BluntPolitics.com

Technorati Tags: barack obama,spying on americans,whitehouse,collecting americans data on social network sites

(Folks this is an amazing article)

EXCLUSIVE:

Audrey Hudson (Contact)

EXCLUSIVE:

The White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its social-networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube without notifying or asking the consent of the site users, a failure that appears to run counter to President Obama’s promise of a transparent government and his pledge to protect privacy on the Internet.

Marc Rotenberg, president of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said the White House signaled that it would insist on open dealings with Internet users and, in fact, should feel obliged to disclose that it is collecting such information.

“The White House has not been adequately transparent, particularly on how it makes use of new social media techniques, such as this example,” he said.

Defenders of the White House actions said the Presidential Records Act requires that the administration gather the information and that it was justified in taking the additional step of asking a private contractor to “crawl and archive” all such material. Nicholas Shapiro, a White House spokesman, declined to say when the practice began or how much the new contract would cost.

Susan Cooper, a spokeswoman for National Archives and Records Administration, said the presidential records law applies to “social media” and to public comments “received by the president or immediate staff.”

Mr. Obama signed a memo in January stating that his efforts to maintain an open government would be “unprecedented” and “ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration.”

An Obama campaign document on technology pledged that, as president, Mr. Obama “will strengthen privacy protections for the digital age and will harness the power of technology to hold government and business accountable for violations of personal privacy.”

In a June 5, 2008, article in PC Magazine, Mr. Obama said, “The open information platforms of the 21st century can also tempt institutions to violate the privacy of citizens. We need sensible safeguards that protect privacy in this dynamic new world.”

The National Legal and Policy Center, a government ethics watchdog, said archiving the sites would have a “chilling effect” on Web site users who might wish to leave comments critical of the administration.

Ken Boehm, a lawyer and chairman of the center, also disputed that the presidential records law applies, because the comments are pasted onto a third-party Web page and not official correspondence with the president.

“If the White House has nothing to hide, why is this cloaked in secrecy? Why won’t they make the dollar amount this is going to cost public?” Mr. Boehm asked. “I don’t think there is an expectation that this is being captured by the government and saved.”

But Patrice McDermott, director of OpenTheGovernment.org, called the proposal “a positive development because it demonstrates a commitment from the Obama administration to meet its obligations under the Presidential Records Act.”

“Additionally, I am encouraged to see the administration recognizing that it must find a way to handle the ever-expanding amount of data generated electronically. I hope the rest of the executive branch will learn from the president’s leadership on this issue,” Ms. McDermott said.

Shahid Buttar, executive director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee, called for congressional oversight of the practice of collecting data.

“Given the administration’s disappointing secrecy in other contexts, the Bill of Rights Defense Committee encourages Congress to conduct oversight to ensure compliance with the law, maximize transparency and protect individual privacy,” Mr. Buttar said.

According to the law, the term “presidential records” means documentary materials “created or received by the president, his immediate staff or a unit or individual of the Executive Office of the President whose function is to advise and assist the president, in the course of conducting activities which relate to or have an effect upon the carrying out of the constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President.”

“It includes any documentary materials relating to the political activities of the president or members of his staff, but only if such activities relate to or have a direct effect upon the carrying out of constitutional, statutory, or other official or ceremonial duties of the President,” the law says.

David Almacy, who served as President George W. Bush’s Internet director, said the Bush administration did not use the then-fledgling social-networking sites in the same manner as the Obama White House, except to upload presidential speeches onto iTunes. The White House, however, did archive comments posted to its official Web site.

The proposal issued Aug. 21 calls for a contractor to “crawl and archive” social-networking Web sites where the White House maintains an official presence on seven networks: Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Flickr, YouTube, Vimeo and Slideshare.

The collection will include the comments, tags, graphics, audio and video posted by users who don’t work for the White House.

The White House has more than 333,000 fans on Facebook, and posts updates several times a day that draw hundreds of thousands of comments, both positive and negative. The White House has more than 1 million followers on Twitter and more than 87,000 subscribers on YouTube, where more than 400 videos of the president and White House briefings are posted.

Washington Post

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says President Obama’s support for a government-run — or public — insurance option has not changed. Here is a sampling of what the president has said about the public option.

