Performance Boats Forum banner

Is the WH breaking the Law?


  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Temporarily Pacified!
Joined
·
5,554 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
According to a law on the books:

According to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, United States agencies, including the Executive Office of the President shall, “maintain no record describing how any individual exercises rights guaranteed by the First Amendment unless expressly authorized by statute or by the individual about whom the record is maintained or unless pertinent to and within the scope of an authorized law enforcement activity.”
 

·
Temporarily Pacified!
Joined
·
5,554 Posts
Discussion Starter #3

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,418 Posts
Some one who has yet to provide a certified birth certificate is going to be the down fall of this country.

The former USSR and all the other eastern bloc countries tried his crap long ago and we now see where that got them, I feel pitty for my gandchildren, but take solice in the knowledge I'll be gone before the US hits rock bottom.

Time for the silent majority who are too busy just trying to make it through another day to speak up loud and clear about husseins inept policies and croonies running this country into the dung pile.
 

·
Red Blooded American
Joined
·
15,853 Posts
I've said it many times before and I'll repeat it now:
"If your worst enemies could choose our administration to ruin our country from the inside out, they'd put the ones we now have at the helm."
Sotomayer included as of an hour ago.
 

·
E-7 Sheepdog (ret)
Joined
·
6,834 Posts
No, I do not believe he is, BUT, that is due to the verbage of the law.

IF the administration connects INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE to what they are saying, and maintains any reccord of it (other than obviously public people like broadcast radio shows), then yes, he will be breaking the law.

So far, is is not very possible for the govt to take info sent to them by "supportive rats", unless of course the rats include people's names (not e-mail address or message board nickname) and connect it to people.

POSSIBLE, yes, I am not greatly conspiratorial, and refuse to be, so, for the moment, I must, in good concience, say "no".

It IS a very fine difference between the Obama Administration and the Stalin Administration.

The NKVD, O has not created tham, YET. (feel free to pick your favored acronym/name, the Stasi, The Gestapo, etc, The NKVD became the KGB after Stalin's death)

I myself am a "likely domestic terrorist or domestic terrorist trainer/aide", according to DHS.
Not according to Bush's DHS, only according to Obama's DHS, within the last 4 months have I (and Donzi, and many others) been so "identified".
My state has, on the other hand, grnated me the right to be armed in most places.
I guess DHS didn't "explain" me to them well enough.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,810 Posts
No, I do not believe he is, BUT, that is due to the verbage of the law.

IF the administration connects INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE to what they are saying, and maintains any reccord of it (other than obviously public people like broadcast radio shows), then yes, he will be breaking the law.

So far, is is not very possible for the govt to take info sent to them by "supportive rats", unless of course the rats include people's names (not e-mail address or message board nickname) and connect it to people.

POSSIBLE, yes, I am not greatly conspiratorial, and refuse to be, so, for the moment, I must, in good concience, say "no".

It IS a very fine difference between the Obama Administration and the Stalin Administration.

The NKVD, O has not created tham, YET. (feel free to pick your favored acronym/name, the Stasi, The Gestapo, etc, The NKVD became the KGB after Stalin's death)

I myself am a "likely domestic terrorist or domestic terrorist trainer/aide", according to DHS.
Not according to Bush's DHS, only according to Obama's DHS, within the last 4 months have I (and Donzi, and many others) been so "identified".
My state has, on the other hand, grnated me the right to be armed in most places.
I guess DHS didn't "explain" me to them well enough.
One of the things people don't realize is that any correspondence that is done with the White House HAS to be archived. This means names or the person being reported, e-mail addresses, and the person that sent it. This fact alone goes against the law. had the DNC done this it would be completely legal. The fact that it is being done at the White House makes it illegal. And they are collecting names and e-mail address of the people. That's part of what they are asking for. The other part is content.
I even heard from an ACLU civil rights attorney that, as hard as it was for him to say because he was an avid Obama supporter, what is being done is completely illegal.
There was also a civil rights attorney on Fox News today that said the same thing. She was actually choking on her words wanting not to say what is being done was illegal but she did.
 

·
"On the road again..."
Joined
·
9,356 Posts
One of the things people don't realize is that any correspondence that is done with the White House HAS to be archived. This means names or the person being reported, e-mail addresses, and the person that sent it. This fact alone goes against the law. had the DNC done this it would be completely legal. The fact that it is being done at the White House makes it illegal. And they are collecting names and e-mail address of the people. That's part of what they are asking for. The other part is content.
I even heard from an ACLU civil rights attorney that, as hard as it was for him to say because he was an avid Obama supporter, what is being done is completely illegal.
There was also a civil rights attorney on Fox News today that said the same thing. She was actually choking on her words wanting not to say what is being done was illegal but she did.
It is a time of awakening for many whose compassions for liberlism are now seeing what they put in office is a fraud and what they were led to believe is lies. It's our best hope at ridding the nation of this tyrant at the polls.
 

·
Temporarily Pacified!
Joined
·
5,554 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
One of the things people don't realize is that any correspondence that is done with the White House HAS to be archived. This means names or the person being reported, e-mail addresses, and the person that sent it. This fact alone goes against the law. had the DNC done this it would be completely legal. The fact that it is being done at the White House makes it illegal. And they are collecting names and e-mail address of the people. That's part of what they are asking for. The other part is content.
I even heard from an ACLU civil rights attorney that, as hard as it was for him to say because he was an avid Obama supporter, what is being done is completely illegal.
There was also a civil rights attorney on Fox News today that said the same thing. She was actually choking on her words wanting not to say what is being done was illegal but she did.
What is sad is these Obama supporters across the board like Ultra, 1986 and others on the board don't want to admit and hold him accountable.....that’s our responsibility first and foremost when we put them in office. I wrote e-mails to the White House about the bailouts last year......just like I am today. Liberals don't understand this is not a party issue, this is an American issue!

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,169 Posts
Blame

What is sad is these Obama supporters across the board like Ultra, 1986 and others on the board don't want to admit and hold him accountable.....that’s our responsibility first and foremost when we put them in office. I wrote e-mails to the White House about the bailouts last year......just like I am today. Liberals don't understand this is not a party issue, this is an American issue!

Too easy to blame Bush. Out of work? Blame Bush....Utility bills of the scale? Blame Bush.....Gas prices too high? Blame Bush. Free bread moldy? Blame Bush...It's like a broken record, Bush, Bush, Bush........To say the messiah screwed the pooch, never..........Ray
 

·
E-7 Sheepdog (ret)
Joined
·
6,834 Posts
The problem with that Wolfie, is that US Law demands the e-mail reccords be kept.

The same law governs the network e-mail at my employer, as with all others.
E-mail is required to be kept so that history is accessible in case of legal action (criminal complaint, accusation of discrimination of some level, etc).
I do not know for how long, but it IS a while.

There is no way one US law can demand the White House archive all e-mail, while simultaneously another law forbids it.
Either one applies, or the other.

The law requiring it is newer than the one preventing it, and so supercedes it.

Also, the only thing anyone gets from an e-mail I send, unless I include my name and address, is the e-mail address.
A court order must be obtained to get the e-mail client to divulge account information (currently) to include name of account holder.

My address is not known by my account holder.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top