Showing posts with label individual rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label individual rights. Show all posts
Thursday, April 25, 2013
Friday, April 19, 2013
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves – Video
Video: Black Conservative Leaders Discuss How the NRA Was Created to Protect Freed Slaves [Short Version]
Bet you didn’t hear this on the evening news!!
Monday, September 10, 2012
Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School
Video: Christian Family Refuses Mandatory RFID Chip at Texas School
Tracking School Children With RFID Tags? It’s All About the Benjamins
Student body ID cards with RFID-embedded chips. Image: Northside Independent School District
Just as the U.S. Department of Agriculture mandates Radio Frequency Identification Device chips to monitor livestock, a Texas school district just begun implanting the devices on student identification cards to monitor pupils’ movements on campus, and to track them as they come and go from school.
Tagging school children with RFID chips is uncommon, but not new. A federally funded preschool in Richmond, California, began embedding RFID chips in students’ clothing in 2010. And an elementary school outside of Sacramento, California, scrubbed a plan in 2005 amid a parental uproar. And a Houston, Texas, school district began using the chips to monitor students on 13 campuses in 2004.
It was only a matter of time. Radio frequency identification devices are a daily part of the electronic age, and are fast becoming a part of passports, libraries and payment cards, and are widely expected to replace bar-code labels on consumer goods.
And it appears that the educational move to Big Brother-style monitoring is motivated mainly by money, despite privacy and health concerns.
Two schools at the Northside Independent School District in San Antonio began issuing the RFID-chip-laden student-body cards when classes began last Monday. Like most state-financed schools, their budgets are tied to average daily attendance. If a student is not in his seat during morning roll call, the district doesn’t receive daily funding for that pupil, because the school has no way of knowing for sure if the student is there.
But with the RFID tracking, students not at their desk but tracked on campus are counted as being in school that day, and the district receives its daily allotment for that student.
“What we have found, they are there, they’re in the building and not in their chairs. They are in the cafeteria, with counselors, in stairwells or a variety of places, some legitimately and some not,” district spokesman Pascual Gonzalez said in a telephone interview. “If they are on campus, we can legally count them present.”
The Spring Independent School District in Houston echoed the same theory when it announced results of its program in 2010. “RFID readers situated throughout each campus are used to identify where students are located in the building, which can be used to verify the student’s attendance for ADA funding and course credit purposes,” the district said.
But privacy groups are wary.
“We don’t think kids in schools should be treated like cattle,” Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, said in a telephone interview. “We generally don’t like it. My take on RFID is it’s fine for products, but not so much for people. That’s one of the places where the lines need to be drawn. ”
But there appears to be dozens of companies who see no need to draw such a line and offer their RFID wares to monitor students in what is still a tiny but growing market. Among the biggest companies in the market: AT&T.
“One day soon, home room teachers in your local middle and high schools may stop scanning rows of desks and making each student yell out ‘Here!’ during a morning roll call. Instead, small cards, or tags, carried by each student will transmit a unique serial number via radio signal to an electronic reader near the school door,” AT&T says in its RFID-student advertising materials.
Gonzalez said there has been minimal parental and student opposition to the program at John Jay High School and Anson Jones Middle School. The pilot project could expand to the Northside Independent School District’s 110 other schools, he said.
As for privacy, the system only monitors a student’s movements on campus. Once a student leaves campus, the chips no longer communicate with the district’s sensors.
He said the chips, which are not encrypted and chronicle students only by a serial number, also assist school officials to pinpoint where kids are at any given time, which he says is good for safety reasons. “With this RFID, we know exactly where the kid is within the school,” he said noting students are required to wear the ID on a lanyard at all times on campus.
The lack of encryption makes it not technically difficult to clone a card to impersonate a fellow student or to create a substitute card to play hooky, and makes the cards readable by anyone who wanted to install their own RFID reader, though all they would get is a serial number that’s correlated with the student’s ID number in a school database.
EPIC’s Rotenberg was among about two dozen health and privacy advocates who signed an August position paper blasting the use of RFID chips in schools.
The paper, which included signatures from the American Civil Liberties Union, Electronic Frontier Foundation and, among others, Big Brother Watch, said the RFID systems may have “potential” (.pdf) health risks, too.
“RFID systems emit electromagnetic radiation, and there are lingering questions about whether human health might be affected in environments where the reading devices are pervasive,” the paper said. “This concern and the dehumanizing effects of ubiquitous surveillance may place additional stress on students, parents, and teachers.”
Gonzalez said John Jay High has 200 surveillance cameras and Anson Jones Middle School, about 90.
“The kids,” he said, “are used to being monitored.”
Also Checkout: Parental Rights in the U.S. >> Go to http://parentalrights.org/
Related:
All Americans Will Receive a Microchip Implant in 2013 Per ObamaCare – Updated
The ‘new chip’… especially for you!
Buying and Selling in an RFID Chip for the First Time – VeriChip Changes Its Name
RFID Clothing Tags Would Not Be Private Labels~
Global Elite Using Obesity Vaccines to Alter Minds and Curb Consumption
Technorati Tags: War on Christianity,Christians,Christianity,RFID chips,Texas,Big Brother,Constitution,parental rights,parenting,God,First Amendment,Bill of Rights,individual freedoms,freedom is not free,stand-up American,stand-up Christians,1984,Verichip in the Healthcare Bill,Verichip,Microchips,Smart Card
Saturday, July 28, 2012
"Eat Mor Chikin" while Rahm eats crow!
Threats to Chick-fil-A 'height of stupidity'
Legal team warns city officials, like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who promise trouble for restaurants: “Make My Day”
Free Chick-Fil-A Coupons Save w/ Top Chick-Fil-A Coupons! Free Chick-Fil-A Coupons.
Sign Petition Supporting Chick-fil-A, freedom of speech and freedom of religion HERE
The issue before us is not an anti-gay issue. It is a pro-freedom of speech and freedom of religion issue. Chick-Fil-A does not discriminate against gays. But Chick-Fil-A is a private company whose owner stand-up for their Christian beliefs. Hello, this is America where that is allowed. And America is still the land of the free, governed by a Bill of Rights and Constitution, where the majority of people are Christians.
