Site rules stolen from our good friend PAVACA.
There are Important Notifications from our host, Wolf Moon; the Rules of our late, good Wheatie; and, certain caveats from Yours Truly, of which readers should be aware. They are linked here. Note: Yours Truly has checked today’s post for any AI-generated content. To the best of her knowledge and belief, there is none. If readers wish to post any AI-generated content in the discussion thread for today’s post, they must cite their source. Thank you.
Do not forget to LABEL AI articles, video and such.
“The hand-written copy of the proposed articles of amendment passed by Congress in 1789, cropped to show just the text in the third article that would later be ratified as the First Amendment” — WIKI
USA Bill of Rights
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Scott467 on April 17, 2025 brought an article from Sundance that covers the US Government’s attack on Free Speech.
SD: “The State Dept. Global Engagement Center was the epicenter of the Dept of State operation to control speech on social media platforms. Following revelations from within the Twitter Files, and facing increasing scrutiny, the GEC operation was shut down – but the remnants of the operation remained active within the State Dept.
The terms “disinformation, misinformation and malinformation” were weaponized by the State Dept to define speech against their interests and block, deplatform and remove any voices, including in the U.S., they determined were against the interests of the U.S. government. The COVID-19 and vaccine narrative were both examples of speech targeted by the GEC and later the Counter Foreign Information Manipulation and Interference office (R-FIMI).
Today, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Acting Undersecretary of Public Diplomacy, Darren Beattie, delivered notice to congress the speech and platform control operation has been shut down. Secretary Rubio sat down with Mike Benz to discuss [Transcript Here].
.
15 minute interview of Secretary Rubio by Mike Benz..
para59r then chimed in with:
Yes, this should be coupled with yesterdays post by eilert as it’s a direct answer to Benz’s brilliant exposure talk thing. But somehow he had to know about Rubio doing this before hand.
look at January 6th 2020 and the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”
The Following legal information makes it clear WHY there were Agents Provocateurs such as Ray Epps dispatched into the Jan 5th & 6th crowd = KNOWINGLY
WHY the cyclone fence barricade & any signs were all removed prior to MAGA arriving. = KNOWINGLY
WHY ANTIFA/LEFTEST trouble makers were imported and dressed as MAGA = acts of physical violence SEE: Agents Provocateurs as a Type of Faux Activist by Professor Gary T. Marx. Professor Emeritus of Sociology, M.I.T.
WHY pepper spray and grenades were sprayed DIRECTLY AT PEACEFUL protestors in order to anger them into committing acts of violence.
WHY the Capitol police were short staffed and the National Guard was NOT deployed = “Police protection at the scene was” NOT “at all times sufficient to meet any foreseeable possibility of disorder.”
FIRST AMENDMENT:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people PEACEBLY to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Right to Assemble and Petition
This is a legal discussion about these two protected rights.
The “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” protects two distinct rights: assembly and petition. The Clause’s reference to a singular “right” has led some courts and scholars to assume that it protects only the right to assemble in order to petition the government. But the comma after the word “assemble” is residual from earlier drafts that made clearer the Founders’ intention to protect two separate rights….
FACT CHECK: Obama Criminalize 
Free Speech?
How about criminalizing the RIGHT of Assembly and the RIGHT to PEACEABLY petition the government?? Notice the strawman (Free Speech) used to deflect from the rights this law actually attempts to wipe out.
…..HR 347, the “Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011,” amended Title 18, Chapter 84, Section 1752 of the U.S. Code — just as then-President George W. Bush did in 2006 when he signed the Patriot Act. (Click on the link to the U.S. Code and you can see how it was amended in 1982, 1984, 1994 and 2006.)
According to the official report of the full House Judiciary Committee (which approved it on a voice vote, without recorded opposition), the bill adds two things to previously existing law:
- It specifies that it is unlawful to enter secured areas of the White House and its grounds, [aka private residence of POTUS. -GC] or the vice president’s official residence and grounds. Previously, according to the report, the law prohibited unlawful entry to any building or ground, secured by the Secret Service, where the president or vice president is “temporarily” visiting. That forced the Secret Service to rely on a District of Columbia law that “addresses only minor misdemeanor infractions” even if somebody were to breach the White House residence itself.
- The new law revises the standard that prosecutors must meet to gain a conviction, from proving that a violation was committed “willfully and knowingly” to merely proving that it was committed “knowingly.”