March 26 And to say we are going to allow anybody to get health insurance — and if you’ve got a preexisting condition you’re not going to be excluded, but you’re going to be able to obtain health insurance; and if you can’t obtain it through a private plan, there is going to be a public plan that is available in some way to give you insurance, or insurers are obligated to provide you with insurance in some way — now, that’s a principle.

June 15 Let me also address an illegitimate concern that’s being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a Trojan horse for a single-payer system.

Now, I’ll be honest. There are countries where a single-payer system works pretty well. But I believe — and I’ve even taken some flak from members of my own party for this belief — that it’s important for our reform efforts to build on our traditions here in the United States.

So when you hear the naysayers claim that I’m trying to bring about government-run health care, know this: They’re not telling the truth.

June 24 A lot of the objection to the public option idea is not practical, it’s ideological. People don’t like the idea of government being involved. But keep in mind that the two areas where government is involved . . . in health care — Medicare and the VA — actually, there’s pretty high satisfaction among the people who participate.

July 7 I am pleased by the progress we’re making on health-care reform and still believe, as I’ve said before, that one of the best ways to bring down costs, provide more choices and ensure quality is a public option that will force the insurance companies to compete and keep them honest.

July 18 Any plan I sign must include an insurance exchange — a one-stop-shopping marketplace where you can compare the benefits, costs and track records of a variety of plans, including a public option to increase competition and keep insurance companies honest, and choose what’s best for your family. And that’s why we’ll put an end to the worst practices of the insurance industry. No more yearly caps or lifetime caps. No more denying people care because of preexisting conditions. And no more dropping people from a plan when they get too sick. No longer will you be without health insurance, even if you lose your job or change your job.

Aug. 15 Now, the insurance companies have come back and said, "Well, that’s not fair, because nobody can compete against the government." They have a legitimate point if, if what’s being done is the government is . . . subsidizing that government plan — essentially taking taxpayer money and saying, "Here, we’ll just keep on spending money regardless of whether you run a good operation or not," then it’s hard for insurance companies to compete against that. And by the way, it would be wildly expensive for taxpayers.

So I’ve already said a public option can only work if they have to collect premiums just like a private insurer and compete on a level playing field.

By Ric Joyner, CEBS, GBA, CFCI

Inside the beltway information is showing the Democrats are up against the wall with rising unemployment, cap and trade (tax on energy), health care and a deficit that is the biggest in history. Their constituents are speaking up against the “change” agenda that could stop job growth. With that said, the House came out with today with their version of Health Care Reform. A synopsis of the bill from Kilpatrick Stockton follows.

—————————————————————————————–

Mark Stember, JD

While the Senate committees have been bogged down with discussions over taxing employer provided health coverage, the House Ways and Means Committee has been furiously working on a draft health care bill that uses a different funding source.  Today, the House Ways and Means Committee released a draft health care reform bill that is projected to cost approximately $1 Trillion over 10 years.  The main funding source for this draft bill is a surtax on high income individuals.  The graduated surtax starts at 1% for married couples with incomes over $350,000 and tops out at 5.4% for married couples with incomes greater than $1 Million.  The surtax is expected to raise slightly over half of the cost of the legislation.  

Other highlights of the draft bill include the following:

•  
  • Individuals will be required to purchase health coverage, or pay an income tax penalty.
  • Employers will be required to either provide health insurance coverage that meets certain minimum benefit and contribution requirements, or pay a penalty based on 8% of their payroll.  The minimum employer contribution would be 72.5% for individual coverage and 65% for family coverage.  The minimum benefits include preventive care with no cost sharing, as well as dental and vision coverage for children.  Annual out of pocket maximums are also capped.
  • The legislation would create a public health insurance option.
  • Pre-ex exclusions would be prohibited.
  • Changes are made to Medicare and the Medicare Part D benefit is improved.

While the draft bill is comprehensive in both size and scope (dropping in at over 1,000 pages), it is only a starting point.  The House Ways and Means Committee has scheduled a mark-up for later this week, and it must be voted on by the entire committee, and then the full House.  Afterwards, it would need to be reconciled with whatever bill is voted out of committee and then approved by the full Senate.  We are still hearing that the leadership would like to have the full House and Senate have their respective bills done by the August recess.  However, even with today’s release, that timeline still appears to be aggressive.

The employee benefits committee of KS has a summary of the bill at this link.