Chick-fil-A President Dan Cathy said he believes in the natural, biblical view of marriage as being between one man and one woman.
How, in America, could that viewpoint possibly be considered controversial or discriminatory?
Have our nation’s values and culture collapsed that far?
Apparently, liberal politicians like Chicago’s Mayor Rahm Emanuel think so. Upon hearing of Cathy’s stand, radical pro-homosexual organizations and sympathizers immediately began calling for boycotts, “kiss-ins,” and other types of protests against the family-friendly national chain of restaurants.
Then, government officials from major U.S. cities like Chicago and Boston said they plan to prevent Chick-fil-A from opening new restaurants in their jurisdictions.
Demanding a public apology from Cathy, Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno said that he will deny Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the “Cradle of Liberty.”
Never one to “let a good crisis go to waste,” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit. Emanuel’s statement that “Chick-fil-A’s values are not Chicago’s values” was both legally ignorant and ill-advised. Emanuel, the former Chief of Staff at the Obama White House, surely knows that viewpoint discrimination violates federal Civil Rights statutes!
++These threats of action and discrimination against Chick-fil-A because of the viewpoint of its owner are not only illegal – they are toxic to every business and businessman in America!
To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately-owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous.
Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle. If this discrimination is challenged in court – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Boston Mayor Thomas Menino will be eating crow, and in large portions! Even the ACLU condemned the knee-jerk announcements by ultraliberal Mayors Emanuel and Menino!
These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance.
Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists. They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad.
A legal team that specializes in religious and civil rights and the Constitution says city officials who are promising to punish Chick-fil-A restaurants for the religious beliefs followed by their chief are asking for trouble.
“These government officials ought to be ashamed. For a public official to threaten denial of a right to do business because the president of a private company supports natural marriage is the height of stupidity and intolerance,” said Mathew Staver, chief of Liberty Counsel.
“Unfortunately, their response is typical of intolerant homosexual activists. They will go to any lengths to silence the majority of Americans who believe that children do best when raised in a natural family with one mom and one dad,” he said.
The issue has turned into a firestorm over the last couple of days. Among the results? The Henson Co., creator of the Muppets characters, said it no longer would work with Chick-fil-A. The mayor of Boston publicly bashed the restaurant chain. Chicago officials said they would not want the company to operate in their wards. And “kiss-in” protests were announced in front of company outlets on college campuses.
Boston’s mayor reconsiders his position on Chick-fil-A expansion in his city.
All brought on by advocates for homosexual behavior because Dan Cathy, whose father, Truett Cathy, founded the $4 billion-plus a year business, gave an interview to the Baptist Press.
“We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit. We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives. We give God thanks for that,” Cathy said.
In a separate radio interview, Dan Cathy said, “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage. I pray God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think we can try to define what marriage is all about.”
Earlier today, Billy Graham, the longtime dean of Christian leaders in the United States, expressed his support for the Cathy family
“I want to express my support for my good friends Truett Cathy and his son Dan Cathy, and for their strong stand for the Christian faith,” he said in a statement released by the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association.
“I’ve known their family for many years and have watched them grow Chick-fil-A into one of the best businesses in America while never compromising their values. Chick-fil-A serves each of its customers with excellence, and treats everyone like a neighbor. It’s easy to see why Chick-fil-A has become so popular across America,” he said.
Liberty Counsel noted the city officials who are on thin ice include Chicago Alderman Joe Moreno, who “said that he will deny Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in Chicago’s Logan Square. Boston Mayor Thomas Menino told the Boston Herald that he would block Chick-fil-A from opening a restaurant in the ‘Cradle of Liberty.” Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel followed suit.”
“There is absolutely no evidence that Chick-fil-A has discriminated against anyone,” Staver continued. “The intolerance displayed by these government officials ought to serve as a wakeup call to the majority of Americans who support the commonsense understanding of natural marriage.
“If given the chance, these intolerant officials would silence anyone who supports natural marriage. They have placed extreme ideology over freedom,” Staver said.
“To deny business permits or zoning approvals to Chick-fil-A because the president of the privately owned family business expressed his biblical view of natural marriage is outrageous. Any city trying to ban Chick-fil-A will not win this battle,” Staver said.
Liberty Counsel is an international nonprofit, litigation, education, and policy organization dedicated to advancing religious freedom, the sanctity of life, and the family since 1989, by providing pro bono assistance and representation on these and related topics.
But as WND reported, hundreds of thousands of people across America are pledging to support Chick-fil-A restaurants.
A Facebook campaign has been launched by Gov. Mike Huckabee seeking to build support for the chicken-sandwich chain famous for closing its stores on Sundays so employees can attend church if they choose.
Huckabee, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, invited Americans to join him Wednesday, Aug. 1, for a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” Some supporters are advocating showing support every Wednesday.
He noted the company now is a $4 billion a year effort with more than 1,600 stores.
“The militant homosexual advocates have launched an all out assault on Dan Cathy and Chick-fil-A, pushing for a boycott because the Cathy family has contributed to traditional marriage organizations. The attempts to hurt or destroy Chick-fil-A is nothing short of economic bullying. In the name of ‘tolerance,’ there is an effort being mounted to put pressure on people to stop eating at Chick-fil-A. Even worse is the vilification of the company and its employees. The Christian world view of Dan Cathy is being met with intolerance and vicious hate speech,” Huckabee’s announcement said.
“I ask you to join me in speaking out to your constituency via Facebook, Twitter, email, broadcast, etc., to make Wednesday, August 1 ‘Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.’ No one is being asked to make signs, speeches, or openly demonstrate. The goal is simple: Let’s affirm a business that operates on Christian principles and whose executives are willing to take a stand for the Godly values we espouse by simply showing up and eating at Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1.”
John Hayward at Human Events said the attacks are reaching unhealthy levels.
“The name of the game being played against Chick-fil-A involved ending the discussion, by ruling one side of this important social debate completely out of order, and dismissing their beliefs as unworthy of respect. All resistance to gay marriage is instantly transmuted into personal hatred of gay people. On the other hand, criticism of traditional marriage proponents cannot be viewed as hateful, no matter how angrily it might be expressed. It’s a rigged heads-we-win, tails-you-lose game,” he said.
