• Feed RSS
There was an error in this gadget


New post on Bare Naked Islam

Here we go AGAIN! Disgruntled, ungrateful Muslim cab drivers sue employer

by barenakedislam

This is how terror-front group CAIR stays in business: relentlessly filing frivolous lawsuits against employers who refuse to accommodate special Muslim religious demands.

WPTV  It's often said, "A picture's worth 1,000 words," but for the man in a picture taken a few months ago at Orlando's Premium Outlets, the picture was worth his job. "The place that we pray at is over here," Mohamed BenHassine said, pointing to an area of the outlet mall,  beside a dumpster. (Asslifters next to a dumpster - how fitting! NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

BenHassine is a devout Muslim, which means praying five times a day for five to seven minutes. He and seven other Star Taxi drivers claim management threatened to fire them if they prayed while on the job. "Either you practice your religion or you lose your job," BenHassine said. "I don't think that's fair in this country." (Who sent for them? Get out of this country. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

Tuesday, BenHassine's legal team will file a formal discrimination complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of eight Star Taxi drivers, all of whom claim they've been threatened by management for praying.

"For the average practicing Muslim, it's like asking them to stop eating food," said CAIR Director Hassan Shibly. "It's integral. It's the soul of our life." (There are 57 Islamic hellholes where they can pray all they want. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

Under federal law, employers must make reasonable accommodations for religious practices, as long as it doesn't create an undue burden on business. (The mere existence of muslims is an undue burden on Americans. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

In this case, BenHassine claims he prayed on his breaks, just like others who smoked or went to the bathroom. (Like Hell they did. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

"This is a clear case of violation of state, federal and local law," said Hudson & Calleja attorney Michael Hanna, who is representing the drivers. "The most important thing is to bring this type of discrimination to light."  BenHassine's legal team believes the case stretches far beyond the dumpster where the driver's prayed, and where BenHassine was fired January 8.

"It means they could essentially fire anybody of any faith for doing their prayers," Shibly said. "We're doing this case to protect the religious freedom of all Americans." (No, you are doing it to throw Islamic supremacy into our faces. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

The EEOC has 180 days to investigate, at which point BenHassine's attorneys will file for a right to sue.  The suit asks for sensitivity training and financial reimbursement, but BenHassine says he just wants to work.  "If they let us pray without bothering us, yes why not? I'll take my job back." (Nobody wants you here. NEVER HIRE MUSLIMS)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKhQVHNc8ug

RELATED STORIES/VIDEOS:

to-all-american-employers-never-ever-hire-a-muslim

unbelievable-cair-wins-anti-racism-award-for-shaking-down-american-companies-and-citizens-with-relentless-litigation-jihad

20000-more-reasons-never-to-hire-a-muslim-woman

it-serves-abercrombie-fitch-right-for-hiring-muslims-they-have-been-sued-by-them-at-least-twice-before

more-legal-jihad-muslim-teen-fired-from-popular-apparel-chain-for-wearing-a-bag-on-her-head

muslim-woman-in-hijab-walks-into-abercrombie-fitch-and-applies-for-a-job

litigation-jihad-hire-a-muslim-woman-only-if-you-enjoy-getting-sued

american-businesses-hire-a-muslim-and-youre-likely-to-get-sued

u-s-muslims-complain-that-muslim-women-who-wear-bags-on-their-heads-are-being-discriminated-against-in-the-workplace

legal-jihad-not-hiring-muslim-bagheads-isnt-discrimination-its-called-a-dress-code

legal-jihad-another-good-reason-for-never-ever-hiring-muslim-employees

how-many-more-reasons-do-people-need-for-not-hiring-muslims

cair-demands-air-france-apologize-for-sending-home-a-muslim-employee-who-refused-to-take-the-bag-off-her-head

u-s-muslims-complain-that-muslim-women-who-wear-bags-on-their-heads-are-being-discriminated-against-in-the-workplace

legal-jihad-muslim-woman-makes-a-federal-case-out-of-headscarf-ban-in-the-courts

 

 

 

barenakedislam | March 13, 2012 at 6:57 pm | Categories: Islam in America | URL: http://wp.me/p276zM-G3M

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://barenakedislam.com/2012/03/13/here-we-go-again-disgruntled-ungrateful-muslim-cab-drivers-sue-employer/




--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.


