Fact Checking the White House
Heritage Foundation
http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/reality/
Rather than debate the substance, the White House is in full campaign mode in order to label any opposition to its government-heavy health reform agenda as “misinformation” or “myths you’ve heard.” Case in point: The White House now has a taxpayer-funded Web site to “reality check” credible criticisms and arguments. Problem is the videos “debunking” each “myth” are low on facts. See the Heritage Foundation page to debunk the White House misinformation: http://fixhealthcarepolicy.com/reality/
October 20th Fund Raiser:
At a fundraiser in New York, President Obama praised Democrats for what he called their superiority to Republicans -- as far as critical thinking goes. He joked that Democrats are an opinionated, contentious group, and that Republicans "do as they're told," possibly referring to the GOP's fear of it's increasingly bellicose right wing.
"Fishy"
Following a furor over how the data would be used, the White House has shut down an electronic tip box — flagatwhitehousedotgov — that was set up to receive information on “fishy” claims about President Barack Obama’s health plan.
E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”
The “flag” service was introduced Aug. 4, with a White House blog post saying: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at a briefing shortly after the service launched: “We're not collecting names from those e-mails. … All we're asking people to do is if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote a letter to Obama raising privacy concerns about what the senator called an “Obama monitoring program.”
“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House,” Cornyn wrote. “So I urge you to cease this program immediately.”
In a later statement, Cornyn said: “Of course the White House is collecting names. … It is inevitable. Anyone with access to the flag@whitehouse.gov account has access to the names and email addresses that are collected in that account. … How are they purging names and e-mail addresses from this account to protect privacy?”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html#ixzz0OVxmA6QW
Two Lawsuits Filed against the "fishy" website:
http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1567
E-mails to that address now bounce back with the message: “The e-mail address you just sent a message to is no longer in service. We are now accepting your feedback about health insurance reform via http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck.”
The “flag” service was introduced Aug. 4, with a White House blog post saying: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”
White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said at a briefing shortly after the service launched: “We're not collecting names from those e-mails. … All we're asking people to do is if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names.”
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, wrote a letter to Obama raising privacy concerns about what the senator called an “Obama monitoring program.”
“I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward e-mails critical of his policies to the White House,” Cornyn wrote. “So I urge you to cease this program immediately.”
In a later statement, Cornyn said: “Of course the White House is collecting names. … It is inevitable. Anyone with access to the flag@whitehouse.gov account has access to the names and email addresses that are collected in that account. … How are they purging names and e-mail addresses from this account to protect privacy?”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html#ixzz0OVxmA6QW
Two Lawsuits Filed against the "fishy" website:
http://www.libertylive.org/blog_main/post.php?post_id=1567
A bigger picture of what is going on in America.
PLEASE take a minute to watch these videos and read the articles.
WorldNetDaily
July 30, 2009
No. 11 signs onto demand for eligibility proof H. R. 1503
A former judge now serving in Congress has agreed to cosponsor a bill demanding that future presidential candidates provide proof that they are eligible to hold the office. Rep. Louis Gohmert, R-Texas has become the 11th supporter of the bill proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla.
The provisions of H.R. 1503 are straightforward:
"To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee's statement of organization a copy of the candidate's birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution."
It also provides:
"Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years."
The sponsors' goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election, and it now is pending in a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives.
Other cosponsors are Reps. Kenny Marchant, R-Texas; Dan Burton, R-Ind.; Ted Poe, R-Texas; Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.; John Campbell, R-Calif.; John R. Carter, R-Texas; John Culberson, R-Texas; Bob Goodlatte, R-Va.; and Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas.
The Theory is Now a Conspiracy and Facts Don’t Lie
A MUST SEE:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14583
If the above link does not work, please use this one:
http://jb.blogtownhall.com/2009/09/14/the_theory_
is_now_a_conspiracy_and_facts_don%E2%80%99t_
lie.thtml
Where do you stand on eligibility ?
ISSUE: (H.R. 1503) would require all future candidates for President to provide documents (including a birth certificate) proving they are eligible to hold the office of President under our Constitution.
Dear Friend of the Constitution,
My name is Congressman Bill Posey.
I am now under an all-out assault by the liberal news media and special interests because of a bill I recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
This bill (H.R. 1503) would require all candidates for President in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United States - which is a requirement outlined in our Constitution.
My question to you is: "Where do you stand on this?"
Our Constitution states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
This is very clear.
"Natural born" means born in the United States.
For most Americans, birth certificates are a matter of public record.
The question is: Do you think we should just ignore the Constitution of the United States? Or do you think we should follow our Constitution?
Sincerely,
Congressman Bill Posey
Republican Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
Florida's 15th DistrictP.S.- I never imagined that simply introducing a bill that would require future candidates for the Presidency of the United States to present a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship upon filing for their candidacy would have kicked up such a firestorm.
As a result, I am now Target #1 of the left-wing hacks and the liberal media, who are now rolling out a multi-million-dollar advertising and media blitz to defeat me.
So I am in urgent need of support right now if I am going to survive this blistering assault and keep this Congressional seat in Conservative Republican hands.
