yea CA-52 Hunter, Duncan [R]

Yea CA-53 Davis, Susan [D]

Not Voting CO-1 DeGette, Diana [D]

Yea CO-2 Polis, Jared [D]

Yea CO-3 Tipton, Scott [R]

Yea CO-4 Gardner, Cory [R]

Not Voting CO-5 Lamborn, Doug [R]

Yea CO-6 Coffman, Mike [R]

Yea CO-7 Perlmutter, Ed [D]

Yea CT-1 Larson, John [D]

Yea CT-2 Courtney, Joe [D]

Yea CT-3 DeLauro, Rosa [D]

Yea CT-4 Himes, James [D]

Yea CT-5 Murphy, Christopher [D]

Yea DE-0 Carney, John [D]

Yea FL-1 Miller, Jeff [R]

Yea FL-2 Southerland, Steve [R]

Yea FL-3 Brown, Corrine [D]

Yea FL-4 Crenshaw, Ander [R]

Yea FL-5 Nugent, Richard [R]

Yea FL-6 Stearns, Clifford [R]

Yea FL-7 Mica, John [R]

Yea FL-8 Webster, Daniel [R]

Yea FL-9 Bilirakis, Gus [R]

Not Voting FL-10 Young, C. W. [R]

Not Voting FL-11 Castor, Kathy [D]

Yea FL-12 Ross, Dennis [R]

Yea FL-13 Buchanan, Vern [R]

Yea FL-14 Mack, Connie [R]

Yea FL-15 Posey, Bill [R]

Yea FL-16 Rooney, Thomas [R]

Yea FL-17 Wilson, Frederica [D]

Yea FL-18 Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]

Yea FL-19 Deutch, Ted [D]

Yea FL-20 Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D]

Yea FL-21 Diaz-Balart, Mario [R]

Yea FL-22 West, Allen [R]

Yea FL-23 Hastings, Alcee [D]

Yea FL-24 Adams, Sandy [R]

Yea FL-25 Rivera, David [R]

Not Voting GA-1 Kingston, Jack [R]

Yea GA-2 Bishop, Sanford [D]

Yea GA-3 Westmoreland, Lynn [R]

Yea GA-4 Johnson, Henry [D]

Yea GA-5 Lewis, John [D]

Not Voting GA-6 Price, Tom [R]

Yea GA-7 Woodall, Rob [R]

Yea GA-8 Scott, Austin [R]

Yea GA-9 Graves, Tom [R]

Nay GA-10 Broun, Paul [R]

Yea GA-11 Gingrey, John [R]

Yea GA-12 Barrow, John [D]

Yea GA-13 Scott, David [D]

Yea HI-1 Hanabusa, Colleen [D]

Yea HI-2 Hirono, Mazie [D]

Yea ID-1 Labrador, Raúl [R]

Yea ID-2 Simpson, Michael [R]

Not Voting IL-1 Rush, Bobby [D]

Yea IL-2 Jackson, Jesse [D]

Yea IL-3 Lipinski, Daniel [D]

Not Voting IL-4 Gutierrez, Luis [D]

Yea IL-5 Quigley, Mike [D]

Yea IL-6 Roskam, Peter [R]

Yea IL-7 Davis, Danny [D]

Yea IL-8 Walsh, Joe [R]

Yea IL-9 Schakowsky, Janice [D]

Yea IL-10 Dold, Bob [R]

Yea IL-11 Kinzinger, Adam [R]

Yea IL-12 Costello, Jerry [D]

Yea IL-13 Biggert, Judy [R]

Yea IL-14 Hultgren, Randy [R]

Yea IL-15 Johnson, Timothy [R]

Yea IL-16 Manzullo, Donald [R]

Yea IL-17 Schilling, Robert [R]

Yea IL-18 Schock, Aaron [R]

Yea IL-19 Shimkus, John [R]

Yea IN-1 Visclosky, Peter [D]

Yea IN-2 Donnelly, Joe [D]

Yea IN-3 Stutzman, Marlin [R]

Yea IN-4 Rokita, Todd [R]

