First, Obama has to convince everyone in America that the greatest health care in the world is a “mess.” It is NOT.
Then he has to convince everyone in America that someone else, namely his opponents, made that mess. There is NO mess to be responsible for.
Then he has to scare enough Americans into begging the government to take care of them, as only HE can do it.
The problem Obama is encountering is that most Americans are taking care of themselves and do NOT want the government to get in their personal business.
Obama wants his opponents to get out of his way and shut up.
Americans want the government to get out of our way and Obama to shut up.
This president has shown in six agonizing months that he has little regard for the First Amendment/FREE SPEECH, including political speech, the Second Amendment/Gun Ownership Rights, The Fourth Amendment/Search and Seizure Protections, has side-stepped the oversight of Congress on Cabinet appointees by hiring czars who report only to him, and has tried to bypass the people’s will by forcing their elected officials to vote on bills they haven’t read, in such a short time as to prohibit our representatives from learning what is contained in the bills they vote on. All-in-all, a flagrant disregard of the United States Constitution.
This can not be out of ignorance, as the president has boasted many times that he taught Constitutional law at Columbia University. He simply prefers a dictatorship, or so it seems. This whole “We the People” thing is getting in his way, making it harder to construct his version of Otopia in America.
We the People will not stand for it. We will stand for our system of self-government and self-reliance, keeping our freedom which we hold more dear than any “topias”.
Any person who does not care to abide by the Constitution of the United States is living in the wrong country, for this document will stand as long as Americans have breath in their bodies. Obama is nothing more than a blip in American history. The day will come when he is gone from the scene and we will all have to live with the messes he created. The smartest action to take is to nip it in the bud right now. Limit the amount of damage this one man can do in four years. Stand and fight just as tenaciously as any military soldier would in a field of fierce battle. This is our plight. This is our fight.
Be vigilant. Be wise. Be strong. Be free.
(The only new American Revolution will be Americans revolting against this administration’s efforts to force socialism or worse on us.)
Follow up to the posts, “Fourth Amendment/Cash for Clunkers Program” and” Cash for Clunkers – A Gov’t Worm Hole”: Why we should be suspicious of the government disclaimer that any computer logged on to the Cash for Clunkers Program web site becomes the property of the Federal Government and they take all rights to anything on the citizens’/car dealers’ computers.
On April 27, 2008, Marbie’s Blog wrote about Larry Lessig, an Obama friend, colleague and Obama’s technology expert/advisor during his presidential campaign. See the original post below.
Today, the referrenced web sites have been cleansed of everything controversial, but I personally saw what I wrote about on April 27, 2008. Larry Lessig would not be a Christian’s choice, and Obama claims to be a Christian, and the film maker, Javier Prato, was a self-proclaimed Marxist with Che Guevera faces all over his web site. All gone today. His current web site describes Prato as a digital guerilla.
Bottom line for today’s post is that there is reason to be suspicious of the Obama administration’s intentions and possible actions when citizens log on to government computers for any reason, especially in light of the disclaimer posted on the Cash for Clunkers program.
Glenn Beck, after reporting about the government disclaimer last week, has checked today and the disclaimer has changed to a much less threatening blurb, probably as a direct result of flack from citizen’s who heard Beck’s program. But does this action ensure our Fourth Amendment Rights will be protected now? It’s not clear, since Obama is over-riding previous bans on government computers using tracking cookies to store information about citizens and companies.
“Computerworld – Privacy advocates are raising questions about a proposal to revamp the use of tracking cookies on federal government Web sites.
Under the proposal, U.S. government agencies would be allowed to use single-session and multi-session cookies, including persistent cookies, to track users — as long as security and privacy standards governing the collection and use of tracking information are met. The agencies would have to post clear notice of data collection and allow users to opt-out.”
“If the plan is adopted, it would mark a departure from a policy first put in place in 2000 and updated in 2003that prohibits government sites from using persistent cookies “or any other means” such as Web beacons to track visitor activity, unless agency heads authorize their use. When tracking cookies are used, agencies must conspicuously post the reasons for collecting information, spell out the sort of data collected and detail privacy safeguards.
