US Congress passes authoritarian anti-protest law

[onenote]

21. The reason Democrats, including Kucinich, support this is that it doesn't do what you say.

I'm curious -- which of the following actions do you think you (and any teabagger for that matter) has a constitutional right to engage in:

1. entering into a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted (i.e., not open to the public) area of the White House, VP's residence or a location where someone under secret service protection is visiting

2. engaging in conduct (with intent to disrupt) that disrupts or impedes the orderly conduct of government business or of official function in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise non-public restricted area of the WH, the VP's residence or of a builiding/area where someone protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting (such as engaging in disorderly conduct in order to disrupt President Obama's address to the Barnard College graduating class);

3. engaging in conduct (wiht intent to impede) that prevents anyone from getting in or out of a cordoned off, posted or otherwise non-public restricted area of the WH, the VP's residence, or of a building/area where a person protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting (such as blocking students from attending President Obama's speech to the Barnard graduating class)

4. knowingly engagin in an act of physical violence against any person or property in a cordoned off, posted, or otherwise non-public restricted aread of the the WH, the VP's residence (and the grounds of those buildings) or of a building/area where a person protected by the secret service is temporarily visiting (such as attacking Michelle Obama or Jill Biden).

You good with those activities? Because that's what the portion of the bill you are complaining about does (and has done for years except that it didn't cover the WH or the VP's residence).