Yea IN-5 Burton, Dan [R]

Yea IN-6 Pence, Mike [R]

Yea IN-7 Carson, André [D]

Yea IN-8 Bucshon, Larry [R]

Yea IN-9 Young, Todd [R]

Yea IA-1 Braley, Bruce [D]

Yea IA-2 Loebsack, David [D]

Yea IA-3 Boswell, Leonard [D]

Yea IA-4 Latham, Thomas [R]

Yea IA-5 King, Steve [R]

Yea KS-1 Huelskamp, Tim [R]

Yea KS-2 Jenkins, Lynn [R]

Yea KS-3 Yoder, Kevin [R]

Yea KS-4 Pompeo, Mike [R]

Yea KY-1 Whitfield, Edward [R]

Yea KY-2 Guthrie, Brett [R]

Yea KY-3 Yarmuth, John [D]

Yea KY-4 Davis, Geoff [R]

Yea KY-5 Rogers, Harold [R]

Yea KY-6 Chandler, Ben [D]

Yea LA-1 Scalise, Steve [R]

Yea LA-2 Richmond, Cedric [D]

Yea LA-3 Landry, Jeff [R]

Yea LA-4 Fleming, John [R]

Yea LA-5 Alexander, Rodney [R]

Yea LA-6 Cassidy, Bill [R]

Yea LA-7 Boustany, Charles [R]

Yea ME-1 Pingree, Chellie [D]

Yea ME-2 Michaud, Michael [D]

Yea MD-1 Harris, Andy [R]

Yea MD-2 Ruppersberger, C.A. [D]

Yea MD-3 Sarbanes, John [D]

Not Voting MD-4 Edwards, Donna [D]

Yea MD-5 Hoyer, Steny [D]

Yea MD-6 Bartlett, Roscoe [R]

Yea MD-7 Cummings, Elijah [D]

Yea MD-8 Van Hollen, Christopher [D]

Yea MA-1 Olver, John [D]

Yea MA-2 Neal, Richard [D]

Yea MA-3 McGovern, James [D]

Yea MA-4 Frank, Barney [D]

Yea MA-5 Tsongas, Niki [D]

Yea MA-6 Tierney, John [D]

Yea MA-7 Markey, Edward [D]

Yea MA-8 Capuano, Michael [D]

Yea MA-9 Lynch, Stephen [D]

Yea MA-10 Keating, William [D]

Yea MI-1 Benishek, Dan [R]

Yea MI-2 Huizenga, Bill [R]

Nay MI-3 Amash, Justin [R]

Yea MI-4 Camp, David [R]

Yea MI-5 Kildee, Dale [D]

Yea MI-6 Upton, Frederick [R]

Not Voting MI-7 Walberg, Timothy [R]

Yea MI-8 Rogers, Michael [R]

Yea MI-9 Peters, Gary [D]

Yea MI-10 Miller, Candice [R]

Yea MI-11 McCotter, Thaddeus [R]

Yea MI-12 Levin, Sander [D]

Yea MI-13 Clarke, Hansen [D]

Yea MI-14 Conyers, John [D]

Yea MI-15 Dingell, John [D]

Yea MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D]

Yea MN-2 Kline, John [R]

Yea MN-3 Paulsen, Erik [R]

Yea MN-4 McCollum, Betty [D]

Yea MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D]

Yea MN-6 Bachmann, Michele [R]

Yea MN-7 Peterson, Collin [D]

Yea MN-8 Cravaack, Chip [R]

Yea MS-1 Nunnelee, Alan [R]

Yea MS-2 Thompson, Bennie [D]

Yea MS-3 Harper, Gregg [R]

Yea MS-4 Palazzo, Steven [R]

Yea MO-1 Clay, William [D]

Yea MO-2 Akin, W. [R]

Not Voting MO-3 Carnahan, Russ [D]

Yea MO-4 Hartzler, Vicky [R]

Yea MO-5 Cleaver, Emanuel [D]

Yea MO-6 Graves, Samuel [R]

Yea MO-7 Long, Billy [R]