Chick-fil-A appears to have taken itself off the soapbox, at least for now, with a corporate statement that said: “The Chick-fil-A culture and service tradition in our restaurants is to treat every person with honor, dignity and respect – regardless of their belief, race, creed, sexual orientation or gender. We will continue this tradition in the over 1,600 restaurants run by independent owner/operators. Going forward, our intent is to leave the policy debate over same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”
Related:
Can it be un-American to be a Christian?
Rahm Emanuel chickens out on Chick-fil-A ban
'The View' Co-Hosts Defend Chick-Fil-A After Chicago Alderman Announces Ban
Biggest name in Christianity defends Chick-fil-A
Liberty Action Counsel Stands with Chick-Fil-A
See what the biggest companies in the nation are doing to promote homosexuality.
- God You Think You Know The Bible Well? Test Yourself With Our Trivia Game www.BibleTriviaTime.com
- Chick-Fil-A Franchise Find out about owning a franchise. Get the info you need fast & free! www.FindaFranchise.com
Announcing the Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day on August 1
July 26, 2012 
Christian-owned Chick-fil-A has come under assault once again, this time because CEO Dan Cathy recently affirmed his personal view that the Biblical view of marriage should be upheld.
The "Big Gay" machine has ramped up an un-relenting and vicious public attack against Chick-fil-A. Homosexual activists are spewing hate-filled bigotry and intolerance toward the company in unprecedented fashion.
Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day is our way of showing our support for a company whose leaders believe in marriage as that of one man, one woman. http://66.210.221.105/index.html
Join millions of others in showing support for Chick-fil-A by visiting your local Chick-fil-A on Wednesday, August 1, 2012. The plan is simple. At least once on August 1, eat a meal at Chick-fil-A and politely let the staff and management know you appreciate the company's Christian value system.
Let us know you're supporting Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day by signing up today! We'll let Chick-fil-A know to expect record sales on August 1! http://66.210.221.105/index.html
"Eat Mor Chikin" while Rahm eats crow!
Thanks to patriotic Americans of all stripes from Billy Graham to the ladies of The View, Chick –Fil-A’s media coverage and sales are up!
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Day Two of Supreme Court ObamaCare Hearing: ObamaCare Could Be on Life Support
Photo: The Blaze
People Are Saying That Obama's Healthcare Law Got Massacred At The Supreme Court Yesterday
Business Insider ^ | March 27, 2012 | Grace Wyler
The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating. Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty. According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
The Supreme Court just wrapped up the second day of oral arguments in the landmark case against President Obama's healthcare overhaul, and reports from inside the courtroom indicate that the controversial law took quite a beating.
Today's arguments focused around the central constitutional question of whether Congress has the power to force Americans to either pay for health insurance or pay a penalty.
According to CNN's legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, the arguments were "a train wreck for the Obama administration."
"This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions including mine that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin just said on CNN.
Toobin added that that the Obama administration's lawyer, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, was unprepared for the attacks against the individual mandate.
"I don't know why he had a bad day," he said. "He is a good lawyer, he was a perfectly fine lawyer in the really sort of tangential argument yesterday. He was not ready for the answers for the conservative justices."
In the aftermath of today's arguments, Toobin and many other legal reporters agree that the Obamacare decision will come down to a fight between the nine Supreme Court justices.
According to reports from the courtroom, the four liberal justices seem inclined to uphold the law. But it is still unclear if the Obama administration's legal team will be able to get a fifth vote.
The WSJ reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered the swing vote in the case, reportedly pushed Verrilli hard on his defense of the individual mandate, telling him that the government has a "very heavy burden of justification" to show where the Constitution gives Congress the power to force people to buy healthcare.
Tom Goldstein of SCOTUS blog sums up the end of the arguments:
Towards the end of the argument the most important question was Justice Kennedy’s. After pressing the government with great questions Kennedy raised the possibility that the plaintiffs were right that the mandate was a unique effort to force people into commerce to subsidize health insurance but the insurance market may be unique enough to justify that unusual treatment. But he didn’t overtly embrace that. It will be close. Very close.
Listen below to Solicitor General Verrilli nervously starting his opening argument on individual mandate (around 25 sec mark): HERE
Video: "This Is A Train Wreck For The Obama Administration!" Jeff Toobin On Healthcare Supreme Court
Revealed: Inside Obama’s Individual Mandate Memo and Why Obama Changed His Mind
Friday, January 27, 2012
To Google, Facebook, Twitter…. Or Not? - Perhaps Time to Assess Your Use and Membership? - Updated
![googile_irish_hq_thumb[2]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiAKuiOfC3otinb2Mx4d_n9ZniITp1wv8_2N3KbTzI0RirnZCrN_HxJTwFAcpy7YiXpKoYxS-M5wBVWEsnSZNJ0o0ub4vfU74J6ODZr6LEskVQZNZ_c45wh6FvUxTElkkpr_xaIW2EMXiwv/s1600-h/googile_irish_hq_thumb%25255B2%25255D%25255B3%25255D.jpg "googile_irish_hq_thumb[2]")
Many of you may have received the email below…
Dear Google user,
We're getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that's a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.
We believe this stuff matters, so please take a few minutes to read our updated Privacy Policy and Terms of Service at http://www.google.com/policies. These changes will take effect on March 1, 2012.
One policy, one Google experience
Easy to work across Google
Our new policy reflects a single product experience that does what you need, when you want it to. Whether reading an email that reminds you to schedule a family get-together or finding a favorite video that you want to share, we want to ensure you can move across Gmail, Calendar, Search, YouTube, or whatever your life calls for with ease.
Tailored for you
If you're signed into Google, we can do things like suggest search queries – or tailor your search results – based on the interests you've expressed in Google+, Gmail, and YouTube. We'll better understand which version of Pink or Jaguar you're searching for and get you those results faster.
Easy to share and collaborate
When you post or create a document online, you often want others to see and contribute. By remembering the contact information of the people you want to share with, we make it easy for you to share in any Google product or service with minimal clicks and errors.
