I am all in favor of exposing the Obama administration for the socialist/fascist agenda that it is, but I do not approve of alarmist methods or distortions. That said, everything this administration has done so far has been so mired in doublespeak and weasel-words, it's not easy to call "bullshit!" outright. That's because politicians know how to cover their tracks and dupe the average American Idol voter with feel-good slogans and vague notions ("Surely they couldn't meant THAT!"). So this next bit of info, well, you're going to have to work out yourself.
Glenn Beck ran a story about the "Cash for Clunkers" program that claimed "don't try this at home, kids...". Why? Because it involved logging onto the cars. gov site, where, once the user hit "submit," the government claims it "owns" your computer and files during the length of the visit. Beck IS known as an alarmist, and ran with the implications.
Watch the video, then continue reading:
Ok, now that you're caught up, read the "rebuttal" from Snopes.com, which claims this "false".
Read it? Good. Let's recap the rebuttal:
Snopes claims that this is "false," that Beck was spreading rumors. Yet, they acknowledge that the disclaimer on the CARS website WAS misleading and poorly written, with the following statement:
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.
This statement appeared prior to August third, and Snopes goes on to explain that
...the statement in question was actually tied to the 'Submit Transaction' function for the Dealer Support portion of the web site and related only to a login page for entry to the Enterprise Services Center (ESC) web site at esc.gov, which is used by automobile dealers (not consumers.) [Emphasis mine] who have been authorized and registered to participate in the CARS program. That statement did not apply to consumers who might use the site to obtain benefits from the CARS program; it was something consumers would never encounter in the ordinary use of the web site, and it was not something they had to agree to to claim benefits from the CARS program.
Now, Beck mentions that this is a dealer issue, yet "cautioned" (more like "scared") people watching into not clicking on the site, insisting that Obama would be reading your porn and using your credit cards. (Did Beck really say that, or am I spreading rumors now? If you watched the video, you'd know.)
And yet...Snopes does acknowledge the poorly worded terms of service via the EFF
Clicking "continue" on a poorly worded Terms of Service on a government site will not give the government the ability to "tap into your system... any time they want." The seizure of the personal and private information stored on your computer through a one-sided click-through terms of service is not “conscionable” as lawyers say, and would not be enforceable even if the cars.gov website was capable of doing it, which we seriously doubt. Moreover, the law has long forbidden the government from requiring you to give up unrelated constitutional rights (here the 4th Amendment right to be free from search and seizure) as a condition of receiving discretionary government benefits like participation in the Cars for Clunkers program.
The EFF article chastises the Beck piece as well regarding the scope of the matter, particularly the claim by Fox anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle:
They are jumping right inside you, seizing all of your personal and private information, and absolutely legal, Glenn, they can do it... They can continue to track you, basically forever, once they've tapped into your system, the government of course has, like, malware systems, and tracking cookies, and they can tap in any time they want.
My conclusion? The EFF article Title ("What Glenn Beck Gets Right and Wrong") is just a microcosm of the challenges that the opponents, nay ENEMIES of Obama will face for the rest of his term, having to fight "weasel-words." Notice that Beck was not WRONG per se, just "wrong" about the terms being dangerous to the consumers and their computers. He was right in principle, wrong on specifics. Responsible reporting would have followed up the claim with a response from the CARS.gov (as far as you can trust them.) There would be no unsubstantiated claims (though speculation is not off-limits.) But Beck STILL could have drawn out legitimate arguments, that even if the program does not hurt consumer computers in the short run, the very idea of a government program like this hurts in the long run. He could have focused on the FACT that the subjection of a car dealership to government control is a symptom of Fascism. I suspect the emphasis here on scaring the consumer, ignoring the implications for the dealers (and not just by Beck, but by Snopes.com), is a symptom of the "consumer culture" that treats creators and providers as "servants of the greater good."
(How many times already have we heard apologies for "poorly-worded" statements and claims? Sotomayor has apologized for her "Wise Latina" remarks, yet is supposedly "not racist...". Geitner faces no recriminations for his own tax evasion...many more examples, but the question is, are these just examples of mere incompetency, a la the famous "Bushisms," or are they convenient excuses anytime the administration gets called out on something that they are trying to "railroad" through? If the former, then it will make all those Leftists who attacked Bush's intelligence eat their words on just how "articulate" this administration was supposed to be...and as many claimed, will make Obama, in the end, nothing more than another Carter.)