Yea MO-8 Emerson, Jo Ann [R]

Yea MO-9 Luetkemeyer, Blaine [R]

Yea MT-0 Rehberg, Dennis [R]

Yea NE-1 Fortenberry, Jeffrey [R]

Yea NE-2 Terry, Lee [R]

Yea NE-3 Smith, Adrian [R]

Yea NV-1 Berkley, Shelley [D]

Yea NV-2 Heller, Dean [R]

Yea NV-3 Heck, Joe [R]

New Hampshire
Yea NH-1 Guinta, Frank [R]

Yea NH-2 Bass, Charles [R]

New Jersey
Yea NJ-1 Andrews, Robert [D]

Yea NJ-2 LoBiondo, Frank [R]

Yea NJ-3 Runyan, Jon [R]

Yea NJ-4 Smith, Christopher [R]

Yea NJ-5 Garrett, Scott [R]

Yea NJ-6 Pallone, Frank [D]

Yea NJ-7 Lance, Leonard [R]

Yea NJ-8 Pascrell, William [D]

Yea NJ-9 Rothman, Steven [D]

Not Voting NJ-10 Payne, Donald [D]

Yea NJ-11 Frelinghuysen, Rodney [R]

Yea NJ-12 Holt, Rush [D]

Yea NJ-13 Sires, Albio [D]

New Mexico
Yea NM-1 Heinrich, Martin [D]

Yea NM-2 Pearce, Steven [R]

Yea NM-3 Lujan, Ben [D]

New York
Yea NY-1 Bishop, Timothy [D]

Yea NY-2 Israel, Steve [D]

Yea NY-3 King, Peter [R]

Yea NY-4 McCarthy, Carolyn [D]

Yea NY-5 Ackerman, Gary [D]

Not Voting NY-6 Meeks, Gregory [D]

Yea NY-7 Crowley, Joseph [D]

Yea NY-8 Nadler, Jerrold [D]

Yea NY-9 Weiner, Anthony [D]

Not Voting NY-10 Towns, Edolphus [D]

Yea NY-11 Clarke, Yvette [D]

Yea NY-12 Velazquez, Nydia [D]

Yea NY-13 Grimm, Michael [R]

Yea NY-14 Maloney, Carolyn [D]

Yea NY-15 Rangel, Charles [D]

Yea NY-16 Serrano, José [D]

Yea NY-17 Engel, Eliot [D]

Yea NY-18 Lowey, Nita [D]

Yea NY-19 Hayworth, Nan [R]

Yea NY-20 Gibson, Chris [R]

Yea NY-21 Tonko, Paul [D]

Not Voting NY-22 Hinchey, Maurice [D]

Yea NY-23 Owens, William [D]

Not Voting NY-24 Hanna, Richard [R]

Yea NY-25 Buerkle, Ann Marie [R]

Yea NY-27 Higgins, Brian [D]

Yea NY-28 Slaughter, Louise [D]

Yea NY-29 Reed, Tom [R]

North Carolina
Yea NC-1 Butterfield, George [D]

Yea NC-2 Ellmers, Renee [R]

Not Voting NC-3 Jones, Walter [R]

Yea NC-4 Price, David [D]

Yea NC-5 Foxx, Virginia [R]

Yea NC-6 Coble, Howard [R]

Yea NC-7 McIntyre, Mike [D]

Yea NC-8 Kissell, Larry [D]

Yea NC-9 Myrick, Sue [R]

Yea NC-10 McHenry, Patrick [R]

Not Voting NC-11 Shuler, Heath [D]

Yea NC-12 Watt, Melvin [D]

Yea NC-13 Miller, R. [D]

North Dakota
Yea ND-0 Berg, Rick [R]

Yea OH-1 Chabot, Steven [R]

Yea OH-2 Schmidt, Jean [R]

Yea OH-3 Turner, Michael [R]

Not Voting OH-4 Jordan, Jim [R]

Yea OH-5 Latta, Robert [R]

Yea OH-6 Johnson, Bill [R]

Yea OH-7 Austria, Steve [R]

Yea OH-9 Kaptur, Marcy [D]