Protecting your privacy hasn't changed
Our goal is to provide you with as much transparency and choice as possible, through products like Google Dashboard and Ads Preferences Manager, alongside other tools. Our privacy principles remain unchanged. And we'll never sell your personal information or share it without your permission (other than rare circumstances like valid legal requests).
Understand how Google uses your data
If you want to learn more about your data on Google and across the web, including tips and advice for staying safe online, check out http://www.google.com/goodtoknow
Got questions?
We got answers.
Visit our FAQ at http://www.google.com/policies/faq to read more about the changes. (We figured our users might have a question or twenty-two.)
Notice of Change
March 1, 2012 is when the new Privacy Policy and Terms will come into effect. If you choose to keep using Google once the change occurs, you will be doing so under the new Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
Please do not reply to this email. Mail sent to this address cannot be answered. Also, never enter your Google Account password after following a link in an email or chat to an untrusted site. Instead, go directly to the site, such as mail.google.com or www.google.com/accounts. Google will never email you to ask for your password or other sensitive information.
Many people are thinking of leaving Google and its tentacle services because this is just another consolidated grouping of information for Big Brother to monitor us and Google, like facebook, and others turn all their (your) information to the government.
Remaining with them or changing is something everyone should consider!
Here some really helpful links. If you want to close your account, from what I read, they will delete everything… at least that is what they claim… guess we will see if they really do or if if you information ends up in digital space forever:
How to close your Google AccountFAQ: Google’s new privacy policy
![Rea lMan's Computer Room_thumb[3]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi8xpetE8iFKK3gsiH5INGRTsh-vAVSTmszZOjOLdxud9_u6fLnscK29qh_SX1xTtYhSj-M631OOjgiW0Xcvu7thI0uQyPDFeWzDFNlAW_I_7ixdUMoX3NAgypuOewx3L0kIfoZwBv0GzW1/s1600-h/Rea%252520lMan%252527s%252520Computer%252520Room_thumb%25255B3%25255D%25255B2%25255D.jpg "Rea lMan's Computer Room_thumb[3]")
The continuing onslaught against individual freedoms and the intrusion of government into our lives has inspired computer room like this one…
Additional Information:
Google announces privacy settings change across products; users can't opt out
Global Search - Cuil!
http://www.cuil.pt/
Search
Is not powered by google, and not hosted in USA.
Every .com is.
http://www.cuil.pt/
Use Scroogle - very cool.
https://ssl.scroogle.org/
Read about it here:
www.scroogle.org
https://ixquick.com/
USE https://ixquick.com/ FOR PRIVACY
www.startpage.com
I've been using duckduckgo.com recently instead of Google and I like it.
www.duckduckgo.com
and their privacy policy[link to donttrack.us]
http://freenetproject.org/
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288017
Not sure if this has been mentioned or not...
But I work in a web agency and EVERY single one of the sites we produce uses google hosted code. Its mainly for analytic data for our customers. If you've ever seen google analytic data and understand that 100% of our sites (and I'm sure its almost 100% of any other agency's sites) use this code... that means the scope of this is so huge I can't think straight! Google can very easily track people's web usage through this analytic code.
It doesn't matter if you are on a google made site or not, if the use google hosted code then they know!
Heck even GLP uses it. If you know how to view source look at the bottom of this site.
https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js
http://www.google.com/enterprise/government/
Google announces privacy changes across products; users can’t opt out
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/google-tracks-consumers-across-products-users-cant-opt-out/2012/01/24/gIQArgJHOQ_story.html
Google will soon know far more about who you are and what you do on the Web.
The Web giant announced Tuesday it is planning to follow the activities of users across nearly all of its ubiquitous sites, including YouTube, Gmail and its leading search engine.
Google has already been collecting some of this information. But for the first time, it is combining data across its Web sites to stitch together a fuller portrait of users.
Consumers won’t be able to opt out of the changes, which take effect March 1. And experts say the policy shift will invite greater scrutiny from federal regulators of the company’s privacy and competitive practices.
The move will help Google better tailor its ads to people’s tastes. If someone watches an NBA clip online and lives in Washington, the firm could advertise Washington Wizards tickets in that person’s Gmail account.
Consumers could also benefit, the company said. When someone is searching for the word “jaguar,” Google would have a better idea of whether the person was interested in the animal or the car. Or the firm might suggest e-mailing contacts in New York when it learns you are planning a trip there.
But, say consumer advocates, the new policy might upset people who never expected their information would be shared across so many different Web sites.
A user, for instance, may not want Google to use your social network to alert estranged friends — or your boss — that you are around the corner at a bar.
“Google’s new privacy announcement is frustrating and a little frightening,” said Common Sense Media chief executive James Steyer. “Even if the company believes that tracking users across all platforms improves their services, consumers should still have the option to opt out — especially the kids and teens who are avid users of YouTube, Gmail and Google Search.”
Google can collect information about users when they activate an Android mobile phone, sign into their accounts online or enter search terms. It can also store cookies on people’s computers to see which Web sites they visit or use its popular maps program to estimate their location.
The change to its privacy policies come as Google is facing stiff competition for the fickle attention of Web surfers. It recently disappointed investors for the first time in several quarters, failing last week to meet earnings predictions. Apple, in contrast, reported record earnings Tuesday that blew past even the most optimistic expectations.
Some analysts said Google’s move is aimed squarely at Apple and Facebook — which have been successful in building unified ecosystems of products that capture people’s attention. Google, in contrast, has adopted a more scattered approach, but an executive said in interviews that the company wants to create a much more seamless environment across its various offerings.
“If you’re signed in, we may combine information you’ve provided from one service with information from other services,” Alma Whitten, Google’s director of privacy for product and engineering wrote in a blog post.
“In short, we’ll treat you as a single user across all our products which will mean a simpler, more intuitive Google experience,” she said.
Google said it would notify its hundreds of millions of users of the change through an e-mail and a message on its Web sites. It will apply to all of its services except for Google Wallet, Chrome browser and Google Books.
The company said the change would simplify the company’s privacy policy — a move that was encouraged by regulators.
Still, some consumer advocates and lawmakers remained skeptical.