Dear Friend of the Constitution,
My name is Congressman Bill Posey.
I am now under an all-out assault by the liberal news media and special interests because of a bill I recently introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.
This bill (H.R. 1503) would require all candidates for President in the future to provide documentation (such as a birth certificate) to prove they are natural born citizens of the United States - which is a requirement outlined in our Constitution.
My question to you is: "Where do you stand on this?"
Our Constitution states:
"No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."
This is very clear.
"Natural born" means born in the United States.
For most Americans, birth certificates are a matter of public record.
The question is: Do you think we should just ignore the Constitution of the United States? Or do you think we should follow our Constitution?
Sincerely,
Congressman Bill Posey
Republican Member of the U.S. House of Representatives
Florida's 15th DistrictP.S.- I never imagined that simply introducing a bill that would require future candidates for the Presidency of the United States to present a birth certificate or other proof of citizenship upon filing for their candidacy would have kicked up such a firestorm.
As a result, I am now Target #1 of the left-wing hacks and the liberal media, who are now rolling out a multi-million-dollar advertising and media blitz to defeat me.
So I am in urgent need of support right now if I am going to survive this blistering assault and keep this Congressional seat in Conservative Republican hands.
Conyers to Introduce Constitutional Amendment Making Health Care a “Right”
July 29
(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a recent National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.) said he is introducing a constitutional amendment that would establish health care as “a right” for all Americans.
“We need a real serious bill and, by the way, the fundamental question, ‘Is health care a constitutional right?’” he said. “I mean, do you have a right to health care in the American system of government or not?”
“Well, we believe that people do and we’re introducing a constitutional amendment just to make it real clear so that you don’t have to infer or assume that that’s a given and all that....
INVASION OF PRIVACY BY TRACKING YOU ON YOUR COMPUTER
A DEATH CULTURE?
Obama Regulatory Pick's Pro-animal Rights and Anti-First Amendment Activism
Written by Selwyn Duke
It's not surprising that Harvard man Barack Obama wouldn't share late writer William F. Buckley's sentiment that "I would rather be governed by 400 people out of the phone book than the whole faculty of Harvard." In fact, although he won't manage to fill the Congress with the staff of his alma mater, he certainly is making sure his administration is replete with its members.
And Obama is now making another addition to his many Harvard-honed underlings with the nomination of Cass Sunstein to be head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, a position commonly known as the "regulatory czar."
Sunstein, 54, a scholar specializing in administrative law, constitutional law, environmental law, and behavioral economics who taught alongside Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, is a man of rather eclectic ideology. Yet it is his apparent animal-rights radicalism and desire to stifle free speech that are currently raising eyebrows among critics.
As to Sunstein's animal-rights credentials, Michael Weber at environmentalist website PlanetSave.com happily reports, "Sunstein, a vegetarian, co-authored the book Animal Right: Current Debates and New Directions, and has advocated for much stricter regulations [sic] of almost every industry that uses animals, including entertainment, clothing, science and agriculture. The Center For [sic] Consumer Freedom claims that he will even attempt to outlaw meat-eating and hunting."
This radical agenda has inspired some opposition, the most recent of which is a "hold" — which prevents a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor — placed on Sunstein by Texas Senator John Cornyn. FOXNews.com tells us of Cornyn's doubts about the academic, writing, "'Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts,' the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com."
To be precise, lawyer-cum-animal rights activist Sunstein has advocated allowing people to sue on behalf of animals, a move that would be a boon to the legal profession but a bust for many other businesses.
Yet, while Sunstein may be radical, no one can accuse him of being one-dimensional. In fact, it seems he has managed to displease all of his observers some of the time. For example, he has upset some environmentalists with his advocacy of cost-benefit analysis in regulation, something Wall Street Journal editors have called a "promising sign." Of this leftward discontent, FOXNews.com writes, "Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that 'progressives would've screamed' if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post."
While Sunstein's animal-rights activism and seemingly dim view of the Second Amendment appear to be the focus at the moment, his position on the First Amendment is most troubling, frightening both the right and left. The New York Post's Kyle Smith registered his alarm, writing, "When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.... [Sunstein] explicitly supports using the courts to impose a 'chilling effect' on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them."
WorldNetDaily.com weighed in as well, writing:
[Sunstein] has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
. . . Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."
And, presumably, Sunstein and his fellow Harvard cohorts would be the ones to decide what constitutes anger, libel, opposing opinions, and excessive choices.
Yet Sunstein has issued reassurances of late, assuaging the fears of some critics. For example, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss said he would drop the hold he had placed on Sunstein because the academic had, writes FOXNews.com, "convinced him that he 'would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals,' and that he believes the 'Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense.'"
This brings us to a problem I have with Washington nomination processes, be it that of Sunstein, Sonia Sotomayor, or someone else. I ask, of what use is nominee testimony during confirmation hearings? After all, at issue here are people who are essentially at a job interview, and they will say what is necessary to land the position. It seems mostly like pomp and circumstance.
In other words, when assessing nominees, the focus should be what they said when not seeking a position, when they could let their hair down; the focus should be on past writings and reasoning, not present reassurances.
