The Obama White House & The Privacy Act
I apologize in advance for the length of this post and for all of the links. With the Obama administration there frequently seem to be so many tangled threads, that when I start with one topic, I find a horrendous web of connect-the-dots!
If you thought the fishy emails controversy was over, well, the White House is protesting that it is not subject to the Privacy Act. On October 29th, Mark Tapscott asked:
Which part of judge’s decision does Obama White House not understand?
Last year, federal Judge Royce Lamberth ruled that the Executive Office of the President (EOP) is covered under the Privacy Act. In that decision, Lamberth tartly added that “…this court holds that under the Privacy Act, the word ‘agency’ includes the Executive Office of the President, just as the Privacy Act says.”
So this year, the Obama White House comes back in the same case and asks Lamberth to grant a motion for summary dismissal, arguing that “the White House is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and it necessarily follows that it is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act.”…
Judicial Watch head Tom Fitton explains the stakes in this long-running judicial clash:
“What the Obama administration is effectively saying here is that if the White House decides to illegally compile FBI files and violate your privacy rights, tough luck. It is disturbing that the Obama administration has taken the legal position that the Privacy Act does not apply to the White House and the Clinton FBI files scandal was not a scandal.”
In the Obama administration’s “Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment,” filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on September 17, the Obama Justice Department stated the following: “The White House is not an agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and it necessarily follows that it is not an agency subject to the Privacy Act.” However, the Privacy Act specifically lists the “Executive Office of the President” as an agency subject to the Act’s provisions.
U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth had repeatedly rejected this same legal argument, most recently in 2008…
You might also be interested in this September column from the Washington Times: EXCLUSIVE: W.H. collects Web users’ data without notice, about the White House collecting information from its social-networking sites.
On Monday night Dr. Dog linked to a BizzyBlog post about a GOTV effort by Organizing For America (OFA) for the NY-23 special election:
Organizing for America Potential Privacy Invasion, Robbery, Vote Fraud, and Worse in NY-23
Those on the OFA email list are receiving a list of 25 voters in NY-23. The information includes the voter’s name, phone number, age and gender. Those who call are told to ask for the time of day the person plans to vote and for the voter’s email address and cell phone number. Make sure you read the entire post at BizzyBlog. In an update he links to a Gateway Pundit post about Patrick Gaspard who has ties to Bertha Lewis of ACORN and who also works in the White House and who was a key player in getting Dede Scozzafava to endorse Owens.
Remember, Tom Fitton asked:
“Is the Obama defense of the FBI files scandal less about that Clinton scandal and more about what his White House is up to now?”
__________
H/T: Washington Examiner, Judicial Watch, Washington Times, Dr. Dog, BizzyBlog, Gateway Pundit.
[1]
They have absolutely no qualms about using our personal data…and no that the DOJ will block any and all attempts to reverse this course.
And when they have EVERY MEDICAL RECORD in the U.S. they will have even MORE power!
my son was born in 1984. I used to like that year…
[2]
Lets see. I have the name, address, phone and time that the person will not be at home. What could possibly go wrong with having that kind of data?
[3]
But, I thought the ends ALWAYS justify the means….
[4]
Dr. D., that was one of my first thoughts! I also thought of the callers having prior knowledge as to who was elderly and might be an easy mark.
[5]
RWY, according to Alinsky it does. Since this is the Alinsky WH, well.
I just read a column at Big Government by Matthew Vadum on Patrick Gaspard (short version of a longer one at The American Spectator).
So of course, Gaspard worked on Dede to endorse Owens.
That’s what I mean. There’s always, always more to uncover about this WH.
[6]
This country is in need of a serious overhaul, not just of politicians, but of bureaucrats, beltway insiders, “top” administration officials, liberal judges, etc.
[7]
This country is in need of a serious overhaul–TLS
We’re slated to remove 3 of the vermin tomorrow.
[8]
We need to exile some of these crapweasels. Is Devil’s Island still available?
[9]
mullet – why, is hell full?
[10]
Better still.
[11]
And not a drop of bottled water for the ba$tards.
[12]
wouldn’t do em any good anyways….
[13]
Right Wing
But, I thought the ends ALWAYS justify the means….
INC
RWY, according to Alinsky it does. Since this is the Alinsky WH, well.
.
.
Just remember it cuts both ways. They have the Chicago way and I have the Roman way. And if you want to know what the Roman way is – ask the Carthigians – if you can find one.
[14]
Yes, two can play the “ends justifies the means”, if it comes to it…
[15]
gnqanq, we may not have crossed the Rubicon yet, but by God we’re going to have to…soon.
[16]
Just remember it cuts both ways. They have the Chicago way and I have the Roman way. And if you want to know what the Roman way is – ask the Carthigians – if you can find one. — GN
Keep a couple of sacks of salt for that unruly neighbor down the street do you??