The article on amended Title 18, Chapter 84, Section 1752 is now gone so here is Cornell Law
18 U.S. Code § 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 [1]
(4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; [2]
(5) knowingly and willfully operates an unmanned aircraft system with the intent to knowingly and willfully direct or otherwise cause such unmanned aircraft system to enter or operate within or above a restricted building or grounds; or attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided in subsection (b).
(b)The punishment for a violation of subsection (a) is—
(1)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, if—
(A) the person, during and in relation to the offense, uses or carries a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm; or
(B) the offense results in significant bodily injury as defined by section 2118(e)(3); and
(c)In this section—(1)the term “restricted buildings or grounds” means any posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area—
(A) of the White House or its grounds, or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds;
(B) of a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting; or
(C) of a building or grounds so restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance; and
(2) 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.
(Added Pub. L. 91–644, title V, § 18, Jan. 2, 1971, 84 Stat. 1891; amended Pub. L. 97–308, § 1, Oct. 14, 1982, 96 Stat. 1451; Pub. L. 98–587, § 3(b), Oct. 30, 1984, 98 Stat. 3112; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147; Pub. L. 109–177, title VI, § 602(a), (b)(1), Mar. 9, 2006, 120 Stat. 252; Pub. L. 112–98, § 2, Mar. 8, 2012, 126 Stat. 263; Pub. L. 115–254, div. B, title III, § 381, Oct. 5, 2018, 132 Stat. 3320.)
This archived content from the U.S. Department of Justice website discusses the Constitutionality of this and a similar law. It cites Supreme Court cases.
1547. Constitutionality — 18 U.S.C. 1752
Constitutional attacks on 18 U.S.C. § 1752 would most likely fall in two categories–vagueness or violation of the First Amendment.
Allegations of vagueness should be overcome by the formal designation of the buildings and grounds that are subject to the regulations published in the Federal Register. In addition to appropriate signs providing notice of a temporary residence or of a restricted area, the Secret Service will endeavor to post personnel in appropriate locations to give verbal notification to persons seeking to enter without authority or otherwise act in violation of the statute, to meet the special problems of notice in restricted areas. Peaceful assembly where the President or the President’s office is located will still be permitted. Presidential security is conducted pursuant to Federal authority, and thus does not depend upon differing local ordinances.
The basic legal theory underlying the provisions of this statute is that of trespass. The government has the right to control presence on government property, and physical presence on the designated grounds is clearly covered by regulations. Since demonstrations involve conduct, they are subject to reasonable regulations when necessary to protect other legitimate government interests. See Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 559 (1965). Even-handed application of a precise and narrowly drawn regulatory statute should pass constitutional muster. See Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 236 (1963). See also Shenck v. Pro-Choice Network, 117 S.Ct. 855 (1997) at 868-869, (upholding fixed buffer zones to permit ingress and egress at an abortion clinic).
Section 1752 of Title 18 is aimed at specific categories of knowing and willful conduct, and 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) is far more circumscribed than the general trespass statute upheld in Adderly v. Florida, 385 U.S. 39 (1966).
First Amendment objections may be raised as to the validity of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2) which outlaws the intentional disruption of government business at designated residences and offices.
See United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376 (1968), and the opinion of the Court in Cox v. Louisiana, supra….
Find Law: EDWARDS v. SOUTH CAROLINA, 372 U.S. 229 (1963)
Argued: December 13, 1962 Decided: February 25, 1963 (Just before JFK’s assassination.)
…The City Manager testified that he recognized some of the onlookers, whom he did not identify, as “possible trouble makers,” but his subsequent testimony made clear that nobody among the crowd actually caused or threatened any trouble. 4 There was no obstruction of pedestrian [372 U.S. 229, 232] or vehicular traffic within the State House grounds. 5 No vehicle was prevented from entering or leaving the horseshoe area. Although vehicular traffic at a nearby street intersection was slowed down somewhat, an officer was dispatched to keep traffic moving. There were a number of bystanders on the public sidewalks adjacent to the State House grounds, but they all moved on when asked to do so, and there was no impediment of pedestrian traffic. 6 Police protection at the scene was at all [372 U.S. 229, 233] times sufficient to meet any foreseeable possibility of disorder. 7 ….
In the situation and under the circumstances thus described, the police authorities advised the petitioners that they would be arrested if they did not disperse within 15 minutes….
And it is clear to us that in arresting, convicting, and punishing the petitioners under the circumstances disclosed by this record, South Carolina infringed the petitioners’ constitutionally protected rights of free speech, free assembly, and freedom to petition for redress of their grievances.
