Blue,,no green...ahhhhh

Thank-you! I was writing it and telling myself there was something not quite right. Too late to edit. *grumble*

I have a theory: Obama has gone mental. First, you had the White House kicking photographers out from taking candid shots, now you have a renewal of a law that reminding the public to stay away from the White House where the President might view disturbing stimulus from any window which could crash his already fragile state.

Look how long they hid Jesse Jackson Jr’s illness from the public. He was an acting representative for six months while being actively psychotic.

Ahhh, if wishes were ponies....

This is FOX news playing with semantics. My advice to you is not to discount what is said just because it is FOX. This story was just a filler with no real meat. For example: they have been out in front since 2010 trying to warn people millions of americans were going to lose their existing health plans which has turned out to be devastatingly accurate. It’s just one example, but when other news organizations paint FOX as a television cable station for old white men from the south, they create indifference in non-viewers like you. Indifference is the same as empathy. Empathy dulls the senses so that you reject truth when you hear it just because of the source.

The law has changed to be more specific wording wise, but the essence hasn’t. The 1971 law just referred to the property of federal buildings while the new law refers specifically to the residences of the VP and the White House property. I believe it has always been a felony.
I enjoy Judge N, but for this particular argument, I think Fox was just trying to sensationalize.

I was thinking the same. I also wonder if this bill was repeatedly renewed since 1971. If not, then why choose to bring it back now?

A thinking person can reason through Fox News using it as a foundation for examination. MSNBC, CNN, etc are state run media outlets engineered, these days, to feed focused propaganda. I'd much rather get my info from my own effort on the web but if I have to watch "news" I'd take Fox over the rest in a heartbeat.

It’s just a renewal of an existing law that’s been on the books since 1971.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/1...

Good citation, thanks! I'm curious if the renewal of this law has any additional addendums in its current revision? I think the points I'll try to isolate are if the structure changed from a FINE to a felony (as proposed) and whether it moved from deliberate unlawful actions intended to disrupt government business and to merely protesting.

Without free speech, there is no chance for a change of direction from the headlong drive toward totalitarianism that currently exists in this country. The passage of a law eliminating free speech in one venue opens the door for it to be eliminated elsewhere.