Privacy advocates have for some time maintained that such restrictions protect site visitors from being tracked and profiled. They have argued that users should reasonably expect privacy when visiting a government site and that any attempt to dilute the protections is ill-advised. Those concerns have grown in recent months, with many worried that the Obama Administration’s espousal of Web 2.0 technologies and social networking tools will affect long-held privacy protections.
Now if you’re deciding whether or not to trust that the Obama administration will not collect, store or use information on your computer, remember the people Obama surrounds himself with. Remember Larry Lessig and the film he uses routinely in teaching seminars, produced by a Marxist film maker, who calls himself a digital guerilla.
This video is over 61 minutes long. You don’t need to watch all of it. Skip the first 12 minutes and begin precisely at 12 minutes and 14 seconds.
I WARN YOU. IF YOU ARE A CHRISTIAN, YOU WILL BE OFFENDED.
Who is the narrator lecturing to Google company employees?
LAWRENCE (LARRY) LESSIG - Who is Larry Lessig? (April 27, 2008)
FORMER FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE AND ADVISER/AIDE OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA’S PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN
Obama’s campaign website calls Lessig one of the industry experts supporting his technology plan. Larry Lessig has worked actively on behalf of Obama, explaining to journalists, Obama’s plan to appoint a technology czar to serve in the White House under the title of chief technology officer. Lessig’s website endorses Obama.
“In August 2006, several people in the audience walked out when Lessig showed the “Jesus Will Survive” video in his keynote address to the LinuxWorld Conference and Expo in San Francisco.” http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62484by Jerome R. Corsi
In the Google lecture, you hear them laughing at the video. Prefacing the video, Lessig warns the viewer that it is sensitive, and says, “I don’t know why”.
I KNOW AND I BET YOU KNOW!
Obama has said many, many times that he is NOT a Muslim and that he IS A CHRISTIAN. That being the case, how can he add someone as his campaign aide who has this anti-Christian sentiment and who uses a video depicting Jesus in this horrible way? I would expect Obama to be just as offended as I am, if he is truly a Christian. An aide’s religious beliefs don’t have to be in sync with a candidate, but when the candidate is a Christian and the aide is using (multiple times) such an offensive video, that does make a difference.
For the record, Lessig says he didnt’ make the film, he just chooses to use it in his lectures. There are hundreds of others he could have chosen, but he didn’t. He chose this one.
The film was made by Javier Prato. His web site is http://www.javierprato.com/. When you visit his site you will immediately notice that he has chosen Che Guevera’s picture to represent himself instead of his own and has used that picture repeatedly for his background. If you’re wondering where you’ve heard Che Guevera recently, it was the controversy over the Cuban Flag and the Che Guevera flag hanging in the Houston, Texas campaign office for Barack Hussein Obama.
Che Guevera was an Argentine Marxist revolutionary terrorist who was involved in efforts to overthrow governments in Guatemala and Cuba. He left Cuba in 1965 to incite revolutions in Congo-Kinshasa, then Bolivia, where he was captured and executed.
Isn’t it odd how the same themes keep popping up in Obama’s camp?
“Lessig has known president Barack Obama since their days teaching law at the University of Chicago, and has been mentioned as a candidate to head the Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the telecommunications industry.“
What a horrible thought!
According to this Wikipedia article, Lessig, a political activist, decided to focus on political corruption through his wiki, “Lessig Wiki” and has encouraged the public to use it to document cases of corruption. This sounds a lot like Obama’s call for citizens to rat out their friends and neighbors by emailing the government’s new site flag.gov.
How long before Obama’s Opponents will be forced to wear arm bands bearing the tell-tale “OO” mark???
Of course, that is far-fetched, but his actions and those of his administration, are scary at best. We need to regain this country’s freedoms.
Remember when Vice-P Joe Biden said that Obama would be tested in the first six months of his administration? Well, it’s been six months. Where’s the test? Could it be the two Russian submarines cruising just 200 miles off America’s Eastern Shores?