First, what did Barack say regarding “state-ism” and second what is state-ism? Barack said (paraphrase) “that rich people did very well and could afford to be taxed more on their giving because they gained from the economy”.The problem with this thinking is that these people gained in a good economy because of right choices and their individual circumstance. Not because the “state” gave this to them. These people don’t owe the government anything more than a small obligation. This leads into statism. State-ism is where liberal left wing progressives (backwards) want everyone to get their “sustenance” from the state. Healthcare, money, jobs everything. This type of thinking destroys invidual achievement and dignity. Yes dignity. When people are faced with hardship they change and have two choices. Either they make right choices or make wrong choices. State-ism wants to stop people from making wrong choices thus crippling their growth.

This thinking is leads directly to socialism (state welfare society) and then to communism. God help us.

Yes. He hopes that by taxing the rich, and corporations that the job loss will trickle down to the rest of the country putting thousands out of work. Then he can put those people to work building bridges and roads thus keeping them enslaved to the government. Sound sarcastic? It is not meant to be because fear of Obama’s taxes and capitol gains increases is driving away investors to the market. These fears are only making a bad economy worse.

Read the article by Investors Business Daily today:

VIEWPOINT

Stocks Pay Price Of Coming Tax Increases

GROVER G. NORQUIST

   Some Americans are concerned that if Sen. Barack Obama is elected president, his plans for higher taxes on personal income, capital gains, dividends and corporations will damage the economy.
   It is a little late to be worrying about this. We are already in the midst of the Obama recession. But to be fair, we should give House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid at least equal billing.
   Why has the stock market collapsed? Why wouldn’t it?
   In 2003, the Dow stood at about 8000. The then-Republican Congress and President Bush reduced the capital gains tax to 15% from 20% and the tax on dividends to 15% from 35%. In the next three years, the Dow rose 50% to 12,000, and household net worth rose to $56 trillion from $40 trillion.
   This is the “wealth effect” of taxation. If you own stock in a company and the tax on earnings by that company is reduced, the value of the stock increases. If taxation on the company is increased, you would pay less for the same stock.
   Microsoft stock is worth less if you attach the boat anchor of higher capital gains taxes, higher corporate income taxes and higher dividend taxes. But this is not what will happen if Obama is elected. It’s what already happened on Nov. 7, 2006, when Democrats won the majorities in the House and Senate.
   The tax cuts of 2003 that sparked the increase in national wealth are scheduled to end on Jan. 1, 2011. It does not require a President Obama to make those taxes increase. All it requires is for the Democrats to control either the House or the Senate with enough votes to stop legislation to extend the tax cuts.
   And the top individual tax rate, now at 35% but also paid by many small businesses, will snap back up to Bill Clinton’s 39.6% on Jan. 1, 2011.
   Pelosi and Reid both voted against the tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. We know where they stand. Every Democrat in the House and Senate has voted repeatedly for higher taxes since that party became the majority in January 2007, and House Ways and Means Chairman Charlie Rangel has unveiled his “mother of all tax hikes” to increase taxes by $38 billion over 10 years.
   Presidents don’t cut taxes or raise taxes. They sign the bills sent to them by Congress.
   Obama originally campaigned for raising the dividend tax to 39.6% from 15%. Then, when his contributors from Wall Street pointed out how devastating that would be to the stock market, he changed his rhetoric to calling for an increase to “only” 20%. But if Congress does nothing, the dividend tax increases to 39.6% on Jan. 1, 2011.
   Americans for Tax Reform worked with John Rutledge to calculate how Obama’s and McCain’s tax policies would affect the stock market. The calculator appears at ATR’s Web site, www.atr.org.
   You can enter the size of your 401(k), and it will calculate its value under four different scenarios: if Obama’s tax increases pass; if McCain’s tax cuts are enacted; if Congress’ plans are enacted; and if Americans for Tax Reform’s fantasy tax cuts, including abolishing the capital gains tax, were made law.
   The Obama tax plan will reduce the value of the stock market and your 401(k) by 6%. The House Democrat plan will drop the market by 16%. Remember, Obama cannot impose his tax plan — he has to sign what Congress sends him, so Congress’ tax plans are more important than Obama’s campaign speeches.
   If Republicans won the House and Senate and McCain’s tax plans were enacted, the market and your 401(k) would increase by 46%. And if you pass the McCain plan and add ATR’s abolition of the capital gains and dividends tax, the market and your 401(k) would increase by 58%.
   But the market can read the newspapers and is aware that the Democrats control the House and Senate now and likely will for the next two years. This means the market gains since 2003 due to lower capital gains and dividend taxes will disappear.
   The market has already begun to drop in anticipation of the coming tax increases. The Pelosi-Reid-Obama recession has already started.
   Of course, if Obama and the Democrat leaders in Congress have tax hikes and regulatory burdens planned that they haven’t shared publicly, the market will drop even further. It can get worse.
   