“There is no way anyone expected this,” said Jeffrey Chester, executive director of privacy advocacy group the Center for Digital Democracy. “There is no way a user can comprehend the implication of Google collecting across platforms for information about your health, political opinions and financial concerns.”
Added Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass): “It is imperative that users will be able to decide whether they want their information shared across the spectrum of Google’s offerings.”
Google has increasingly been a focus of Washington regulators.
The company recently settled a privacy complaint by the Federal Trade Commission after it allowed users of its now defunct social network Google Buzz to see contacts lists from its e-mail program.
And a previous decision to use its social network data in search results has been included in a broad Federal Trade Commission investigation, according to a person familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is private.
Federal officials are also looking at whether Google is running afoul of antitrust rules by using its dominance in online search to favor its other business lines.
Claudia Farrell, a spokeswoman at the FTC, declined to comment on any interaction between Google and regulators on its new privacy changes.
How to close your Google Account
FAQ: Google’s new privacy policy
Poll: Will you cancel your account?
Google faces backlash over privacy changes
PHOTOS | What products are impacted by new policy?
Twitter, Facebook, MySpace cry foul on Google search
Google updates social-networking name policy
European privacy proposal includes ‘right to be forgotten’
A couple of comments that I thought were interesting.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29288156
Google has been doing this all along as does Apple, MS and so on. Limit or don't use their services in your first line of defense. If not possible then learn all you can about your device and take FULL control of it, flash it, root it, kernel secure it and spank those apps and daemons who are like little children leaking sensitive info about you to these data collectors without your knowledge.
Don't forget to learn to really disable gps, mic and your cam when necessary cause they are bugged. At this point you will be half way secure and well on your way to freedom. However there is a whole another world of hidden service, exploit and leak potentials within your device that are publically unspoken of and that you will need to discover over time.
Last piece of advice, learn to game the algorithm that is at all times trying to predict who you are and what your next move is.
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message1764993/reply29289587 (Did you know could block a website this way?)
I just went to my internet options and blocked www.google.com signed out of you tube and tried signing back in, got a notice, you have disabled your cookies please turn them back on..But it is not March 1, yet is it?
Look at timing with Google’s announcement—perhaps time to flee them both!
Facebook Timeline Mandatory For All Users - With Just 7 Days To 'Clean Up'
Facebook's Timeline - a new look for people's Profile pages which exposes their entire history on the site - will become mandatory for all users.
The 'new look' has been voluntary up until now.
From now, users will simply be notified that they are being 'updated' via an announcement at the top of their home page, which users click on to activate Timeline.
As with voluntary switches to Timeline, those who are 'updated' will have just seven days to select which photos, posts and life events they want to advertise to the world.
Via the official Facebook blog, the site announced, 'Last year we introduced timeline, a new kind of profile that lets you highlight the photos, posts and life events that help you tell your story.'
'Over the next few weeks, everyone will get timeline. When you get timeline, you'll have 7 days to preview what's there now.
'This gives you a chance to add or hide whatever you want before anyone else sees it.'
Timeline has been criticized for showing off pictures and posts that people might have wanted to forget.
The new look also pairs with 'timeline apps', such as Spotify, which post every time people listen to a song, or eat a recipe or visit somewhere.
'You can learn more about these new features by taking the quick tour available at the top of your timeline,' says Facebook.
'If you want to get timeline now, go to the Introducing Timeline page and click 'Get Timeline.'Or you can wait until you see an announcement at the top of your home page.'
Mark Zuckerberg described timeline as letting you 'tell the whole story of your life on a single page'.
The redesigned pages have a more magazine-like photo-heavy feel, with a large 'cover photo' at the top of the page.
On the right of the page there will be a timeline that breaks down all posts from a person's time on Facebook and allows viewers to jump back to people's earliest posts with a break down month-by-month.
Some were puzzled by the abrupt roll-out of the change, which is one of the biggest changes to Facebook - all the more so when paired with the new Timeline apps, such as Spotify, which posts a continuous stream of all songs listened to to your Timeline.
A user listening to Spotify on a smartphone, for instance, will default to posting every song to their Timeline for all to see. As with all Timeline features, there are various opt-outs, but they can be fiddly to find and use.
Likewise, e-book readers such as Kobo and video services such as Netflix can post every book and film people consume to Timeline.
Many sites published guides to how to 'hide' controversial content. Twitter users had mixed reactions.
Reactions included, 'I don’t want a timeline on my facebook - why do you force me to have one?' and 'I hate Facebook timeline design with a vengeance. More frippery and less function. Why are they forcing it on us?'
Many were shocked by how rapidly timeline had become compulsory.
Tech site Mashable said, 'Facebook must know that putting a ticking clock in front of users is bound to make very few of them happy, yet here it is, stop watch in hand. Here’s my theory.'
'Timeline apps aren't very effective without it. Conducting most of your day-to-day activities, like watching movies, sharing content, reading news, eating out, and more — that’s new. None of this has quite the same impact without Timeline.'
So far, Facebook has announced a few dozen Timeline apps.
Many sites recommend vetting apps carefully to see what they will post, and creating lists of friends to 'share' certain updates with, rather than bombarding your whole friends list.
Tech site CNET warns, 'Once you install an app and authorize it to post stories on your profile and News Feed, it'll never ask for your permission again.'
'If you love to cook, you can add the Foodily app to your timeline and share your latest dishes. If your friends have added the Foodily app, you can discover new recipes with each other, as you'll see their updates in the ticker and their timeline, and possibly News Feed.'
Facebook says that more Timeline apps, covering more interests will launch soon.
'Our vision for Timeline and our vision for the application platform is whatever you love and whatever story you want to tell, you can add that to your Timeline,' said Carl Sjogreen, Facebook's product management director.
Facebook Timeline with Apps and Ticker:
'Our message to developers is 'start your engines',' said Sjogreen.
SIDEBAR
PROTECTING YOUR PROFILE FROM PRYING EYES - WHAT TO DO IN THE SEVEN DAYS FACEBOOK ALLOWS YOU
Once timeline is activated on your profile, you have seven days to 'clean up' - and you will probably want to.
Things from your past that may have been previously hidden deep within your photos or timeline can be much more visible.