New post on Fellowship of the Minds

We're 100% Outraged That He's President

by catscanner150

 

Obama Says He's 'Proud Generally' of Our Troops

 

Barack Obama Says Hes Proud Generally of U.S. Troops Following Afghan Killing

In an interview Monday with Denver station KCNC-TV, President Obama spoke about support for U.S. troops, saying that "we've got to make sure that we're caring for our soldiers," but followed the seemingly compassionate pledge up with a disparaging remark that appeared to dismiss and diminish America's service men and women outright. In speaking about our troops, the president said: "You can't help but be proud of them generally."

The comment came on the heels of the killing of 16 Afghan civilians allegedly by an American soldier.

Obama said that Americans must make sure we're "caring for our men and women in uniform who are serving so valiantly, and we're caring for their families. And that's why we've actually put more resources into dealing with post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injuries."

"And obviously what happened this weekend was absolutely tragic and heartbreaking. But when you look at what hundreds of thousands of our military personnel have achieved under enormous strain, you can't help but be proud generally."

President Obama called the episode "tragic," and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton called it "inexplicable."

According to the Associated Press, Obama told a television interviewer Monday that the killings underscore the need to hand over responsibility for security to Afghans. But he said it won't lead to an early withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton then reacted to the president's comments on Your World with Neil Cavuto, saying, "If that's a direct quote from the president, I am stunned by that. He should be proud of all of the troops – period. Obviously, sometimes a tragedy like this can happen.

Tom in NC

catscanner150 | March 13, 2012 at 3:00 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/pKuKY-d6Y

Comment    See all comments

Unsubscribe or change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions.

Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser:
http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/were-100-outraged-that-hes-president/

Thanks for flying with WordPress.com



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.






http://pjmedia.com/blog/three-ways-to-cope-with-the-plague-of-obama-bumper-stickers/?print=1

 

Three Ways To Cope with the Coming Plague of Obama Bumper Stickers

Posted By Belladonna Rogers On March 13, 2012

Dear Belladonna Rogers,

I'm a 77-year-old conservative grandmother living, for family reasons, in a very blue state. It's only March and already the Obama 2012 bumper stickers are everywhere. The parking lots are filled with them. They're irksome, especially when combined on the same bumper, with the 2008 version. It appears that the driver has learned exactly nothing in the past four years.

Is there anything I can do that will avoid direct confrontation, won't get me in trouble with the law, but that that will satisfy my urge to communicate my disagreement with the Obama-supporting owners of these cars?

Frustrated Near 'Frisco

Dear Frustrated,

Yes, yes, and yes!

Placing an anti-Obama bumper sticker on top of a pro-Obama bumper sticker is tampering with property, also known as criminal mischief. This can be a felony or a misdemeanor. You don't want to go there, tempting as it certainly is.

What you may do that's perfectly legal is what many pizza chains and other businesses do in parking lots: gently lift the windshield wiper and place a written message to the driver where he or she cannot avoid seeing it.

I have three suggestions:

A POLITE PIECE OF YOUR MIND

It's devilishly simple.

You type two sentences and print out as many as you like. Keep them in your car at all times. Here's a little inspiration:

Dear Friend:

Some unknown socialist put an Obama bumper sticker on your car. I'm letting you know so that you can remove it before it causes you any further embarrassment.

That's it. Simple, friendly, concerned, considerate. What's not to like?

It's also guaranteed to be very annoying.

BUY ANTI-OBAMA BUMPER STICKERS AND PLACE THEM UNDER THE WINDSHIELD WIPERS OF THE PRO-OBAMA CAR

Happily, your choices are many and, while not inexpensive, if some of your like-minded friends chip in, it might be worthwhile to spend some money for such upbeat messages as:

[1]
[2]


[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

The bumper stickers come in packs of 50 for $190 [7] ($3.80 each), or bought singly cost $5 each. If you were to park your (un-bumper-stickered) car and watch what the pro-Obama drivers do after noticing your kind gift, my prediction is that you'd observe them throwing your valuable bumper sticker on the ground. Littering! As soon as they drive away, retrieve your abandoned bumper sticker and place it on the windshield of the next pro-Obama car you see.

After all, an anti-Obama bumper sticker is a terrible thing to waste.

Given your age and desire to avoid direct confrontation, I'd recommend being as subtle as possible as you go about your activities. Perhaps you have a big, strong young male family member or friend who feels as strongly about Obama as you do who'd like to spend some quality time with you.