That would be preferable to the alternative. But lest I be painted an alarmist myself, I will bring myself back to the theme here: as the White House snitching campaign rightly states, facts ARE stubborn things. Only, let's not let them own the moral high ground; let's fight this administration based on FACTS, not disinformation. It is tempting to fight dirty, but that's harmful to ourselves in the end, and will only create cynicism among those on the fence who might have been sympathetic. (And we really don't want to attract those who WANT to fight via dishonesty.) The Obama administration is already capitalizing on the "disinformation" angle; with the recent "call" for citizens to report "fishy conversation" about the Obama health care plan. They are COUNTING on the likes of Beck, Limbaugh, O'Reilly to play to the rumor mill, so they can say "GOTCHA! That's not what we said!!! See! The Republicans are fighting dirty!!!!) Meanwhile, they can continue with their agenda, because the particulars were challenged, not the principles.
Moral of the story: Being an honest opponent means not spreading disinformation and alarmism, while the administration continues to hide behind doublespeak. The enemies of Obama have to be on their "A-game." A-is-non-A for the Obamanation, but it is for us, because the more people like Beck get it "right but not right," the more it hurts our chances to expose the real issues. We need to fight Obama not on the concretes, but on the principles; THAT is how we will expose his double-speak. All the deception on the "issues" will continue to be obfuscated, unless we stick to, and highlight, the underlying principles of the individual. Don't be caught in argument with bad information based on the emotionalism of people like Beck; do your homework, get the REAL facts, know your REAL allies, and fight the REAL enemy.
If you see anybody publicly opposing President Obama’s plan to implement a government-centric overhaul of the health care system, the White House wants you to report that person (or persons) ASAP.
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.
"...they convinced her that Americans had no idea of the truth. A young Russian had said to her at a party in 1926, just before she left for America: 'When you get there, tell them that Russia is a huge cemetery and that we are all dying." WE THE LIVING told them.
When I talk to friends, acquaintances, and family who are not historians or philosophical, I know and deal with the fact that they haven't read Rand or don't understand the stakes here. But I am, quite frankly, in awe at the responses I've seen from some Objectivists to the election results. More shocking is their attempt to downplay the situation and turn on other Objectivists who ARE alarmed. Some even go the next step and try to intimidate concerned Objectivists into silence.
This will not do...
I can understand and sympathize with the need to stay "objective," to keep perspective, and context. I understand that the events of the past ARE the past, and that history does not repeat itself literally. And I understand that America is not the same as the Weimar Republic. That said, the POTENTIAL is still there for history to repeat itself in spirit, if not to the letter. If there is a potential for liberty to prevail, it is NOT guaranteed. I've read somewhere that the human body is never assumed to be FREE of life-threatening bacteria, which is why it needs an immune system. So does our country.
Now is NOT the time for sticking our heads in the sand to the real possibility of "change." Now is NOT the time for a Pollyana-view of the enemies of liberty. Sure, maybe "American Airhead" DOESN'T understand what that hammer and sickle truly stands for. DO NOT UNDERESTIMATE THEM. Take them at their word. Take that hammer and hammer home the point of what it really means. Do not allow for Jim Taggart and his "But I didn't mean it!".
"But ATLAS SHRUGGED is just a novel." Yes, a novel written with the intention of NOT becoming prophetic. That means that the supporters of its ideas CANNOT sit back and make excuses and apologies when the very gears that move society are stopped in motion. But fine, if ATLAS is too "forward-thinking" for some...let's look at WE THE LIVING instead. Let's look to the past. Let's look at what HAS happened. Let's look at the "Ominous Parallels."
Let's, as an example, take Obama at his word that he is not a socialist. Is he not, at least, then, a Social Democrat? So, let's say that...but we've seen the supporters flying the Soviet Flag in front of the White House in celebration...Obama's not a Marxist, but some of his supporters are...now, Social Democrats claim they don't support "sacking homes" or "smashing power looms...Obama doesn't want to fight, he wants to share his peanut butter...(you too, jelly...). He wants to bring socialism "peacefully..."
But it is clear that they still think "down with the sham liberty of capitalism..." The founding fathers...negative versus positive rights...we need change...but peacefully...