If there is anything particularly you don’t want shown, such as your relationship status from five years ago - which will be public by default - you’re best to click on the right hand side to the year it occurred, such as 2006, find the post and choose to either delete or hide it.
It all has to be done manually.
You can now choose directly from the right-hand side of nearly every section on profile who sees what for individual sections (such as photos, posts, likes etc). When you click on the item, you can choose whether it is seen publicly, by friends or by a customized list.
If you enable any timeline apps, be sure to read their privacy policies thoroughly - many will not ask again before posting information to your profile. Spotify, for instance, will default to filling your timeline with what you listen to, unless you tell it not to.
Facebook now has the ‘View profile as’ feature on the main page, rather than in privacy settings. This lets you check how different people can see your profile so you can then customize it as you wish.
For those looking to DELETE their facebook accounts permanently not just deactivate remove the spaces and copy paste this into your browser
If your doing it too replace your existing facebook account make sure your change your email address and password to something else first so you can use your original email. Funny how they hide this form.... HAH found youuuu!
https://ssl.facebook.com/help/contact.php?show_form=delete_account
· Twitter to selectively 'censor' tweets by country
Friday, January 27, 2012 2:42:33 AM · by EnglishCon · 4 replies
BBC News ^ | 01/27/12 | BBC News
Twitter has announced that it now has the technology to selectively block tweets on a country by country basis. In its blog, Twitter said it could "reactively withhold content from users in a specific country". But it said the removed content would be available to the rest of the world. Previously when Twitter deleted a tweet, it would disappear worldwide. --- In its blog post, Twitter explained that its international growth meant entering countries "that have different ideas about the contours of freedom of expression", citing France or Germany which ban pro-Nazi content as examples.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wicked Writ of the Midwest
Wicked indeed… It would seem the elitists in Houston County, Minnesota want to implement Agenda 21 and take away citizen’s property rights. Disparaging the Constitution and treating the local populace as if they were nothing more than serfs. The very arrogant face of Progressivism and evil without a doubt.
One of the strongest American freedoms we have is the right to own property. It is what makes us a free society and is the very cornerstone of liberty.
Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Exercising their quintessential American rights, landowners in Houston County, Minnesota decided they had had enough five years ago and set out to reclaim their rights after the County Commissioners started making directives on how people could and could not use their own land. The fight continues today as threats, court proceedings, the stripping of Constitutional rights and lawyer’s fees fly frantically back and forth, egged on by Progressives in positions of power who are more interested in the environment and instituting Agenda 21 than they are in the rights of property owners. Cass Sunstein, is that you hiding behind the EPA again? Who’s a little Marxist?
Enter Houston County’s Commissioner who called the Constitution an ‘old document.’
“I know we’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution but it is an old document; times have changed,” stated Commissioner Tom Bjerke.
Well sir… If you think that the Constitution is outdated, perhaps you should take your viewpoint and move to a more ‘Progressive’ country in Europe, or perhaps Russia would be a better fit for you. I’m sure you would be much happier with like-thinking comrades. Don’t let the American door hit you in the behind on the way out.
The County Commissioners have told those citizens attending meetings to sit down and shut up. The local paper has told them that they have said enough and have quit taking letters to the editor longer than 500 words. But if you are on the side of the Progressives, well have your say! The media propaganda machine is in full swing skewing the truth as usual as I understand it.
From The Blaze:
In 2007, Houston County sued a young, newly married couple due to the new land use plan. The couple, who had just legally bought the home, was given four options to “settle the situation.” The couple was required to move their house fifty feet, purchase an additional 32 acres of land, sell their property to a neighbor, or tear their house down. Dealing with “impossible options,” the couple chose to appeal the ruling in the Minnesota Supreme Court. The court refused to hear their case, thus leading them to sell their property. The couple is now renting the very house they once owned.
That’s ridiculous and just wrong. And they didn’t even get to have their day in court, which probably wouldn’t have mattered any way since the County and State have already decided that this couple had no rights, Constitutional or otherwise. What a farce. This makes me boiling mad. And this couple is not alone, there are over 50 landowners in the area facing similar situations. Ask yourself, what would you do?
The County Commissioners have ignored the petition requesting they resign – over 700 landowners signed that petition. For a small county in the southeast corner of the state, that is a huge number of petitioners. These Commissioners have ignored all efforts by the people to have their voices heard concerning their Constitutional rights as landowners. They are told at meetings, in no uncertain terms, not to bring up the Constitution.
But these patriots are not giving up:
A small group of landowners decided that it was time to educate others, and themselves. With easy-to-read handouts of the Declaration of independence, quotes of the Founding Fathers, and parts of the Constitution, the group spent their evenings going from door to door, talking to their fellow citizens and asking for support.
And the march to take back their freedom has brought them to the Minnesota Federal Court, where they will plead their case. Fighting oppressive regulations and the blatant violation of Constitutional rights, these patriots are also fighting the insidious label by the Progressives of restricting their property’s use for “the public good.” That is Progressive lingo indicating that they: a) don’t feel there is any such thing as private property, b) the Constitution is irrelevant and c) landowners are too stupid to know what is good for them. If they do not prevail in Federal Court, property rights will be gutted and zoning rights will be the standard. Mull that over for a second… It renders the Constitution meaningless – individuals will no longer have the right to say what they can and can’t do with their own property – bureaucrats will wield that power. How very Marxist.
From the Let Freedom Ring Blog:
The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that “nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation”. Houston County is essentially saying that they aren’t taking the property. They’re just telling private property owners that the county, not the landowner, will control the use of private property.
This is unacceptable. If Houston County wants to be the final arbiter of what land can be used for, then it should be required to purchase the land from the landowners at a fair market price. If Houston County isn’t willing to purchase the land for a fair market price, then it shouldn’t have decision-making rights, final or otherwise.
Essentially, Houston County wants everything for nothing. That sounds more like what happened in the former Soviet Union than in the United States.