If you'd like to spend less than the prices noted above, I suggest the following third option:

A BIGGER PIECE OF YOUR MIND

In the immortal words of New Orleans chef, restaurateur, and entrepreneur Emeril Lagasse [8], a letter such as the one below is guaranteed to kick it up a notch. A note of caution: the first option takes only a few seconds to read. The one below will do more to express your thoughts, but it runs the risk of not being read in entirety by an avowed Obamaphile. That said, here's an example of how you could purvey a generous piece of your mind.

Dear Fellow Citizen:

I note with stunned incredulity that the rear bumper of your vehicle is festooned with both an Obama 2008 and an Obama 2012 one. This is troubling indeed. It suggests to your fellow citizens that you've spent the last three years in the sort of place Vice President Cheney was said to have inhabited during the George W. Bush years: a secure, undisclosed location — but unlike Mr. Cheney, however, without access to news from the outside world.

If, on the other hand, you've been living openly and freely, I must inquire whether you've noticed the lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution by the president and the Department of Justice, with "Attorney General" Eric Holder's refusal to prosecute such blatant law-breakers as the New Black Panther Party [9] and ACORN [10]? Does the phrase "Fast and Furious [11]" mean nothing to you?

Have you noted without dismay the president's hare-brained, anti-capitalist and un-American belief [12]that those who work hard and have actually dared to earn a handsome income be penalized and have their hard-won wealth "re-distributed" to others?

Have you not watched in horror as the unemployment rate has soared perilously close to 9% among your fellow citizens?

Are you not outraged by every single element of ObamaCare and the fact that a growing number of physicians in fields such as cardiology are considering becoming "life coaches" to their patients because the tests they routinely order to monitor their health will be over-ridden by computerized regulations, and, indeed, forbidden entirely by green eye-shaded federal government employees who've never seen the inside of a medical school classroom? Or by social engineers or clueless politicians such as Kathleen Sebelius [13], secretary of Health and "Human Services"?

Are you not horrified that your country is now more than $14 trillion in debt [14]? Does this not concern you if you have children or grandchildren, or even if you don't?

Can you honestly say that none of these outrages causes you to reconsider your original, ill-founded enthusiasm for Barack Obama?

If you're as pro-Obama in 2012 as you were in 2008, you can be only one of two things: (1) a Democratic loyalist who gives not a moment's thought to the actual positions and hazardous consequences of voting like a lemming, or (2) a blinkered, clueless cave-dweller cut off from all news of the United States and the world for the past four years. If that's the case, I urge you to read news analysis on PJM.com [15] during that period to see exactly what you've missed.

Just how much drek can you allow yourself to ignore?

Finally, I suggest you buy yourself a giant sized GOO GONE, [16] a liquid that comes in a spray can. Apply it to your bumper stickers. Scrape with all your might until you've succeeded in removing that embarrassing pair from your rear bumper. Once they're gone, you can drive with your head held high because, at long last, you'll have come face to face with the harsh, cold breath of reality and will have understood the perilous error of your ways.

Sincerely,

A concerned fellow citizen

IT'S YOUR CHOICE

There you have them: three distinct approaches, any one of which should help cope with some of the frustration you feel, and may even shed a little light of reality on your state's Obama-besotted residents.

When the unremitting uniformity of their political views gets you down, return to this webpage and feast your eyes on the artistic creations below, brought to you by our distinguished colleagues at MAD magazine, one of the most reliably great magazines of the 20th and 21st centuries, the obvious fountainhead of The Onion [17]:

[18] [19]

– Belladonna Rogers

Send your questions about personal, political or any other matters to Belladonna Rogers at advice@pjmedia.com [20]. All correspondence with her is confidential, and all names, locations, places of employment and ages of the parties will be changed to protect the privacy of the readers who write to contribute questions.


Article printed from PJ Media: http://pjmedia.com

URL to article: http://pjmedia.com/blog/three-ways-to-cope-with-the-plague-of-obama-bumper-stickers/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/obama_myth_bumper_sticker_50_pk2.jpg

[2] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/teleprompter1.jpg

[3] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/Oamanomics-penalize-success-rewardfailure2.jpg

[4] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/Yes-Im-stupid1.jpg

[5] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/how-long-before-you-admit-obama-was-a-afilure.jpg

[6] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/chicken_bumper_bumper_sticker1.jpg

[7] come in packs of 50 for $190: http://www.cafepress.com/+anti-obama+bumper-stickers