Norquist

is president of Americans for Tax Reform and author of “Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government’s Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives.”

I remember when conservatives were deemed by the left… neo-cons. I had to research what this meant.

What do neoconservatives believe?

“Neo-cons” believe that the United States should not be ashamed to use its unrivaled power – forcefully if necessary – to promote its values around the world. Some even speak of the need to cultivate a US empire. Neoconservatives believe modern threats facing the US can no longer be reliably contained and therefore must be prevented, sometimes through preemptive military action. Source Christian Science Monitor downloaded today at 10:03pm http://www.csmonitor.com/specials/neocon/neocon101.html

I have come up with the left wing Democrats version of neo con. Neo Comms aka Neo Communists.

What do Neo Comms believe:

“We want our country to be liked by Europe, and thus we want to model our society after the government-run societies of Europe which are built on fairness. Since Americans don’t really understand socialism we can create government programs that will “take care of people”, and make them beholden to us thus Americans will elect our philosophies, and thus move American toward communism instead of consumerism”.  Our tag line is: “You deserve more taxes because we say so.”

Scary…

I went to the Obama web site and used the tax refund calculator. This showed with my income that I would receive about $1340 tax cut. First, this is not a tax cut. Second, this is a refund check. I will promptly return this to the government from whence it came because I didn’t earn it, and it came out of someone else’s pocket who did earn it.

By Ric Joyner

Yes. How? By giving a tax break to people who don’t pay taxes now. This is buying votes. This is putting people on welfare. This is socialism.

McCain has it right. Give businesses a tax break and they will put people to work. Smart.

Barack gives money away which isn’t his to give.

I found this comment on the web which is funny and sad:

The Democratic Party: We do everything for the children, including aborting them

The Democratic Party - We’re so compassionate, we give YOUR money to the poor (er, whatever’s left)!

The Democrat Party - Give us your tired, your weak, and your poor, we’ll make ‘em worse off.

Starting To Pay Price For Our Protectionism (investors business daily)

Trade: As Obama makes political hay off protectionism and promises a new Smoot-Hawley era, it’s no surprise our trading partners are beginning to look to other markets — such as Europe. It’s a warning.