This follows Russian Navy exercises off the coast of Venezuela last summer and a visit by two of their destroyers to Cuba in November of 2008, just about election time in the States. It’s such a rare event that Defense Department officials “expressed wariness over the Kremlin’s motivation for ordering such an unusual mission.” MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER Published: August 4, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/world/05patrol.html?_r=1
The New York Times online further reported that:
“Any time the Russian Navy does something so out of the ordinary it is cause for worry,” said a senior Defense Dept. official.
“I don’t think they’ve put two first-line nuclear subs off the U.S. coast in about 15 years,” said Norman Polmar, a naval historian and submarine warfare expert.
According to Defense Department officials, one of the submarines remained in international waters on Tuesday about 200 miles off the coast of the United States. The location of the second remained unclear. (oh great!) Parenthesized expressions are my own.
One official said it headed south toward Cuba while another said it headed north. Let’s hope somebody knows where it actually is.
The funny thing is that Russian Pres. Medvedev called Obama Tuesday to wish him a happy birthday. (And by the way, Mr. Obama, we sent you two of our best subs for your birthday.)
Not to worry, though, because these Akula II subs are quieter than the older variant and shouldn’t disturb aquatic life or the delicate ecology of the sea. The Russians were careful to send their newest, most advanced sub which is capable of carrying torpedoes for attacking other submarines and surface vessels (whose, I wonder? ) and missiles for striking targets on land and at sea.
Even though the New York Times reported that one Defense Dept. official said one sub went south, while another official said it went north, the Times also reported in the same article that,
“We’ve known where they were, andwe’re not concerned about our ability to track the subs,” the official added. “We’re concerned just because they are there.”
Huh? Now where exactly is that second sub?
I hope no one loses any sleep over this because Obama is sure to pass the test with flying colors (no pun intended) just like he’s passed every other test in his brief six months in the White House.
Although technically able to successfully deploy their long-range nuclear missiles while moored at their docks,[7] Soviet doctrine for these vessels was to have them attack North America while submerged under the arctic circle, avoiding the traversal of the GIUK gap to remain safe from enemy attack submarines and anti-submarine forces. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_class_submarine
The time has come! ACORN has met it’s match. Americans for freedom, individual liberty, small uninstrusive government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and a free market are marching on Washington, D.C. September 12, 2009 to make their voices heard.
No doubt the main stream news media will not cover this event adequately, leaving the impression that nothing of any consequence happened. Go if you are able. Take a video camera and document the entire protest. Post that video on YouTube for everyone to see. Bypass the main stream media.
Call and write the main stream media and demand that they cover the protests against the current government activities that are un-Constitutional, illegal, instrusive, freedom-stealing and downright suffocating.
We’ve been calling the government officials on the carpet, but we’ve forgotten to do the same with the main stream media who are aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s efforts to change America into a third-world country with debt-burdened, unemployed and enslaved citizens, like Cuba.
Every day, let’s all contact the same news media and pressure them to cover Obama’s opposition to the same extent that they covered Pres. Bush’s opposition. Let’s demand that they cover us as much as they covered Michael Moore’s diatribes.
Today’s news media in the cross-hairs is:
ABC
500 S. Buena Vista St.
Burbank, California 91521-4551
818-460-7477
abc.g0.com
Tell them you want to see most, if not all, of the Tea Party protests, the 9/12 March on Washington, D.C. and the town meetings. Insist they give accurate attendance numbers and honestly report on the protests without spinning them as insignificant, violent or nut-cases.
A reader commented on the previous post about the Cash for Clunkers a Gov’t Worm Hole. The point was worth researching and discussing, so here it is.
The comment stated that Beck was off base with his conclusions about the agreement that must be provided before a “Cash for Clunkers” participant could continue with the transaction online at the cars.gov web site.
Comment:
“These disclaimers on gov’t computers are necessary due to the Wiretapping Act. It is illegal to monitor the activities of a user without their consent. To do the necessary monitoring (if your site is defaced you want to try to figure out who did it, y’know?) you must allow everyone an opportunity to leave without entering. That’s all. We’ve had a similar disclaimer here for 15 years.”
