Snopes?!?!? ROTFLAMO!
Manny, in all due respect...
Who appointed Snopes as the internet's truth police?
What makes them pious and beyond bias?
75% of their so-called "debunking" consists solely of their
editorial spin and interpretation of the information.
Why not just call ACORN and ask them?
Anyway...
Per Snopes, this is the disclosure from the site,
and what's not to understand - other than the SNOPES editorial
spin, and the government quickly changing the verbiage.
Quoting Snopes:
Prior to 3 August 2009, the CARS.gov web site did include a
privacy statement declaring that:
This application provides access to the DOT CARS system. When
logged on to the CARS system, your computer is considered a
federal computer system and it is property of the United States
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.
---------
So why did they change it if they weren't doing anything wrong?
And why did so many people, including members of the media
start getting spam emails from the White House about
Obama-care, who never opted in to any White House list,
and received these messages at "private" email accounts?
youtube.com
*****************
reporternews.com
By PHILIP ELLIOTT Associated Press
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
"After the White House had consistently denied that anyone who
hadn’t sought the e-mails had received them, White House online
director Macon Phillip Phillips acknowledged that people may
have been added to the e-mail lists without their knowledge.
Weeks ago, White House officials asked the public to share
critics’ e-mails so they could correct misconceptions about
Obama’s health care overhaul. Because those e-mails are
official correspondence with the White House, they must be
preserved — unaltered — for decades and eventually released
to the public through the National Archives.
“I am concerned about the possibility that political e-mail
address lists are being used for official purposes,” Rep.
Darrell Issa, R-Calif., wrote to White House counsel Greg
Craig. “This, again, raises questions about this
administration blurring the lines between political and
official business.”
Issa asked how the White House was using a separate e-mail
account designed to track what it called “fishy” claims about
the health care plan — an account that was disabled Monday
afternoon.
“An ironic development is that the launch of an online program
meant to provide facts about health insurance reform has
itself become the target of fear-mongering and online rumors
that are the tactics of choice for the defenders of the status
quo,” Phillips wrote on the blog.
Issa said he wants to know what protections would be put in
place to prevent the e-mails from becoming an enemies list.
Phillips indicated there was little chance for cooperation
with Issa."
***************
No data basing?
Yeah right.
Not to mention, why did they take down the East German Stasi-esque,
report your neighbor, FLAG site, where the Obama Brownshirts
were supposed to report anyone who was speaking out against
Obama-care, and forward copies of emails, blog posts, and
web site addresses to the White House.
What was that all about?
So why did they shut the site down, if they weren't doing
anything wrong?
washingtontimes.com
"White House stops collecting 'fishy' e-mails"
"The White House on Monday shut down its controversial effort
to collect information about what opponents of the president's
health care overhaul were saying in person and on the
Internet, but said it will continue to track "misinformation"
through its Web site.
Republicans vowed to investigate the campaign, which they said
was reminiscent of President Richard Nixon's "enemies list"
and Big Brother in the novel "1984".
"This program was problematic from the very beginning, and we
called on President Obama to rescind it," said Jay Sekulow,
ACLJ's chief counsel. "This 'flagging' operation was nothing
more than an attempt to stifle free speech and intimidate
those who did not agree with the president."
*************
And you want us to believe that they didn't have any intentions
of tracking people after they sought permission to do just that?
washingtonpost.com
By Spencer S. Hsu and Cecilia Kang
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
The Obama administration is proposing to scale back a
long-standing ban on tracking how people use government
Internet sites with "cookies" and other technologies,
raising alarms among privacy groups.
A two-week public comment period ended Monday on a proposal by
the White House Office of Management and Budget to end a ban
on federal Internet sites using such technologies and replace
it with other privacy safeguards. The current prohibition, in
place since 2000, can be waived if an agency head cites a
"compelling need."
Some privacy groups say the proposal amounts to a "massive"
and unexplained shift in government policy.
In a statement Monday, American Civil Liberties Union
spokesman Michael Macleod-Ball said the move could "allow the
mass collection of personal information of every user of a
federal government website."
Even groups that support updating the policy, question whether
the administration is seeking changes at the request of
private companies, such as online search giant Google, as the
industry's economic clout and influence in Washington have grown rapidly.
Two prominent technology policy advocacy groups, the
Electronic Privacy Information Center and Electronic Frontier
Foundation, cited the terms of a Feb. 19 contract with Google,
in which a unnamed federal agency explicitly carved out an
exemption from the ban so that the agency could use Google's
YouTube video player.
Contract Terms
The terms of the contract, negotiated through the General
Services Administration, "expressly waives those rules or
guidelines as they may apply to Google." The contract was
obtained by EPIC through a Freedom of Information Act request.