I’m sure there are tons of legal documents being issued. This cannot stand. I’m beginning to see the scene from The Patriot where Benjamin Martin says to plead with the King and plead again if necessary. But pleading has been done on this over and over to no avail. Better yet, this is reminiscent of Andrew Jackson and his Manifest Destiny. The question is if the Federal Court rules against Constitutional rights, will we allow this wicked writ of the Midwest to stand? Or will it be time to take a stand that will shake this country to its very foundations?
I will leave it to each of you to search your souls and decide what side you are on. Remember the principles of our founding fathers and the Constitution – remember what this country was founded upon. Here is the press release announcing the lawsuit:
The Houston County, Minnesota Landowners Concerned About Property Rights have endorsed new litigation to get government back in the hands of “We the People.” The Complaint, to be filed in the Minnesota Federal District Court, asserts that the Houston County Commissioners, the Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission, as well as Houston County Zoning Administrator Bob Scanlan and Environmental Service Director Richard (Rick) Frank are violating the constitutionally guaranteed rights of the landowners in Houston County.
The case, which will be filed during the week of October 3, 2011, argues that the County, Scanlan and Frank have violated the private property rights, the rights of due process, the rights to freedom of speech and association, the right to petition for redress of grievance and the right to equal protection of the law to similarly situated landowners in the application of the County’s Land Use Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The case is being brought under the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1871.
“We are not a litigious group,” said Robert Ideker, a Houston County landowner. “We have tried to work with the County; we have attended dozens of meetings and hearings; we have written dozens of letters, but no one will listen. This last year, we even tried to talk to the Commissioners individually to express our concerns about the protection of property rights, and some landowners were told that the Commissioners would not speak to them. These are our elected representatives; it boggles my mind that they won’t even hear what we have to say.”
“At some of the meetings, we are told not to talk about the Constitution and the protection it guarantees to U.S. citizens. We need to get government back in the hands of the people; we just want the use of our property, our land and buildings. As we have told the County numerous times, we are not against civil law, but if our property use is not harming our neighbors or the environment, we should be able to use our property. We aren’t disrespectful to the County, but they should listen to our side as well. We are disappointed that we have to resort to the federal court to get a fair hearing on our concerns.”
The disagreements with the County came to a head when concerned citizens who had been deprived of their property rights went to the county officials, only to be rebuffed for their concerns. The landowners, often referred to as Landowners Concerned About Property Rights, then drafted a resolution, which was signed by 700 of the County’s landowners, that urged the County Commissioners to recognize the protections for private property and property use. That petition was presented to the Commission in 2007. The Commissioners never responded.
The Concerned Landowners filed litigation in state court challenging the land use plan and zoning ordinance in 2010, but during the research and discovery in the case, many landowners learned that the issues between the County and its citizens were significantly deeper than the land use plan; those issues go to the heart of the guarantees in the U.S. Constitution that are protected by the Federal Civil Rights Act. That is why the landowners are dismissing the state court case and endorsing the Federal District Court Civil Rights case. Dismissal of the state court case does not mean we agree with the County, it means we want to resolve all the claims at once and that can only be done in Federal Court.
“Civil rights are the rights belonging to an individual by virtue of his or her U.S. citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including property rights, civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination,” explained Ideker. “Specifically, section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act makes monetary and equitable relief available to those whose constitutional rights had been violated by a bureaucrat or official acting under State authority.
The Federal Civil Rights Act stands as one of the most powerful authorities under which federal courts may protect those whose constitutionally guaranteed rights are deprived. Section 1983 provides a way individuals can sue to stop past and prevent future violations of constitutionally protected rights. Section 1983 applies to both governmental employees as individuals and to state and local boards and commissions acting under state authority. It requires that the individuals or boards be responsible for the decisions they make, and not simply hide behind a claim that they are ‘following the law.’”
“It is disappointing that it has come to federal court litigation, but there is nowhere else to turn. We would still be open to talking to the County officials to try to come to a resolution,” said county land owner Tom Groeschner. “But we can’t really talk to them if they won’t listen to us. Don’t we have to put government back in the hands of ‘we the people?’”
By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton - the NoisyRoom
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Cops to Use Facial Recognition iPhone
CRIMEARE U.S. COPS PREPARING WIDESPREAD USE OF FACIAL RECOGNITION IPHONE?
Starting as early as September, cops across the country may be using a new iphone-based device to identify people based on a picture of their face, iris scan, or a fingerprint reader, raising concerns about how the data will be gathered, stored, and used.
The device in question is called the MORIS, which stands for Mobile Offender Recognition and Information System. Made by BI2 Technologies of Plymouth, Mass, it runs on the iphone platform. The company states that it has contracts with 40 government agencies to deliver 1,000 devices this fall.
Unlike other currently used biometric technologies, the MORIS does not require a separate digital camera or upload time, and automatically scans known databases for criminal warrants and other relevant history. The Wall Street Journal gives specifics on how this new device works:
“To scan a person’s iris, police officers can hold the special iris-scanning camera on device, called MORIS, about 5 to 6 inches away from an individual’s irises. After snapping a high resolution photo, the MORIS system analyzes 235 unique features in each iris and uses an algorithm to match that person with their identity if they are in the database.”
“For the facial recognition, an officer takes a photo of a person at a distance of about 2 feet to 5 feet. Based on technologies from Animetrics Inc., the system analyzes about 130 distinguishing points on the face, such as the distance between a person’s eye and nose. It then scans the database for likely matches.”
As for the usage of the devices, the law does not appear settled on whether police need consent to take a person’s photo. Generally speaking, the law does not prohibit taking photos of people in a public place. But taking and storing photos for law enforcement purposes- particularly if the subject is in custody- could trigger a different standard of rules. The law becomes even more vague on issues such as whether an iris scan constitutes a search.
Below is a video presentation for the Brockton Police Department showing facial recognition and iris scanning technologies that have been demoed and will soon be in use by various law enforcement units in Massachusetts. The presenters show the devices, discuss the database, and describe the features designed to help law enforcement officers.
Video: Mass. Police Get Facial Recognition App For iPhones
US Troops overseas have used a variety of biometric tools for years to vet allies and identify insurgents and terrorists. But the MORIS is poised to become the first widespread, mobile usage of such technology here in the US by local and federal law enforcement.