Everyone can agree that any computer must be protected from hostile activity and employ a program to identify the perpetrator. Disclaimers must make consumers aware and give them the opportunity to leave the web site without giving up their Fourth Amendment Rights. No problem here.
The cars.gov web site goes far beyond what is necessary in the following paragraph, which consumers are obliged to agree to if they participate in the Cash for Clunkers program:
“This application provides access to the DoT CARS system. When logged on to the CARS system, your computeris considered a Federal computer system and is the property of the U.S. Government. Any or all uses of this system and all files on this system may be intercepted, monitored, recorded, copied, audited, inspected, and disclosed to authorized CARS, DoT, and law enforcement personnel, as well as authorized officials of other agencies, both domestic and foreign. ”
This agreement usurps your Fourth Amendment Right and waives your rights under the Wiretap Act, Privacy Act, etc.
Privacy: Statutory Protections From Internet Law Treatise
With the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act, the Homeland Security Act and other laws focused on national security, Congress has been active in changing the legal landscape for access to real-time and stored communications. Despite these amendments, detailed below, the legal regime for obtaining wiretaps and stored communications remains ambiguous.
Privacy: Searching and Seizing Computers From Internet Law Treatise
Reasonable Expectation of Privacy
Accessing information stored in a computer ordinarily will implicate the owner’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the information. See United States v. Barth, 26 F. Supp. 2d 929, 936-37 (W.D. Tex. 1998) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in files stored on hard drive of personal computer); United States v. Reyes, 922 F. Supp. 818, 832-33 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (finding reasonable expectation of privacy in data stored in a pager); United States v. Lynch, 908 F. Supp. 284, 287 (D.V.I. 1995) (same); United States v. Chan, 830 F. Supp. 531, 535 (N.D. Cal. 1993) (same); United States v. Blas, 1990 WL 265179, at *21 (E.D. Wis. Dec. 4, 1990) (”[A]n individual has the same expectation of privacy in a pager, computer, or other electronic data storage and retrieval device as in a closed container.”). See also United States v. Long, 64 M.J. 57 (CAAF 2006) (finding REOP in emails defendant sent from her office computer and in emails stored on government server); Quon v. Arch Wireless, 445 F.Supp.2d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (gov’t employee had REOP in text messages sent through his city-owned pagers).
The Tenth Circuit has cautioned that “[b]ecause computers can hold so much information touching on many different areas of a person’s life, there is greater potential for the ‘intermingling’ of documents and a consequent invasion of privacy when police execute a search for evidence on a computer.” United States v. Walser, 275 F.3d 981, 986 (10th Cir. 2001). But see United States v. Gorshkov, 2001 WL 1024026, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 23, 2001) (holding that defendant did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in use of a private computer network when undercover federal agents looked over his shoulder, when he did not own the computer he used, and when he knew that the system administrator could monitor his activities).
In the offline world, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized legitimate privacy interest in confidential letters. United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 114, 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1657 (1984) (“Letters and other sealed packages are in the general class of effects in which the public at large has a legitimate expectation of privacy.”). See also Ortega v. O’Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1163 (9th Cir. 1998) (under circumstances, employee had legitimate expectation of privacy from employer).
Federal Constitution
The contents of telephone communications are fully protected by the Fourth Amendment. Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 353-354 (1967). The Government must satisfy stringent procedural requirements, discussed below, before it can acquire the contents of communications. Berger v. New York, 388 U.S. 41, 63-64 (1967) (“[I]t is not asking too much that officers be required to comply with the basic command of the Fourth Amendment before the innermost secrets of one’s home or office are invaded. Few threats to liberty exist which are greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices.”).