Yea OH-10 Kucinich, Dennis [D]

Yea OH-11 Fudge, Marcia [D]

Not Voting OH-12 Tiberi, Patrick [R]

Yea OH-13 Sutton, Betty [D]

Not Voting OH-14 LaTourette, Steven [R]

Yea OH-15 Stivers, Steve [R]

Yea OH-16 Renacci, Jim [R]

Yea OH-17 Ryan, Timothy [D]

Yea OH-18 Gibbs, Bob [R]

Yea OK-1 Sullivan, John [R]

Yea OK-2 Boren, Dan [D]

Yea OK-3 Lucas, Frank [R]

Yea OK-4 Cole, Tom [R]

Yea OK-5 Lankford, James [R]

Not Voting OR-1 Wu, David [D]

Yea OR-2 Walden, Greg [R]

Yea OR-3 Blumenauer, Earl [D]

Yea OR-4 DeFazio, Peter [D]

Yea OR-5 Schrader, Kurt [D]

Yea PA-1 Brady, Robert [D]

Yea PA-2 Fattah, Chaka [D]

Yea PA-3 Kelly, Mike [R]

Yea PA-4 Altmire, Jason [D]

Yea PA-5 Thompson, Glenn [R]

Yea PA-6 Gerlach, Jim [R]

Yea PA-7 Meehan, Patrick [R]

Yea PA-8 Fitzpatrick, Michael [R]

Yea PA-9 Shuster, William [R]

Yea PA-10 Marino, Thomas [R]

Yea PA-11 Barletta, Lou [R]

Yea PA-12 Critz, Mark [D]

Yea PA-13 Schwartz, Allyson [D]

Yea PA-14 Doyle, Michael [D]

Yea PA-15 Dent, Charles [R]

Yea PA-16 Pitts, Joseph [R]

Not Voting PA-17 Holden, Tim [D]

Yea PA-18 Murphy, Tim [R]

Yea PA-19 Platts, Todd [R]

Rhode Island
Yea RI-1 Cicilline, David [D]

Yea RI-2 Langevin, James [D]

South Carolina
Yea SC-1 Scott, Tim [R]

Yea SC-2 Wilson, Addison [R]

Yea SC-3 Duncan, Jeff [R]

Yea SC-4 Gowdy, Trey [R]

Yea SC-5 Mulvaney, Mick [R]

Yea SC-6 Clyburn, James [D]

South Dakota
Yea SD-0 Noem, Kristi [R]

Yea TN-1 Roe, Phil [R]

Yea TN-2 Duncan, John [R]

Yea TN-3 Fleischmann, Chuck [R]

Yea TN-4 DesJarlais, Scott [R]

Yea TN-5 Cooper, Jim [D]

Yea TN-6 Black, Diane [R]

Yea TN-7 Blackburn, Marsha [R]

Yea TN-8 Fincher, Stephen [R]

Yea TN-9 Cohen, Steve [D]

Yea TX-1 Gohmert, Louis [R]

Yea TX-2 Poe, Ted [R]

Yea TX-3 Johnson, Samuel [R]

Yea TX-4 Hall, Ralph [R]

Yea TX-5 Hensarling, Jeb [R]

Yea TX-6 Barton, Joe [R]

Yea TX-7 Culberson, John [R]

Yea TX-8 Brady, Kevin [R]

Yea TX-9 Green, Al [D]

Yea TX-10 McCaul, Michael [R]

Yea TX-11 Conaway, K. [R]

Yea TX-12 Granger, Kay [R]

Yea TX-13 Thornberry, William [R]

Nay TX-14 Paul, Ronald [R]

Not Voting TX-15 Hinojosa, Rubén [D]

Yea TX-16 Reyes, Silvestre [D]

Yea TX-17 Flores, Bill [R]

Yea TX-18 Jackson-Lee, Sheila [D]

Yea TX-19 Neugebauer, Randy [R]

Yea TX-20 Gonzalez, Charles [D]

Yea TX-21 Smith, Lamar [R]

Yea TX-22 Olson, Pete [R]