[17]
justrand – I do think we have crossed the Rubicon, we just don’t know it yet. Many times in history we learn looking back where the critical moment was. I think the same will be said of today in the future. Future generations will look back and see that we were on this path for some time.
When one looks back to the American Civil War, we know that we were on that path from the beginning. But we knew in the 1850’s it was near and it was unavoidable.
Looking back at World War II, we could see that the seeds were planted in how World War I ended and the burdens put on the Germans.
Myself, I believe the seeds for the current situation were planted and nurtured during the Clinton administration.
The financial situation has made the current state unsustainable. As I have said before, we are past the point of no return. We have crossed the Rubicon. In the future the federal government is going to get more repressive, we are starting to see the initial phases of it. We are going to see things we only thought existed in 3rd world countries come to pass.
Buckle up, the ride is going to get bumpy.
[18]
gn – Your analysis is right on. the progressive movement started much earlier but the financial crisis set the stage for the perfect storm so to speak. Much of that regulation was put into place by the Carter administration, but it was Clinton who pushed the proverbial snowball down the hillside. When I read the following article about Hillary Clinton, I realized that we were here long before Nov 2008, as I have posted many times.
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=18
In 1969 she wrote her 92-page senior thesis on the theories of radical Chicago organizer Saul Alinsky, author of Rules for Radicals (1971) and Reveille for Radicals (1947). A great admirer of Alinsky’s ruthless activist tactics, Hillary personally interviewed the famed author for her project. She concluded her thesis by stating: “Alinsky is regarded by many as the proponent of a dangerous socio/political philosophy. As such, he has been feared — just as Eugene Debs [the five-time Socialist Party candidate for U.S. President] or Walt Whitman or Martin Luther King has been feared, because each embraced the most radical of political faiths — democracy.”
[19]
gnqanq, I find your reasoning sound…and agree that we most likely HAVE crossed the Rubicon. Still, the finality of such an event, now as in Roman times, gives me serious pause and pain.
switching allegories…
In Gogol’s “Taras Bulba”, the Cossacks are betrayed and spend a generation in the wilderness, rebuilding their strength. We have no such “luxury”. We need to fight here and now…else within a generation we will be lost altogether.
[20]
justrand – like you I would rather fight here and now vs later. To quote Glenn Beck, “we can either crash the plane into the mountain or into the trees.”
I prefer the trees – there will be more survivors.
Hopefully we can minimize the damage and turn this around without the carnage.
[21]
GN,
The seeds were sown when the progressive tax system was instituted. When the idea of tax bands with varying rates that were all pretty low there wasn’t much of a problem. But as the rates kept getting higher and the exclusions were eliminated the problems have started. The tax rates today put the government on par with Neiman-Marcus.
Marcus is known for catering to a financially well heeled clientèle. High prices, sure. But outstanding service. But Marcus was only serving 2% of the buying public so they had to bend over backwards. If they lost that 2% there were toast. Well the government is in the same boat. They have the soak the rich campaign. They focus their efforts on that top 10% of the tax bracket. Only the govt isn’t giving any service they are screwing them over. The best example of the outcome of such efforts is what was reported last week in the papers in regards to NYC tax flight to other locations. Well that same thing can happen to the top earners in this country.
Widgets can be made practically anywhere. Move your plant and yourself to some low tax country. Hire people there, move some of your top talent from the US to there. The Feds can’t tax what’s not physically here. eg Halliburton.
And so it goes….
When the extraction no longer is sustainable then the benefits system must inherently collapse.
[22]
It wasn’t a long post. Good stuff, scary stuff.
This country is in need of an enema.
[23]
Amazing the additional stupidity that goes into run of the mill voter fraud. Hey, let’s rob them too! dude
[24]
It isn’t just the elected up on Capitol Hill that need banished back to hte land outside the beltway, but I believe that the long term entrenched federal employee must be separated from their belief in long time job stability/security.
These massive government agencies no longer exist to serve but exist to continue their existence.
I believe that every government program should be reviewed and every dollar of spending re-justified at a minimum every four years … but I would prefer at least every two. Anyone working for the federal government and living inside the Beltway should be required to spend a couple of years of service in different locations.
It isn’t just those who are elected and come to Washington and stay that are the problem… the problem is the entrenched deal making corruption and manipulation that exists in this city.
I believe in substantial reform of the way business is done in Washington. The elected no longer write these laws they pass.. they just patch together the lobbyist written documents into these 2,000 page bills.
Maybe if the bulk of laws were written by the elected and not the lobbyist we could accomplish two things… (1) slow down the process and (2) reduce the number of laws/regulations passed each session.