The Privacy Act
The Privacy Act regulates the “‘collection, maintenance, use, and dissemination of information’” about individuals by federal agencies. Doe v. Chao, 540 U.S. 614, 618 (2004) (quoting Privacy Act of 1974 § 2(a)(5), 88 Stat. 1896). It “authorizes civil suits by individuals . . . whose Privacy Act rights are infringed,” Sussman v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 494 F.3d 1106, 1123 (D.C. Cir. 2007), and provides for criminal penalties against federal officials who willfully disclose a record in violation of the Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a(i)(1).
State Statutes
Title III does not preempt state statutes that are more protective of privacy. “Congress intended that the states be allowed to enact more restrictive laws designed to protect the right of privacy.” People v. Conklin. 12 Cal.3d 259, 271 (1974); see also Roberts v. Americable Intern. Inc., 883 F.Supp. 499, 503, fn. 6 (E.D.Cal. 1995); United States v. Curreri, 388 F.Supp. 607, 613 (D.Md. 1974); Bishop v. State, 526 S.E.2d 917, 920 (Ga.Ct.App. 1999) ; People v. Pascarella, 415 N.E.2d 1285, 1287 (Ill.App.Ct. 1981).
The Wiretap Act, the U.S. Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Act, were all dealing with wiretapping and eavesdropping needed to combat terrorism and to facilitate criminal investigations. They required reasonable suspicion and warrants from judges.
Trading a clunker in for a new car hardly designates citizens as criminals or terrorists and does not generate reasonable suspicion of crime or terrorism. Our Fourth Amendment Rights should not be compromised or stolen.
I don’t believe Beck was off-base in his assumptions. Citizens should refuse to accept this disclaimer and realize that buying a car on the taxpayers’ dime isn’t worth forfeiting Fourth Amendment Rights. Our founding fathers fought to gain our freedoms and we should never throw them away, especially for a car that will only last a few years. Freedoms last forever, unless you throw them out with the clunkers.
The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the Bill of Rights
Search and Seizure
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated; and no Warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This computer worm hole is not a virus created by a teenager to do mischief. This one is created by our government in such a way that the car dealers sign an agreement making it legal. If they don’t agree, they can’t participate in the cash for clunkers program.
Just thought you’d like to be informed. Here’s another opportunity for you all to let your elected officials know that we don’t like KGB tactics in America. Maybe they can force this administration to change it. We can dream, can’t we? Obama does.
(What would be the value of a giant data base, categorized by district, which included information about people who applied for a “cash for clunker” purchase? What possible use would this be for a politician with big plans?)
The time has come! ACORN has met it’s match. Americans for freedom, individual liberty, small uninstrusive government, lower taxes, individual responsibility and a free market are marching on Washington, D.C. September 12, 2009 to make their voices heard.
Visit: http://912dc.org/ for more information. Go if you possibly can!
No doubt the main stream news media will not cover this event adequately, leaving the impression that nothing of any consequence happened. Go if you are able. Take a video camera and document the entire protest. Post that video on YouTube for everyone to see. Bypass the main stream media.
Call and write the main stream media and demand that they cover the protests against the current government activities that are un-Constitutional, illegal, instrusive, freedom-stealing and downright suffocating.
We’ve been calling the government officials on the carpet, but we’ve forgotten to do the same with the main stream media who are aiding and abetting the Obama administration’s efforts to change America into a third-world country with debt-burdened, unemployed and enslaved citizens, like Cuba.
Every day, let’s all contact the same news media and pressure them to cover Obama’s opposition to the same extent that they covered Pres. Bush’s opposition. Let’s demand that they cover us as much as they covered Michael Moore’s diatribes.
Today’s news media in the cross-hairs is:
NBC 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10017 212-450-2000 nbc.com/Footer/Contact_Us/
MSNBC 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10112 212-664-4444 msnbc.com viewerservices@msnbc.com
CNBC 900 Sylvan Avenue Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey 07632 201-735-2622 877-251-5685 (Viewer Services) cnbc.com
Tell them you want to see most, if not all, of the Tea Party protests, the 9/12 March on Washington, D.C. and the town meetings. Insist they give accurate attendance numbers and honestly report on the protests without spinning them as insignificant, violent or nut-cases.
Posts