"Our primary concern is that the GSA has failed to protect the
privacy rights of U.S. citizens," EPIC Executive Director Marc
Rotenberg said. "The expectation is they should be complying
with the government regulations, not that the government
should change its regulations to accommodate these companies."
Cindy Cohn, legal director for Electronic Frontier Foundation,
called the contract "troubling."
"It appears that these companies are forcing the government to
lower the privacy protections that the government had promised
the American people," Cohn said. "The government should be
requiring companies to raise the level of privacy protection
if they want government contracts."
The episode recalls a dispute in January when critics
complained that a redesigned White House Web site featured
embedded Google YouTube videos -- depicting events such as the
president's weekly address -- that used tracking cookies. The
White House and Google later reassured users that they had
stopped collecting data.
**************
Beck simply reported what the government told users in it's
own policy and privacy statements.
It's not like he knew differently and told a bald face lie,
like Obama did, claiming that the AARP had endorsed
the Health Care plan when it had not.
"AARP Denies Endorsement of Health Care Bill"
undertheinfluence.nationaljournal.com
Or like he did when on national television with Caterpillar's
CEO, claiming that his Stimulus bill would stop the layoffs
at CAT, when it wouldn't... and the CEO had to do a Press
Conference announcing the truth because of market rules.
"President Obama Lied About Caterpillar Rehiring Employees
if the Stimulus Passed"
americaswatchtower.com
Not to mention CAT's CEO having "buyers remorse" over
the entire Obama stimulus bill illusion...
michellemalkin.com
One of the primary tennants of "community organizing" among
radicals, is any means justifies the end, and outright lies
are the single most effective and oft` used weapon.
And concerning the attacks on Glenn Beck, see if Rule #13
from Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" sounds familiar
to what the Obama administration is doing to him...
RULE 13: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and
polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the
target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions;
people hurt faster than institutions.
-- They picked their taget -- Glenn Beck.
Beck's audience is huge, both on television and the radio,
and Beck had a huge influence in generating traffic at the
Tea Party events.
-- They froze it, personalized it, and polarized it.
Beck was attacked personally, being called "psychologically
unstable" by CNN and MSNBC. The communists always use
"mental instability" as a label to attack and imprison their
dissidents. Just ask Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.
-- They cut off sympathy.
This is the most despicable part. They played the race card
in calling Beck a racist, setting up anyone who publicly
defended him as a racist as well.
And if that wasn't enough, they said that anyone who referred
to Obama, or his policies as "socialist" were using that as
"code" for the "N" word.
Fwiw, MeThinks America is growing very tired of the race card.
You can only cry wolf so many times...
-- They cut off the support network.
The first thing this thugocracy did, was to go after Beck's
advertisers, cutting off financial support.
Here's a few more of Alinsky & Obama's "Rules For Radicals"
...know them and recognize them for what they are.
“1. Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy
thinks you have.”
“2. Never go outside the expertise of your people. When an
action or tactic is outside the experience of the people,
the result is confusion, fear and retreat, [and] the collapse
of communication.”
“3. Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.
Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.”
“4. Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can
kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules
than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”
Have no doubt about their hatred of Christianity, Christians
(who bitterly cling to their bibles, God, and guns) and
organized religion itself.
Wonder no more why Obama has religious symbols covered, or
removed when he gives speeches, such as at Georgetown, or why
he boycotted the 57 year old tradition of a National Day of
Prayer.
Barack H. Obama is NOT a Christian, never was, and never will be.
Everyone in Chicago knows this. Obama joined Trinity United
because when arriving in Chicago, one of his key political
advisers told him it's the first thing he should do.
Christians don't carry talismans to pagan Gods in their
pockets, nor practice Santeria in the White House.
Nor would they ever ridicule other Christians for "bitterly
clinging to their Bibles, their God, and their guns.
Obama is waging war by deception. And if you haven't realized
that part of their agenda is to wage a war against Christianity,
and any major organized religion (Islam) that will stand in
the way of "ursury", or the globalist-socialist agenda, you
soon will.
“5. Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost
impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the
opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.”
"6. A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”
“7. A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. Man can
sustain militant interest in any issue for only a limited time….
“8. Keep the pressure on, with different tactics and actions,
and utilize all events of the period for your purpose.”
“9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.”
“10. The major premise for tactics is the development of
operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the
opposition. It is this unceasing pressure that results in
the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the
success of the campaign.”
“11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will
break through into its counterside… every positive has its
negative.”
“12. The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.”
“13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize
it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should
be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition
must be singled out as the target and ‘frozen.’ …any target
can always say, ‘Why do you center on me when there are others
to blame as well?’ When you ‘freeze the target,’ you disregard
these [rational but distracting] arguments…. Then, as you zero
in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the
‘others’ come out of the woodwork very soon. They become
visible by their support of the target…’” |