Obama COULD stay centrist...that's the hope...but it's not just Obama we're dealing with, is it? We have the people who voted for him to contend with. The people wearing soviet flags in my supermarket, in front of the White House...if we're taking Obama at his word that he's NOT a Marxist, should we, in turn, take THEM at their word that they ARE?
If they are indeed Marxist, well...how did the Communists feel about the Social Democrats in Germany?
"It did not take long for the political jokes to begin. Their butt was revolutionists who wanted peace and quiet; proletarian militants who made collaboration with the bourgeoisie an essential policy; socialists who refuse to socialize..." Obama promised change. The "people" want "change." Obama says that it will take "time..." but If Obama does NOT deliver... "Unlike the Social Democrats, the Communists were not willing to postpone the socialist revolution; they were impatient to have their ideal NOW."
Well, I think we know the rest of the story from there...what will be our story from HERE? We've already seen the WTO riots, the destruction at the Republican conventions...So don't tell ME that a Soviet flag in front of the White House is no cause for concern.
So, now what? If the past is past, and the future is unwritten, that leaves us in the present. But our present is someone's past, and someone's future. Will ATLAS be prophetic? Will WE THE LIVING have been written in vain?
To those who say that some of us are pessimistic, cynical, over-reacting, I say If liberty remains, it will be because of those of us who are willing to get angry over this and call it as it is. It will be because of those who LISTENED to Rand's "semi-autobiography" and the please of the dying, not those who denied it. Not those who sugar-coat the possibilities. Not those who are to afraid to leave their gilded cage. It is said that "the pessimists are right. But it's the optimists who change the world." This statement drops context badly. The optimists are those who are saying "yes we can." Can what? Think about it...
And finally, to those who want to "sell" Objectivism in this "new America," and are "afraid" to push too hard, lest we turn off potential "buyers": the analogy has broken down. We are not "selling" freedom" It should never have been for sale. The time for negotiations has passed. NO AMERICAN SHOULD EVER WORRY ABOUT OFFENDING A VOTER WITH A SOVIET FLAG. It is WE who should be outraged. Please, optimists, continue to look to the possibility that things will turn out alright. We all should. But do not discount the other possibility, and do not SILENCE those who speak out about the possibility. Our enemy is NOT Obama, he is just the face of the real enemy (and remember, it was under a REPUBLICAN administration that the banks were nationalized.) We are not fighting "Social Democrats," but people waving Soviet flags...we are not fighting "those who would share a peanut butter sandwich," but those who would take it from you and not even leave you the crust...We are not fighting those who want change over time, but those who voted for "CHANGE NOW!" We are fighting those who fight "the Virtue of Selfishness"...for the very reasons they are afraid of it.
As long as we have free speech, we should extend the olive branch. As long as we have private property, we should extend our branch through trade. But the moment, THE MOMENT, this "changes," the olive branch must be withdrawn...
To quote Stephen Colbert, "America, you're on notice."
Speak it, Glenn...(Hat tip to Marcus Bachler for pointing this video out.)
One thing stood out for me personally...Beck started talking about George Bernard Shaw. I briefly worked at the Prince Music Theater in Philadelphia as a graphic designer. The theater head, Marjorie Samoff, quoted Shaw ALL THE TIME regarding communism and capitalism ("unlike capitalism, ideas are free" or some such bullshit.")
That was my first professional design job, and I loved it, but I quit out of disgust (not only over that issue...that place had ISSUES.) If I needed FURTHER justificiation, this would have been it.
Republican congressman Paul Broun (GA), in warning that Obama is planning a "civilian defense force answerable only to him" (more on that later), also believes that "Obama would move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national security force," claims the A.P. article.
"Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally."
I've heard this claim elsewhere as well, but the person could not cite the source directly, so I went to the horse's mouth. The answer is not so clear-cut (as is the case with most political statements), but the very ambiguity SHOULD be a warning that Obama's actions on this matter need to be watched CAREFULLY and VIGILANTLY. ("The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.")
From ontheissues.org are a list of statements by Barack Obama on gun control, all sources cited in the article.
Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws
Q: Is the D.C. law prohibiting ownership of handguns consistent with an individual's right to bear arms?
A: As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it.
Q: But do you still favor the registration & licensing of guns?