Law enforcement analysts believe the device could prevent the wrong inmates from obtaining prison release, to identify accident victims and keep track of the homeless. While there are many privacy and civil liberties concerns associated with law enforcement’s widespread use of facial recognition devices, the landscape of biometrics is already rapidly changing with programs such as Facebook Facial Recognition:
Video: Facebook Expands Facial Recognition for Photo Tagging, Triggering Privacy Concerns
Source: the Blaze
There Is No First Amendment Without the Second Amendment!
“ He who gives up their freedom for security, generally gets or deserves either!!” …Benjamin Franklin
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
California District Creates Primary School Gay Curriculum
Many parents are condemning the lesson plan as sex education in disguise and are angered
Elementary school teachers in Alameda, Calif., will introduce lesson plans to their educational curriculum beginning next year that address gay and lesbian issues, KCBS News in San Francisco reports.
Kindergarten through grade 5 students throughout the county will be exposed to same-sex educational material aimed at promoting tolerance and inclusiveness.
The curriculum –– which will include lessons to introduce students to GBT” (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transsexual) issues –– will be designed to discourage bullying and teasing based on gay and lesbian stereotypes. The plan will be implemented despite objections by parents who complain children are too young to be exposed to the material.
Many parents are condemning the lesson plan as sex education in disguise and are angered that they will not be allowed to exempt their children from the lessons. Opponents decry the curriculum plan as an effort to advance the gay, lesbian and transgendered agenda.
Those opposed to sexual orientation lessons for children are so upset they are threatening to sue the school board, ABC News reports. Promoting gay, lesbian and sexual orientation should be a parents' rights issue, parents say, and is not an appropriate topic for school children.
The Alameda school district's legal counsel, however, recommended the plan because the curriculum does not deal with health or sex education, which are topics that do require opt-out provisions.
“It was the opinion of our legal counsel that this curriculum was not health or sex education curriculum,” school board president Mike McMahon told CNS New.
“If a student responds that one family in the book is made up of a mother, a father, and two children and a cat, you may acknowledge that some families look like this, but ask students for other examples of what a family can look like.”
School Board Member Trish Spencer, who voted against the plan, said she worries that its implementation could lead to the harassment of students who have religious objections to homosexuality. She cited that bullying due to religion is a bigger problem for the district than bullying based on homosexuality.
Also adamantly opposed to the plan is Randy Thomasson, president of the Campaign for Children and Families.
“This will be done whether parents like it or not, and it shows the hostility against parental rights and traditional family values,” Thomasson, told CNS New.
Last month, the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, the voter-approved initiative to make same-sex marriage illegal that passed in November.
The Alameda school board said it will review its decision to implement the curriculum at the end of next year’s school session.
By: Rick Pedraza - Newsmax
- ParentalRights.org
- Michael Farris - United Nation’s Convention on Rights of a Child Material
- Parentalrights press conference
- 30 Ways in 30 Days to Save Your Family - Book Review
Monday, June 1, 2009
Rights, Responsibilities and Healthcare
Want to know what troubles our American health care system?
Consider the thoughts of psychiatrist and Nazi death camp survivor Viktor Frankl.
After spending time in our country as a visiting professor, he saw the looming dangers of freedom without responsibility. He observed: "Freedom is in danger of degenerating into mere arbitrariness unless it is lived in terms of responsibleness. That is why I recommend that the Statue of Liberty on the East Coast be supplemented by a Statue of Responsibility on the West Coast."
We as Americans accept that health care is an individual right, even if someone else is paying for it. The truth that every personal right must have an accompanying personal responsibility is now lost in our self-absorbed materialistic culture. We have only rights, entitlements if you will.
Few have any idea what the costs are of the health care they receive. Many get it tax subsidized through their employer, many get it through Medicare in a now bankrupt Ponzi scheme in which those working pay taxes to pay for care of those retired, and more than sixty million Americans do not pay at all through Medicaid and SCHIP programs.
Hundreds of millions receive health care the costs of which have little or nothing to do with their own personal realities and then we wonder why those costs are out of control.
Now Ted Kennedy has introduced his solution to all of this, which also captures the thinking of our president. Set up a new government health care plan, subsidized of course by taxes, and call this choice because you are not forced to take it (although you are forced to pay taxes for it).
As Senator Kennedy announces more free health care -- meaning one group of Americans will get what another group of Americans will pay for -- the disconnect between who gets health care services and who pays for them will grow even greater.
Costs will be controlled, according to Senator Kennedy, by setting up a new army of bureaucrats who will get rid of proverbial "fraud and abuse," will decide for doctors how to treat their patients, and will decide for us how we should behave by dictating the preventative measures we must take for our own good.
To put on a show for what this all might look like, a few weeks ago President Obama "invited" representatives from the major sectors of the health care business -- doctors, insurers, hospitals, pharmaceutical firms, medical device manufacturers -- to the White House to tell us all how much they would commit to lowering costs.
The result was a supposed commitment by these groups to cut costs by 1.5 percent per year.
Aside from the fact that shortly after the White House announcement, industry representatives began issuing statements denying that they made any such commitment, let's assume it's accurate. That these groups do not know how to run their own businesses and that they can deliver the same products and services annually for 1.5 percent less if the president threatens them.
At our annual health care bill of about $2.5 trillion dollars, savings of 1.5 percent would be about $40 billion.
Let's consider how much of our $2.5 trillion health care bill are costs resulting from behavior that individuals choose.
Googling around and totaling up, I come up with about $240 billion, about ten percent of our total health care bill. This is roughly the total reported health care costs associated with obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, sexually transmitted diseases, HIV/AIDS and sedentary life styles.
Worth noting is that these occur disproportionately in low income groups who get their health care free. More than half our spending on HIV/AIDS, for example, is out of Medicaid. Can it be accidental that the huge health care costs related to lifestyle issues are most pronounced where individuals do not personally bear the costs of how they behave?
How can our health care problems be solved by more entitlements and bureaucrats when this is what is causing the problem to begin with?
Viktor Frankl had it right. At the heart of the solution for our health care crisis is personal responsibility. This means more freedom and more markets.
by Star Parker – TownHall.com
Posted: Daily Thought Pad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)