Yea TX-23 Canseco, Francisco [R]

Not Voting TX-24 Marchant, Kenny [R]

Yea TX-25 Doggett, Lloyd [D]

Yea TX-26 Burgess, Michael [R]

Not Voting TX-27 Farenthold, Blake [R]

Yea TX-28 Cuellar, Henry [D]

Yea TX-29 Green, Raymond [D]

Yea TX-30 Johnson, Eddie [D]

Yea TX-31 Carter, John [R]

Yea TX-32 Sessions, Peter [R]

Yea UT-1 Bishop, Rob [R]

Yea UT-2 Matheson, Jim [D]

Yea UT-3 Chaffetz, Jason [R]

Yea VT-0 Welch, Peter [D]

Yea VA-1 Wittman, Rob [R]

Yea VA-2 Rigell, E. [R]

Yea VA-3 Scott, Robert [D]

Not Voting VA-4 Forbes, J. [R]

Yea VA-5 Hurt, Robert [R]

Yea VA-6 Goodlatte, Robert [R]

Yea VA-7 Cantor, Eric [R]

Yea VA-8 Moran, James [D]

Yea VA-9 Griffith, H. [R]

Yea VA-10 Wolf, Frank [R]

Yea VA-11 Connolly, Gerald [D]

Yea WA-1 Inslee, Jay [D]

Yea WA-2 Larsen, Rick [D]

Yea WA-3 Herrera Beutler, Jaime [R]

Yea WA-4 Hastings, Doc [R]

Yea WA-5 McMorris Rodgers, Cathy [R]

Yea WA-6 Dicks, Norman [D]

Yea WA-7 McDermott, James [D]

Yea WA-8 Reichert, Dave [R]

Not Voting WA-9 Smith, Adam [D]

West Virginia
Yea WV-1 McKinley, David [R]

Yea WV-2 Capito, Shelley [R]

Yea WV-3 Rahall, Nick [D]

Yea WI-1 Ryan, Paul [R]

Yea WI-2 Baldwin, Tammy [D]

Yea WI-3 Kind, Ronald [D]

Yea WI-4 Moore, Gwen [D]

Yea WI-5 Sensenbrenner, F. [R]

Yea WI-6 Petri, Thomas [R]

Yea WI-7 Duffy, Sean [R]

Yea WI-8 Ribble, Reid [R]

Yea WY-0 Lummis, Cynthia [R]
Most of theses people are career politician and have lost touch of what reality is like in the real world. They have no clue what the working people or the people who would like to be working go through on a daily basis. We are spending a fortune in gas and food and they are only there to get rich. Of course they don't what us protesting
Growing up in the 60s I saw the world thru the rose colored glasses. And then I had to go make my own living. How do those protesters make a living? Is there a protesters union? Wait, they are unemployeed so they get free government housing, food stamps, WIC, unemployment, and dozens of other checks in the mail. Why work? If you really want to change things run for office and you can introduce bill after bill. But you will have to give up your free ride off the backs of working Americans. The men and women that can trace their ancestry in the US back further than ....
Burn the "white house" over bad legislation out of the House of Representatives? Uh.....wrong branch.
+Ron Sewell, Sr. Wanted to jump in briefly here. Of the Occupy protesters I've interviewed or spoken with, I believe every single one would prefer gainful employment. And some are employed.

Those without jobs are in a bind because they can't FIND work, because the work simply is NOT out there for them. It has nothing to do with laziness, or with settling for unemployment checks.
The rich get richer while the poor get poorer, the rich run this country and republicans tend to make things worse in this country. Thanks for the enormous effort Obama.
were not a democracy, we are a republic that is quickly becoming an oppressive government.
+kevin Johnson except one of the people that voted no is running for president...people need to wake up and vote in the Republican primary for the only guy that isn't a scumbag politician
Has this passed the Senate or even landed on the Presidents Desk?
Remember this, come election time, and kick the Tea Bags to the Curb. It's just the House, not a law, and it has zero constitutional lifespan. Come on now.
from the original piece I linked to: "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."
"‘Sec. 1752. Restricted building or grounds
‘(a) Whoever--
‘(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so;
‘(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;
‘(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; or
‘(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds;"

You can't violate this act when "The person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal.” because all the clauses require the person to act knowingly.
To all of you that actually read the bill instead of just commenting:

Please refer to section (e) of the U.S. code Section 18, provision 1752. It says "As used in this section, the term “other person protected by the Secret Service” means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title when such person has not declined such protection."