Isn't this just common sense? If you were assessing an individual's attitude toward you, would you place more stock in a few minutes of ingratiating words said to your face or years of slander uttered behind your back? The answer is obvious, but if any have trouble with the question, I suggest they read the fable of the scorpion and the frog and ponder the former's closing line. It was the scorpion's explanation for why he stung the naive, trusting frog despite promising not to do so. To wit: "I could not help myself. It is my nature."
Unfortunately, we have far too many frogs and scorpions in government and not enough wise owls.
It's not surprising that Harvard man Barack Obama wouldn't share late writer William F. Buckley's sentiment that "I would rather be governed by 400 people out of the phone book than the whole faculty of Harvard." In fact, although he won't manage to fill the Congress with the staff of his alma mater, he certainly is making sure his administration is replete with its members.
And Obama is now making another addition to his many Harvard-honed underlings with the nomination of Cass Sunstein to be head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs at OMB, a position commonly known as the "regulatory czar."
Sunstein, 54, a scholar specializing in administrative law, constitutional law, environmental law, and behavioral economics who taught alongside Obama at the University of Chicago Law School, is a man of rather eclectic ideology. Yet it is his apparent animal-rights radicalism and desire to stifle free speech that are currently raising eyebrows among critics.
As to Sunstein's animal-rights credentials, Michael Weber at environmentalist website PlanetSave.com happily reports, "Sunstein, a vegetarian, co-authored the book Animal Right: Current Debates and New Directions, and has advocated for much stricter regulations [sic] of almost every industry that uses animals, including entertainment, clothing, science and agriculture. The Center For [sic] Consumer Freedom claims that he will even attempt to outlaw meat-eating and hunting."
This radical agenda has inspired some opposition, the most recent of which is a "hold" — which prevents a vote on a nominee from coming to the floor — placed on Sunstein by Texas Senator John Cornyn. FOXNews.com tells us of Cornyn's doubts about the academic, writing, "'Sen. Cornyn finds numerous aspects of Mr. Sunstein's record troubling, specifically the fact that he wants to establish legal 'rights' for livestock, wildlife and pets, which would enable animals to file lawsuits in American courts,' the Republican's spokesman, Kevin McLaughlin, said in a statement to FOXNews.com."
To be precise, lawyer-cum-animal rights activist Sunstein has advocated allowing people to sue on behalf of animals, a move that would be a boon to the legal profession but a bust for many other businesses.
Yet, while Sunstein may be radical, no one can accuse him of being one-dimensional. In fact, it seems he has managed to displease all of his observers some of the time. For example, he has upset some environmentalists with his advocacy of cost-benefit analysis in regulation, something Wall Street Journal editors have called a "promising sign." Of this leftward discontent, FOXNews.com writes, "Environmentalists also say Sunstein's nomination is a potential blow to their efforts to roll back what they call Bush-era deregulation. Frank O'Donnell, director of Clean Water Watch, wrote that 'progressives would've screamed' if President Bush had nominated someone with similar views for the OIRA post."
While Sunstein's animal-rights activism and seemingly dim view of the Second Amendment appear to be the focus at the moment, his position on the First Amendment is most troubling, frightening both the right and left. The New York Post's Kyle Smith registered his alarm, writing, "When it comes to the First Amendment, Team Obama believes in Global Chilling.... [Sunstein] explicitly supports using the courts to impose a 'chilling effect' on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them."
WorldNetDaily.com weighed in as well, writing:
[Sunstein] has advocated a "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.
. . . Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.
"A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government," he wrote. "Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom's name."
And, presumably, Sunstein and his fellow Harvard cohorts would be the ones to decide what constitutes anger, libel, opposing opinions, and excessive choices.
Yet Sunstein has issued reassurances of late, assuaging the fears of some critics. For example, Georgia Senator Saxby Chambliss said he would drop the hold he had placed on Sunstein because the academic had, writes FOXNews.com, "convinced him that he 'would not take any steps to promote litigation on behalf of animals,' and that he believes the 'Second Amendment creates an individual right to possess guns for purposes of both hunting and self defense.'"
This brings us to a problem I have with Washington nomination processes, be it that of Sunstein, Sonia Sotomayor, or someone else. I ask, of what use is nominee testimony during confirmation hearings? After all, at issue here are people who are essentially at a job interview, and they will say what is necessary to land the position. It seems mostly like pomp and circumstance.
In other words, when assessing nominees, the focus should be what they said when not seeking a position, when they could let their hair down; the focus should be on past writings and reasoning, not present reassurances.
Isn't this just common sense? If you were assessing an individual's attitude toward you, would you place more stock in a few minutes of ingratiating words said to your face or years of slander uttered behind your back? The answer is obvious, but if any have trouble with the question, I suggest they read the fable of the scorpion and the frog and ponder the former's closing line. It was the scorpion's explanation for why he stung the naive, trusting frog despite promising not to do so. To wit: "I could not help myself. It is my nature."
Unfortunately, we have far too many frogs and scorpions in government and not enough wise owls.
