Why are so many people terrified of President Obama?

[elganned]

Why are so many people terrified of President Obama?


Sure, the source is from a pro life site, but the point they are making is real. The statement noted by this article is real, was really on the White House website [[not sure if it's still there), and is a scary attack on free speech.
Free speech is something that is supposed to be held as a high priority to those with liberal beliefs! What is going on here??



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33EKy...ww%2Edailypaul

The writers/distributors of this informatin/misinformation [[depending on your side of the arguement) WANT it to be read--that's why they put it out there.

So how is forwarding this PUBLIC information to the White House a "scary attack on free speech"?

Explain, please.

[vetalalumni]

The writers/distributors of this informatin/misinformation [[depending on your side of the arguement) WANT it to be read--that's why they put it out there.

So how is forwarding this PUBLIC information to the White House a "scary attack on free speech"?

Explain, please.

Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News is claiming the White House has violated the First Amendment. I missed the details of his explanation of the alledged violation, so can anyone explain exactly what he meant? If the judge is correct, and if a violation has occurred, why is no one pressing the issue?

Spoofing outbound emails without permission of the recipients has been extremely easy for many years. Anyone, including anyone of us, can spoof for free whenever they want to. And the email address of the sender can be altered to seem as if it came from Bill Gates, President Obama, or whomever you chose [[even a fake email address). Doubtful there is any violation there.

Is requesting suggestions about topics to address through the reality check site the violation?

Is seeking to better understand what new misinformation is bubbling up online or in other venues the violation?

[vetalalumni]

Judge Andrew Napolitano on Fox News is claiming the White House has violated the First Amendment. I missed the details of his explanation of the alledged violation, so can anyone explain exactly what he meant? If the judge is correct, and if a violation has occurred, why is no one pressing the issue?

Spoofing outbound emails without permission of the recipients has been extremely easy for many years. Anyone, including anyone of us, can spoof for free whenever they want to. And the email address of the sender can be altered to seem as if it came from Bill Gates, President Obama, or whomever you chose [[even a fake email address). Doubtful there is any violation there.

Is requesting suggestions about topics to address through the reality check site the violation?

Is seeking to better understand what new misinformation is bubbling up online or in other venues the violation?

Where is the detailed, precise explanation regarding any violations? These seemingly unfounded claims are coming from a judge no less.

Am I missing some detail here? Fact is, if Lowell's DYes database were hacked for all of our email addresses, these could be used in a spoof, and each of us could thereafter receive emails with David Axelrod, Sarah Palin, or Pee Wee Herman as the sender. And the culprit could place anything in the content of the email. Don't people realize this?

[oladub]

Is this the reference? If so, it is dated because the Obama administration is said to have eliminated this 'fishy' service. The ACLU was critical.

"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it,"
"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.
"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."
-Judge Andrew Napolitano

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal, Critics Say

[Lorax]

Since the Bush Crime Family rammed through the Patriot Act on fear and suspicion, what the White House does is perfectly within the law.

Now that the shoe's on the other foot, Rethuglicans are hopping mad that Obama should have the same rights as Bush's Imperial Presidency.

Payback's a bitch.

[vetalalumni]

Is this the reference? If so, it is dated because the Obama administration is said to have eliminated this 'fishy' service. The ACLU was critical.

"The White House is in bit of a conundrum because of this privacy statute that prohibits the White House from collecting data and storing it on people who disagree with it,"
"There's also a statute that requires the White House to retain all communications that it receives. It can't try to rewrite history by pretending it didn't receive anything," he said.
"If the White House deletes anything, it violates one statute. If the White House collects data on the free speech, it violates another statute."
-Judge Andrew Napolitano

White House Move to Collect 'Fishy' Info May Be Illegal, Critics Say

Thank you oladub. Please excuse me if I'm naive here, but is this not illogical?

# 1) In summary, is the following equation what is asserted?
Fishy = a conundrum = statute violation [[Privacy Act of 1974) = violation of the First Amendment.