A: I think we can provide common-sense approaches to the issue of illegal guns that are ending up on the streets. We can make sure that criminals don't have guns in their hands. We can make certain that those who are mentally deranged are not getting a hold of handguns. We can trace guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers that may be selling to straw purchasers and dumping them on the streets.
FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban
Obama was being misleading when he denied that his handwriting had been on a document endorsing a state ban on the sale and possession of handguns in Illinois. Obama responded, "No, my writing wasn't on that particular questionnaire. As I said, I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns."
Actually, Obama's writing was on the 1996 document, which was filed when Obama was running for the Illinois state Senate. A Chicago nonprofit, Independent Voters of Illinois, had this question, and Obama took hard line:
35. Do you support state legislation to: a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes. b. ban assault weapons? Yes. c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.
Obama's campaign said, "Sen. Obama didn't fill out these state Senate questionnaires--a staffer did--and there are several answers that didn't reflect his views then or now. He may have jotted some notes on the front page of the questionnaire, but some answers didn't reflect his views."
Q: You said recently, "I have no intention of taking away folks' guns." But you support the D.C. handgun ban, and you've said that it's constitutional. How do you reconcile those two positions?
A: Because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it's important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of law-abiding citizens use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have a violence on the streets that is the result of illegal handgun usage. And so I think there is nothing wrong with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets. And cracking down on the various loopholes that exist in terms of background checks for children, the mentally ill. We can have reasonable, thoughtful gun control measure that I think respect the Second Amendment and people's traditions.
Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing
Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?
A: I don't think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You've got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you've got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month
Obama sought moderate gun control measures, such as a 2000 bill he cosponsored to limit handgun purchases to one per month (it did not pass). He voted against letting people violate local weapons bans in cases of self-defense, but also voted in2004 to let retired police officers carry concealed handguns.
Source: The Improbable Quest, by John K. Wilson, p.148 Oct 30, 2007
Concealed carry OK for retired police officers
Obama voted for a bill in the Illinois senate that allowed retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed weapons. If there was any issue on which Obama rarely deviated, it was gun control. He was the most strident candidate when it came to enforcin and expanding gun control laws. So this vote jumped out as inconsistent.
When I queried him about the vote, he said, "I didn't find that [vote] surprising. I am consistently on record and will continue to be on record as opposing concealed carry. This was a narrow exception in an exceptional circumstance where a retired police officer might find himself vulnerable as a consequence of the work he has previously done--and had been trained extensively in the proper use of firearms."
It wasn't until a few weeks later that another theory came forward about the uncharacteristic vote. Obama was battling with his GOP opponent to win the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police.
Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities
Q: How would you address gun violence that continues to be the #1 cause of death among African-American men?
A: You know, when the massacre happened at Virginia Tech, I think all of us were grief stricken and shocked by the carnage. But in this year alone, in Chicago, we've had 34 Chicago public school students gunned down and killed. And for the most part, there has been silence. We know what to do. We've got to enforce the gun laws that are on the books. We've got to make sure that unscrupulous gun dealers aren't loading up vans and dumping guns in our communities, because we know they're not made in our communities. There aren't any gun manufacturers here, right here in the middle of Detroit. But what we also have to do is to make sure that we change our politics so that we care just as much about those 30-some children in Chicago who've been shot as we do the children in Virginia Tech. That's a mindset that we have to have in the White House and we don't have it right now.
Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality
I believe in keeping guns out of our inner cities, and that our leaders must say so in the face of the gun manfuacturer's lobby. But I also believe that when a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do ew need to punish thatman for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there's a hole in his heart, one that government programs alone may not be able to repair.
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban
KEYES: [to Obama]: I am a strong believer in the second amendment. The gun control mentality is ruthlessly absurd. It suggests that we should pass a law that prevents law abiding citizens from carrying weapons. You end up with a situation where the crook have all the guns and the law abiding citizens cannot defend themselves. I guess that's good enough for Senator Obama who voted against the bill that would have allowed homeowners to defend themselves if their homes were broken into.
OBAMA: Let's be honest. Mr. Keyes does not believe in common gun control measures like the assault weapons bill. Mr. Keyes does not believe in any limits from what I can tell with respect to the possession of guns, including assault weapons that have only one purpose, to kill people. I think it is a scandal that this president did not authorize a renewal of the assault weapons ban.
Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions
Principles that Obama supports on gun issues:
Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005