It has long been established that these First Amendment freedoms are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 ; Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 ; Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359 ; De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U.S. 353 ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 . The circumstances in this case reflect an exercise of these basic constitutional rights in their most pristine and classic form. The petitioners felt aggrieved by laws of South Carolina which allegedly “prohibited Negro privileges in this State.” They peaceably assembled at the site of the State Government 10 and there peaceably expressed their grievances “to the citizens of South Carolina, along with the Legislative Bodies of South Carolina.” [372 U.S. 229, 236] Not until they were told by police officials that they must disperse on pain of arrest did they do more. Even then, they but sang patriotic and religious songs after one of their leaders had delivered a “religious harangue.” There was no violence or threat of violence on their part, or on the part of any member of the crowd watching them. Police protection was “ample.”
That Supreme Court case gave the template needed to arrest and convict MAGA during January 6th 2020.
Remove notifications that the area was off-limits. Short staff the Capitol Police and refuse the National Guard so Police protection was NOT “ample.” Employ Agents Provocateurs to do actual damage/threat of violence and lead the gullible. INTENTIONALLY injure and kill protesters to get them very angry.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Notes saved from OT.
Winston says on February 17, 2018 at 11:00 pm
You’re missing the point.
The current abuses of the security state could only have happened because of 9/11.
Vast amounts of money were stolen on the day, and as a result of it trillions more.Cui bono ?
The THREE towers were not brought down by planes. Or fire. Not possible.
How and why did THREE towers come down in their own footprint with zero resistance,also not possible.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Basic physics. Floors cannot pancake in free fall as if no structure existed, unless….no structure existed. The only way they can.
Even I, a structural engineer,was in enough shock for a week that it did not seem fishy until the end of that week. Then it stank. Then after doing basic calculations it really stank.
With computer modeling the stench became unbearable. Watching the videos a thousand times in slow motion and it was clear what had happened.
Then an experienced demolition engineer confided in me with his ideas which agreed with mine. Many engineers will not come forward, they’re scared with good reason,but 3000 have dared to.
You want to drain the swamp ?
Cui bono ?
Its always about the money. Even mass murder that’s televised live.
Money and power.
Problem=reaction=solution.
Create the problem, to get the reaction, to bring in your desired prepared solution, in the chaos you created. If you can steal trillions while you do it, even better. They did.
That’s why I call them the Merchants of Death,so will you. Our psychopath rulers will kill anyone for a profit. Millions of dead is just a bigger profit , more power for them and nothing else. No human emotions except greed exist in them.
Can you handle the truth ?
Then seek it.AEfor911truth.org
3000 architects and engineers that want to know what really happened that day.
We absolutely know what did not happen that day,what the official narrative tells us happened. The laws of physics don’t change whatever NIST might say.
Apart from anything else,for future design safety.
Why has the Govt. lied to us all ?These are two YouTube videos of Trump’s reporting of 9/11 as seen through workers and the building’s structure, respectively. These are short and instructive videos:
Donald Trump interview 2 days after 9/11 at ground zero
Viral Video Of Trump On 9/11https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fi9Z43tC2eQ: This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.
A second comment by unknown person:
You might also want to look at Operation Gladio C
Consider 9/11
The result was the Patriot Act HOWEVER given most of the terrorist were Saudi muslims NONE of the rest of the US government’s moves made sense.
1. The FBI shephard out of the country Saudis CONNECTED to the terrorists.
h t t p://www.wanttoknow.info/saudisflown913fbi2. Americans have to put up with Grope-N-Fly while Saudi’s get EZ-Pass privileged boarding.
h t t p://www.examiner.com/article/u-s-confers-ez-pass-status-on-travelers-from-saudi-arabia3. The number of muslims immigrating into the country DOUBLED after 9/11.
h t t ps://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2015/05/1m-immigrants-from-muslim-countries4. Saudi Arabia is NOT the target of retaliation by the USA.
5. DHS Killed Investigations into muslim terrorist cells because of ‘Political Correctness’ and destroyed the files. link
6. Instead DHS and Janet Napolitano targeted US Veterans and Right Wingers who were anti-abortion and anti-immigration. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/16/napolitano-stands-rightwing-extremism/?page=all
…….Forget the analysis by engineers (see Winston’s comment a few days ago.) Everything else stinks to high heavens and points to a false flag operation used to bring in the Patriot Act, the Secret FISA court and SPYING on Americans…. Not to mention wiping out the possibility of an audit into the theft of TRILLIONS.
Of course now this secret court targets Americans.