   Our No. 1 trading partner, Canada, isn’t stupid. When Obama threatened last February to rewrite the North American Free Trade Agreement on his own terms, our northern ally started looking abroad to other markets.
   They found a big one in Europe, which seems to have few hangups about increasing exports and signing free-trade treaties. Last Friday, Canada and the European Union held the first talks toward an eventual free trade agreement between the two.
   When this goes through, $27 billion in new trade is expected by 2014, according to a joint EU-Canada study. Canada will add an extra 0.8% to its GDP and see income gains of $11.1 billion from the new jobs and higher salaries coming in from Europe.
   After all, if free trade with the U.S. bolstered Canada’s economy and standard of living by a factor of four since 1994, it makes sense to do more of what brought in that wealth.
Europe’s $14 trillion market is an attractive alternative to the U.S. for the Canadians, if it comes to that, and the Europeans are happy to add Canadian investment to the $500 billion investment its three largest economies drew in 2007.
Canada isn’t the only one responding to these chill trade winds blowing in from the Washington elites in election season.
Colombia is also preparing to sign a free-trade deal with Europe, as its own free-trade accord with the U.S. languishes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blocked it in Congress last April.
U.S. allies are wise to seek other partners no matter what the U.S. climate — the U.S. downturn no doubt plays a role too. But it started with noises out of the U.S. about pulling up the drawbridge.
With a global downturn, free trade makes more sense than ever. That ought to be an election issue for the U.S., which needs to stay globally competitive. Sadly, it’s not.
Canada and Colombia are effectively defending themselves from the anti-trade vortex in the U.S. by turning to other markets. The Europeans have no intention of imitating the mistake made by the U.S. “It’s never a good sign when the U.S. becomes protectionist,” Philippe Favre, special ambassador for international investment and chairman of Invest in France Agency, the country’s foreign investment arm, said in recent comments to IBD.
   Like many European officials, Favre thinks the sentiment has been brewing for a while. “If you look at the last two or three years, there was the U.S. preventing foreigners from buying ports,” he said. “The Chinese wanted to buy an oil company and they were stopped. Then you have the contract for (air refueling) tankers refused to a European company (EADS).”
   Another failure was the World Trade Organization talks. “We have seen since 9/11 a U.S. trend to be more wary of the rest of the world,” Favre said. “We probably underestimated the impact (of the attack) on the people and the country in the EU.”
   Agree or disagree, there’s no doubt that protectionism will make America poorer and less influential, protecting nothing. Outsourcing is particularly full of misperceptions.
   “Look at the auto industry — Japan started by exporting to Canada and the U.S., and now produces cars in the U.S. They did it because the market itself is in the U.S. We see exactly the same thing in Europe. More car plants are going up in Germany and France than Bulgaria and Romania, even though the labor costs are lower there.”
   Michael Pfeiffer, managing director of Invest in Germany, told IBD that exports are no threat: “We (Germans) are the largest exporters in the world — it’s something we do. We have to do it.”
   Why? Germany doesn’t have the diversified economy America does. “One-quarter of German people are employed for export industries,” said Pfeiffer.
   With the possibility of a protectionist Democratic president (Barack Obama) working with a protectionist Democratic Congress, the U.S. may be the odd man out when it comes to free trade.
   Pity. Because free trade, as any economist will tell you, inevitably boosts the economies of those who engage in it. So others, like Canada, Colombia and Europe, will continue down the free-trade path — toward greater wealth for their citizens — while the U.S. sits on the sidelines.
   The world will decide it isn’t going to wait for Nancy Pelosi to come around on free trade — it’s going to leave the U.S. in the dust.

By Ric Joyner

As I watched the debate it became clear to me that the election  is over. As Charles Krauthammer said tonight on Fox News, Obama was presidential, cool, calm and collected.

McCain went on the attack, but Obama deflected well. Obama tends to say a lot of words without much content which was boring.

Regardless, the game is over. Obama-3 wins, McCain 0. The headwinds are blowing against McCain. The wind is called “fed up” and fearful Americans.

Republicans/Bush lost their leadership in several areas.

They had control of the House and Senate and went to the trough to feed and accomplished little.

Started the war in Iraq that is prolonged and barely manageable.

Couldn’t handle a disaster correctly aka Katrina

Looked in the eyes of an X KGB and saw his soul. (Not good foreign policy)

Oversaw a growing economy and then allowed it to go bust through the housing crisis.

Proposed to bailout Wall Street (which is a misnomer)

Didn’t complete energy independence and allowed the average American to pay higher gas prices.

Created massive deficits fighting a war and other spending

Virtually nothing was done to help the 15% who are uninsured.

Did I mention a war?

As Charles Krauthammer said, “not even the great Ron Reagan could stand up against the economy collapsing…” And I will add the incredibly poor job the Republicans did when they had control.

Charles also said this was the year of the Democrats even though they played a major role in the housing crisis, prefer not to drill for energy independence and want higher taxes on the very people that create jobs.

Our country is headed for a form of socialism under Obama especially in light of a Democratically controlled Congress. Perhaps this is the leadership America is looking for…the Left sure thinks so.

But, the Republicans deserve the thrashing they have gotten and Americans are rightly seeking a change. Obama wants to deliver the change and I can’t fault him for that. His world view is not mine and vice versa.

I can’t vote for Obama because of my conservative roots.  And will still vote McCain.

I don’t respect President Bush any longer. The turmoil that has accompanied his administration is incredible.

I hope my fellow Republicans and Conservatives don’t blame the press, or that Obama cheated, but take a hard look in the mirror, and sees the problem for what it is. Lack of vision, lack of leadership and lack of integrity. The other helpful focus would be to stop the critique of the other party and keep our “side of the street clean”.

Only then can the party rebuild. But the vision has to be the American People, lower taxes, access to health care, lower spending and smaller government.