# 2) And is the following not legal?
Communicating with the public, equipped with a better understanding of existing new misinformation [[i.e. information) they may be exposed to, and also with topical suggestions freely provided by that public.

Is # 2 illegal investigation of citizens?

So a federal agency [[i.e. Congress), and an associated specific Congressperson, may not respond to information received from citizens?

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

Staff associated with a dot gov site [[federal, state, or local) receiving emails may not respond on that website, or in subsequent public meetings? What about responding to post office mail [[which is either scanned or typed into a computer)? What about logged telephone calls? Notes a Senator takes at a town hall?

This is not clear.

[Detroitej72]

Why are so many afraid of President Obama?

1. The neo-cons are afraid he will prosecute them for war crimes.

2. The pseudo-Christian right wing is afraid he will legalize gay marriage.

3. The liberals are afraid he will be another Republican Light, just like Bill Clinton.

4. The far left sees him as more of the status-quo oligarchy that appears to control world events.

5. The racist's see him as a black man.

6. The activists Republican talking heads on AM radio fear his policies will better this country, and put them out of a job with the mainstream media.

7. The gun nuts fear him because they believe the lies spread by the right that he wants to steal all our guns and have a police state.

As far as anyone using logic and common sense, he isn't someone to fear, just somebody at the helm of the wheel, who we hope can set our country on the right coarse.

[oladub]

Thank you oladub. Please excuse me if I'm naive here, but is this not illogical?

# 1) In summary, is the following equation what is asserted?
Fishy = a conundrum = statute violation [[Privacy Act of 1974) = violation of the First Amendment.

# 2) And is the following not legal?
Communicating with the public, equipped with a better understanding of existing new misinformation [[i.e. information) they may be exposed to, and also with topical suggestions freely provided by that public.


Is # 2 illegal investigation of citizens?

So a federal agency [[i.e. Congress), and an associated specific Congressperson, may not respond to information received from citizens?

http://speaker.house.gov/contact/

Staff associated with a dot gov site [[federal, state, or local) receiving emails may not respond on that website, or in subsequent public meetings? What about responding to post office mail [[which is either scanned or typed into a computer)? What about logged telephone calls? Notes a Senator takes at a town hall?

This is not clear.

Your question was, "Where is the detailed, precise explanation regarding any violations?" I did a Google search and that is what came up. I offered no critique. The word 'fishy' is a reference to the Obama site, fla g@whitehouse.gov, that used that word. I think the Napalitano quotes speak for themselves. He claims there are two statute laws that sort of contradict each other or at least put the the White House in a bind.

Napolitano was referring to the Privacy Act of 1974, which was passed after the Nixon administration used federal agencies to illegally investigate individuals for political purposes. Enacted after Richard Nixon's resignation in the Watergate scandal, the statute generally prohibits any federal agency from maintaining records on individuals exercising their right to free speech.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/08...-get-info.html

I didn't find any reference to the First Amendment that you mentioned in a previous post, "Andrew Napolitano on Fox News is claiming the White House has violated the First Amendment." The Fox News link I referenced referred to statute law.

[vetalalumni]

Your question was, "Where is the detailed, precise explanation regarding any violations?" I did a Google search and that is what came up. I offered no critique. The word 'fishy' is a reference to the Obama site, fla g@whitehouse.gov, that used that word. I think the Napalitano quotes speak for themselves. He claims there are two statute laws that sort of contradict each other or at least put the the White House in a bind.

I didn't find any reference to the First Amendment that you mentioned in a previous post, "Andrew Napolitano on Fox News is claiming the White House has violated the First Amendment." The Fox News link I referenced referred to statute law.

Understood and appreciated [[your effort). My quick google early yesterday did not return what you found. Apparently what I heard yesterday morning on Fox was a rebroadcast [[August 07, 2009?). Found it on the youtubes machine today. At 0:36 and 2:55 the judge referred to violations, the Constitution, and free speech. He worded it very cleverly must be admitted.


Judge Napolitano more recently [[today?) specifically did not refer to the First Amendment. Rather the Privacy Act of 1974, and a more ambiguous drip drip effect [[beginning at 2:55).