The new bill, Section (c) at the very end states: " the term ‘other person protected by the Secret Service’ means any person whom the United States Secret Service is authorized to protect under section 3056 of this title or by Presidential memorandum, when such person has not declined such protection.’’.

Yes, knowingly is in the bill. But the bill never defines proximity. Does it help that you know Rick Santorum is protected by the Secret Service? Since proximity is not defined in the bill, but defined by the dictionary as "
Nearness in space, time, or relationship", then proximity means anywhere. You can be protesting anywhere in the "proximity" of the area, and be charged with a federal felony. Also, a person can just as well claim they weren't informed just as well as the government can claim they were.

The most dangerous part of this bill is the non-definition of proximity, only seconded by the ability of the president to issue Secret Service protection to anyone.

Notice "Or by presidential memorandum" Yes, this means that the president can issue Secret Service protection to anyone he wishes through a letter. Sorry, not conspiracy. Quite true. Look it up yourself.
Welcome to China 2.
Ehm, no, I mean "brand new USA".
Welcome to: 1984 and the Totalitarian Regime; AKA: The NoBama Regime
Good, more christian activist need to be locked away.
Does everyone here recognize that as a common law state, the United States can pass whatever laws it chooses, but they don't matter until they actually get tested in a court of law? This actually changes nothing in the long run because whenever this law runs up against a case where it violates the First Amendment, the First Amendment will likely win. If it doesn't, it's time to worry about the law.

Also, +Dan Johnson The language of "proximity" is clearly stated as "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" Proximity isn't the important word there. It's "impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business". I'd be more worried aobut how they define "Government business" than proximate.
I don't love what my country pretends to do in favour of our rights, but no, that isn't it either... sry...
All of these congressmen need to be voted out of office
Lol, no that law doesn't make protest illegal. This bill is an amendment to the current law which Defines (per the summary of the bill) "restricted buildings or grounds" as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President's official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.

So, if you're peacefully protesting and you don't break the law, nothing will happen to you. Sometimes I think websites from outside the US try to sensationalize our news.

+David Seaman: Next time you should probably do research on your own instead of just going off of what some random website (hosted in Russia...?) thinks the bill is interpreted as.

Also glad many of the people posting here actually get that this bill doesn't make protesting illegal.
Obama is just another puppet we need people in government that can't be bought to be running this country and actually listen to people who elected them into position of power
RT is not "some random website." They are a major news network, yes Russian, with news bureaus around the world -- and they regularly appear on the homepage of Google News and elsewhere.

Instead of calling ME out, do your research on HR 347 and on the NDAA. These things are very real. If the truth disturbs you, don't shoot the messenger.

Good article in today's Guardian:

You should also be aware of this:
Furthermore, no bill will ever say, "Protest is now illegal in the United States, cheers!"

It's never that explicit. What this bill does is effectively illegalize protest by restricting it in ways that the founding fathers never intended, and in ways that are profoundly unconstitutional.

You SHOULD be able to protest in your own nation's capital, as long as you are peaceful... and yes, even if "government officials" are nearby -- isn't the whole point of protest to get the leaders' attention and urge them to reconsider their policies?
Adam A
+David Seaman exactly. It gives judges and law enforcement precisely the kind of testing criteria for determining whether the law has been broken that they should not have! They key words being "intent to disrupt a government function." Describe intent! We already had problems with that kind of wording during the first world war with the Espionage Act. Thousands went to jail because prosecutors were able to say ANY criticism of the government was "intent" to disrupt the war effort.
I sure would like to know who the 3 brave people were. 1st step to becoming  a socialist country. God bless the USA.
Add a comment...