No he can't:

But the 2006 version of the law contained the same undefined phrases:

The 2006 version says it is unlawful for a person or group to "willfully, knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, to engage in disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any building or grounds."
The 2012 version says it is unlawful if someone "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."

One last thing: Critics of the president are using the law to scare people into thinking that the law will be used against his critics. Maybe it will be. But the law doesn’t cover just the president and vice president and it hasn’t since it was amended in 1982. It covers anyone under Secret Service protection, including past presidents of both parties and the Republican presidential and vice presidential nominees.

So, to recap: The law isn’t new; it merely amends existing law. The law doesn’t impose new penalties, although the ACLU is concerned that it may make it easier for the government to prove its case against someone who knowingly enters a restricted area or causes a disturbance in areas under Secret Service protection. The law doesn’t criminalize free speech any more than it did when Bush revised the same law in 2006.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/05/obama-criminalize-free-speech/

Now we add Odumbo and the "Maybe it will be." becomes.... Did someone disappear? Or maybe there is a car wreck.

But they have made a fatal error and the people are waking up. We can thank Egypt for their contribution to the awaking.

But, now there will in all probability be violence, hence Homeland Security.

We have consistently ignored one of the prime attributes of the constitution:

"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"

This subject was explained most succinctly by Hamilton in Federalist 24:

"This statement of the matter is taken from the printed collection of State constitutions. Pennsylvania and North Carolina are the two which contain the interdiction in these words: ``As standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up.'' This is, in truth, rather a caution than a prohibition. New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Delaware, and Maryland have, in each of their bils of rights, a clause to this effect: ``Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature''; which is a formal admission of the authority of the Legislature. New York has no bills of rights, and her constitution says not a word about the matter. No bills of rights appear annexed to the constitutions of the other States, except the foregoing, and their constitutions are equally silent. I am told, however that one or two States have bills of rights which do not appear in this collection; but that those also recognize the right of the legislative authority in this respect."

But this country has been at war for longer than most can remember, the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc., etc. etc. But, the military has proven to be more moral than the owners liked and now we have Homeland Security.

In addition, have you looked at your local police/sheriff department lately? Where did the police go? Now the only real function of a police department is "keeper of the peace", you know the old "peace officer". But that is now just another myth of the past unless the "people" stand up and demand their servants behave and remove the objectionable "toys".

And a retarded one at that.

no reason to insult the mentally challenged that way,,,,

I have never voted for President Obama, and I disagree with his politics. Still, I find these attempts to demonize him to be disgusting.

actually Obama is just continuing the Policies that started Decades ago,and it is getting no better!
Those Policies are perpetuating themselves in the Powerstructure for obvious reasons!
That's how the System perpetuates,grows bigger and protects it self!
Obama,with his particular Philosophy is simply the Man of the Hour!
It's a "Conspiracy" without center and without leaders!

yes,Hitler was just THAT vain!

ITs illegal to disrupt the peace, whomever you are and however you do it,,,,as it has been for centuries


it is not ILLEGAL to say 'bad' things about the President UNLESS the manner it is done is disrupting the peace,,,,,

lol, some people sure like to live in a candy coated world...

some people just are always the 'exception' I guess, considering I have PERSONALLY Witnessed people saying 'bad things' and nothing happened,, as they didn't say it in a manner that was disruptive,,,lol

same methods!

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/blomberg_fritsch_crisis-1938.htm


Obama's Curious Purge Of The Military Continues

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101513-675217-obama-fires-two-nuclear-military-commanders.htm

Boston bombing?

Yeah.... don't confuse the liberals

Not if it's a rally or a public event. There is a right to assembly. a right to protest and a right to be heard. Disrupting an event speaker could be seen as an invasion of a speakers rights, but protest outside the venue or arena of that event is a protected right.

Oh. Odumbo isn't another Hitler, he is much more dangerous than that and that is not opinion but fact.

And to insinuate something is retarded is truly an insult to the mentally challenged, but to make light of the insult is much worse.

And how do you confuse the confused, show the light? Doesn't seem to work so the only thing remaining is to enlighten those that are becoming awake and damn the rest. Otherwise, all is lost.

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 PEACABLY to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[1]

no mention of an exemption for public events


yes, if one wishes to 'protest' elsewhere they can, but that wouldn't fall under the assembly right and is not protected when it is disturbing the peace,,,

msharmony, there is an old Melmacian proverb:
"Herding cats is easier than reasoning with hearts full of hate."

Want to help me herd cats?

IM a dog person,,,but thanx