[8] Emeril Lagasse: http://www.foodnetwork.com/emeril-lagasse/index.html

[9] the New Black Panther Party: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/06/30/justice-dept-lawyer-accuses-holder-dropping-new-black-panther-case-political/

[10] ACORN: http://patdollard.com/2012/01/eric-holderdoj-coordinating-voter-registration-drives-with-acorn/

[11] Fast and Furious: http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/09/28/fast-and-furious-just-might-be-president-obamas-watergate/

[12] hare-brained, anti-capitalist and un-American belief : http://www.americansfortheconstitution.com/2010/04/07/obamas-redistribution-of-wealth/

[13] Kathleen Sebelius: http://pjmedia.com/blog/why-obama-promotion-of-oral-contraceptives-guarantees-the-spread-of-lethal-stds/

[14] $14 trillion in debt: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

[15] PJM.com: http://pjmedia.com/

[16] GOO GONE,: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00006IBNJ%20%20/pjmedia-20

[17] The Onion: http://www.theonion.com/articles/black-man-given-nations-worst-job,6439/

[18] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/YES-WE-CANT1.jpg

[19] Image: http://pjmedia.com/files/2012/03/ALFRED-CORRECTED.jpg

[20] advice@pjmedia.com: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/how-to-meet-your-next-wife-or-significant-other/advice@pajamasmedia.com

 



 


--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=5ISKQD7ytSk

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.




 

 

 

 

 

 

-------Original Message-------

:,

Subject: Fw: The Solar thing just got a little more interesting.......REALLY!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Solar thing just got a little more interesting.......REALLY !

 

 

. The Tonopah Solar company in Harry Reid's Nevada is getting a $737 million loan from Obama's DOE .

. The project will produce a 110 megawatt power system and employ 45 permanent workers .

. That's costing us just $16 million per job .

 

. One of the investment partners in this endeavor is Pacific Corporate Group (PCG).

. The PCG executive director is Ron Pelosi who is the brother to Nancy 's husband .

 

Just move along folks.....nuthin goin on here .

 

EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW HOW THEIR MONEY IS BEING STOLEN SO FORWARD THIS TO EVERYBODY

 

Google Tonopah Solar company

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.








 

 

            There are actually two messages here.  The first is very
interesting, but the second is absolutely astounding - and explains a lot.
 
            A recent "Investor's Business Daily" article provided very
interesting statistics from a survey by the United Nations International
Health Organization.
 
            Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years
after diagnosis:
 
             U.S.                    65%
 
             England              46%
 
             Canada              42%
 
 
            Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received
treatment within six months:
 
             U.S.                     93%
 
             England              15%
 
            Canada               43%
 
 
            Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it
within six months:
 
             U.S.                     90%
 
             England              15%
  ;
             Canada               43%
 
 
            Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within
one month:
 
             U.S.                     77%
 
             England               40%
 
             Canada               43%
 
 
            Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million
people:
 
             U.S.                     71
 
         
   England             14
 
             Canada              18
 
 
            Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are
in "excellent health":
 
             U.S.                    12%
 
            England               2%
 
             Canada               6%
 
 
            And now for the last statistic:
 
 
            National Health Insurance?
 
             U.S .                     NO
 
             England            YES
 
             Canada             YES
 
            Check this last set of statistics!!
 
            The percentage of each past president's cabinet who had worked
in the private business sector prior to their appointment to the cabinet.
You know what the private business sector is a real-life business, not a
government job.  Here are the percentages. 
  
  
       T. Roosevelt.................... 38% 
  
       Taft.................................. 40% 
  
       Wilson ........................... 52% 
  
       Harding........................... 49% 
  
       Coolidge......................... 48% 
  
       Hoover............................ 42% 
  
       F. Roosevelt................... 50% 
  
       Truman........................... 50% 
  
       Eisenhower................ .... 57% 
  
       Kennedy......................... 30% 
  
       Johnson.......................... 47% 
  
       Nixon.............................. 53% 
  
       Ford................................ 42% 
  
       Carter............................. 32% 
  
        Reagan........................... 56% 
  
        GH Bush......................... 51% 
  
        Clinton .......................... 39% 
  
        GW Bush........................ 55% 
  
        Obama...........
 .......... 8%
 
 
             This helps to explain the incompetence of this administration:
only 8% of them have ever worked in private business!
 
            That's right!  Only eight percent---the least, by far, of the
last 19 presidents!  And these people are trying to tell our big
corporations how to run their business?
 
            How can the president of a major nation and society, the one
with the most successful economic system in world history, stand and talk about business when he's never worked for one?  Or about jobs when he has never really had one?  And when it's the same for 92% of his senior staff and closest advisers?  They've spent most of their time in academia,
government and/or non-profit jobs or as "community organizers."  They should have been in an employment line.
 
Pass this on because we'll NEVER see these facts in the main
stream media.

 

 





--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
0

The First Amendment Needs a Rape Kit
by Wendy McElroy, March 13, 2012

The newest attack of vague language is aimed at your 1st Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Assembly and Freedom to Petition. It is found in the pending legislation of H.R. 347.… As currently worded, it might as well have been called the "Federal We're Too Important To Be Annoyed By Your Protest Act of 2011." -- Gene Howington

The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 ( PDF) may sound like a landscaping measure, but it is also being called the Trespass Bill, the Anti-Occupy Bill, and the First Amendment Rights Eradication Act. Under this bill, it is a felony to protest at or in the vicinity of a venue or event that is attended by anyone who has Secret Service protection. H.R. 347 passed the House on February 27th by a vote of 388–3. The Senate version (S. 1794) passed unanimously. With President Obama's signature, the Act became law on March 8.

The bill has caused a furor among advocates of civil liberties. Justin Amash, one of the three "no" votes in the House, dubbed the bill the "First Amendment Rights Eradication Act." Calling it "this administration's latest assault on our civil liberties," he explains on his Facebook page that "criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity -- even if that activity is annoying to those government officials -- violates our rights."

The left-leaning Daily Kos states, "Protesting will be a felony -- where is the outrage?"

Meanwhile, the bill is being ignored by the mainstream media as uncontroversial. Supporters of the act dismiss its critics as hysterical or ill-informed. Michael Mahassey, the communications director for Rep. Thomas J. Rooney, who sponsored H.R. 347, called the backlash, "a whole lot of kerfuffle over nothing. This doesn't affect anyone's right to protest anywhere at any time. Ever."

Who is correct? And why is there such a deep schism on H.R. 347?


A bill by any other name would smell …

The American Civil Liberties Union warns against H.R. 347. Nevertheless, the ACLU observes, "It's important to note ­ contrary to some reports ­ that H.R. 347 doesn't create any new crimes, or directly apply to the Occupy protests. The bill slightly rewrites a short trespass law, originally passed in 1971."

Section 1752 of title 18 in the United States Code is entitled "Restricted Building or Grounds." This 1971 bill was intended to prevent assassination, kidnapping, or other attempts to harm the political elite, especially the president. The section of title 18 that immediately precedes it, section 1751, is entitled "Presidential and Presidential Staff Assassination, Kidnapping, and Assault; Penalties." Thus, section 1752 restricts people from entering or blocking access to or from public areas that have been cordoned off by the Secret Service for the protection of a person (or for a "special event of national significance," which could range from the Olympics to a political convention). The penalty for violating section 1752 includes a possible one-year jail term; if a "dangerous weapon" is involved, then the jail term rises to a possible ten years.

In recent years, the 1971 bill has been interpreted beyond its intent in order to crack down on peaceful protesters. Moreover, as the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has amply demonstrated, the definition of a "dangerous weapon" has been expanded at the discretion of law enforcement to include such items as nail clippers.

Thus, the controversy over the current revision, H.R. 347, revolves around two issues. First, is H.R. 347 part of a trend toward vagueness in legislative wording, which can be later exploited and expanded by authorities in order to violate civil liberties? Second, how legally "slight" is the change of wording in this revision?

Consider the first question. Gene Howington, a guest blogger at Jonathan Turley's legal-analysis site, writes,

it seems to be a trend that vague or overly broad language could be fairly described as being purposefully adopted allowing "wiggle room" for Federal authorities to potentially abuse civil and human rights under the color of authority. This is a dangerous practice.

Howington refers to a recent example of legislative vagueness ­ the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which gives Obama the power to indefinitely detain citizens without trial if they are accused of terrorism. Some politicians, notably Senator Carl Levin, argued that the NDAA did not allow such arrests and, so, soothed his worried compatriots while dismissing the bill's critics. Nevertheless, even Obama acknowledged his new power after the bill passed, saying, "I want to clarify that my Administration will not authorize the indefinite military detention without trial of American citizens."

No wonder legal scholars now scrutinize with a skeptical eye every word that appears in potentially menacing legislation.

As to the second question, to determine how "slight" the revisions of H.R. 347 truly are, it is necessary to review them. One change has or could have deep significance. The original text reads,

(a) It shall be unlawful for any person or group of persons­

(1) willfully and knowingly to enter or remain in any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting.

***

Four additional paragraphs, (2) through (5), begin with the words "willfully" and "knowingly."

The revised text of paragraph (a)(1) in H.R. 347 reads,

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

The four additional clauses in the original are compressed to three, each of which now begins with the word "knowingly" only.

Why is deleting the word "willfully" so significant? Because it removes the need for a prosecutor to prove that a protester had the intent to violate the statute, for example, through blocking an egress. All that needs to be proven is that the protester knew he was accessing a restricted area. His intent may have been nothing more than to exercise freedom of speech; blocking the exit may have been inadvertent. But under H.R. 347, his mens rea -- that is, that aspect of his state of mind -- becomes legally insignificant.

In Latin, "mens rea" means "guilty mind" or guilty intention. Within Western law, an act has traditionally required a guilty mind for that act to become criminal behavior. That is why defendants who are found to be mentally incompetent are not placed on trial; they are not deemed capable of mens rea. The Latin legal phrase, actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ­ "the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty" ­ is often invoked in such cases.

Writing in the periodical In These Times, Daniel Hertz encapsulates the impact of removing "willfully" from the statute, "In other words, Congress removed a hurdle in enforcing the law without actually adding any new restrictions to the First Amendment."

They simply changed the rules of enforcement to remove what is often the most difficult element of the crime to prove: namely, intent. Indeed, since both the original text and H.R. 347 allow the arrest of someone who is merely in "proximity" to a restricted area, proving intent could be close to impossible. How could you prove that person was walking near a politician's hotel with the intent of causing harm or blocking the egress?

As Gene Howington observes, "in addition" to lowering the threshold for mens rea***, H.R. 347 defines

the term "restricted buildings or grounds" to mean virtually any place in proximity to or place proper [where] a government function or an "event of national interest" is taking place. This would allow for the arrest of protesters just about anywhere. Outside political rallies, near the hotels of visiting foreign dignitaries, outside sporting or other public events like the Super Bowl … you get the idea.

H.R. 347 may well make the arrest and conviction of peaceful protesters much easier.


Conclusion

It is criminally naive to believe that the police and courts will not eventually use the expanded latitude granted by H.R. 347. The Occupy movement frightened and angered the authorities it yanked control away from. For years, "free speech zones," in which protesters speak from behind barred walls, as though in cages, contained dissenters and kept them far from government officials. They were allowed to protest only where the elite and the mainstream media would not hear them.

Occupy changed that. And the authorities have struggled to find ways to contain dissent ever since; they never want to lose control again. And, especially in this election season, politicians are eager to avoid a repeat of the public outrage that surrounded the 1968 Democratic convention, when police were filmed brutally beating peaceful demonstrators in the street.

The elites are losing patience with civil rights. This January, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel pushed through two anti-protest ordinances that were widely termed "sit down and shut up" measures. The online periodical and voice of Occupy, the Dissenter, describes two of several repressive new requirements.

    • Ahead of demonstrations, "organizers would be required to provide the City with a list of all signs, banners, sound equipment or 'attention-getting devices' that require more than one person to carry them," creating "a license for the city to 'ding' organizers with absurd fines."
    • All downtown protest marches would be required to get $1 million insurance coverage to "indemnify the city against any additional or uncovered third party claims against the city arising out of or caused by the parade." They would have to "agree to reimburse the city for any damage to the public way or city property arising out of or caused by the parade." Clearly, Emanuel is determined that the upcoming NATO/G8 meetings in his city will go smoothly. Emanuel and his ilk would not hesitate to use the free hand provided by H.R. 347 to prosecute "offenders." And god help them if the protesters are found to be in possession of a pair of nail clippers, small scissors, or any other item that could be construed as a "dangerous weapon." The penalty could then rise to ten years imprisonment for young people still idealistic enough to believe they have free speech, freedom of assembly, and the right to petition officials with their grievances.

      http://www.fff.org/comment/com1203l.asp
0

 
 
 

 


 

 

 
 
 
Identity Theft:
Until I read this
, I did not realize how serious identity theft was becoming.
 
Pass this on to your loved ones and friends.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


























Blessed are the cracked,
for they let in the light.
 
 

 
 






--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.