# Senator Cornyn's Letter to the President



## Wingnut (Aug 10, 2009)

In a letter to President Obama, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, expressed serious concern about the White House's new program requesting Americans to forward email chains and other communications opposing the President's health care policies. Sen. Cornyn is seeking assurances that the program is being carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America's tradition of free speech and public discourse.
Sen. Cornyn's letter also inquires about the collection of names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens that will be reported, which raises the specter of a data collection program.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed â€˜fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," Sen. Cornyn wrote. "You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights."

--The full text of Sen. Cornyn's letter is below--

Dear President Obama,

I write to express my concern about a new White House program to monitor American citizens' speech opposing your health care policies, and to seek your assurances that this program is being carried out in a manner consistent with the First Amendment and America's tradition of free speech and public discourse.

Yesterday, in an official White House release entitled "Facts are Stubborn Things," the White House Director of New Media, Macon Phillips, asserted that there was "a lot of disinformation out there," and encouraged citizens to report "fishy" speech opposing your health care policies to the White House. Phillips specifically targeted private, unpublished, even casual speech, writing that "rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation." Phillips wrote "If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

I am not aware of any precedent for a President asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White House for pure political speech that is deemed "fishy" or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests.

By requesting that citizens send "fishy" emails to the White House, it is inevitable that the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and private speech of U.S. citizens will be reported to the White House. You should not be surprised that these actions taken by your White House staff raise the specter of a data collection program. As Congress debates health care reform and other critical policy matters, citizen engagement must not be chilled by fear of government monitoring the exercise of free speech rights.

I can only imagine the level of justifiable outrage had your predecessor asked Americans to forward emails critical of his policies to the White House. I suspect that you would have been leading the charge in condemning such a program-and I would have been at your side denouncing such heavy-handed government action.

So I urge you to cease this program immediately. At the very least, I request that you detail to Congress and the public the protocols that your White House is following to purge the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in "fishy" speech. And I respectfully request an answer to the following:

How do you intend to use the names, email addresses, IP addresses, and identities of citizens who are reported to have engaged in "fishy" speech?
How do you intend to notify citizens who have been reported for "fishy" speech?
What action do you intend to take against citizens who have been reported for engaging in "fishy" speech?
Do your own past statements qualify as "disinformation"? For example, is it "disinformation" to note that in 2003 you said:"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan"?
I look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

JOHN CORNYN

United States Senator

Sen. Cornyn serves on the Finance, Judiciary, Agriculture and Budget Committees. He serves as the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee's Immigration, Refugees and Border Security subcommittee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 10, 2009)

"I would like to see everyone's papers please.  Please line up against the wall over here any one who refuses could be rounded up and sent to a democratic re-education camp."

We are on a seriously slippery slope.  Germany should remember what this feels like and should be warning the American people.


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 10, 2009)

It's unfortunate that this is even an issue.  Where have our spines gone.


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 10, 2009)

Jamesb said:


> Germany should remember what this feels like and should be warning the American people.



Like we would listen...


----------



## LRG (Aug 10, 2009)

This current wh staff, is the demise of the American People. They should be so proud.
Even on regular tv stations, the use of profanity has become absurd. We as a nation are losing are morals and self respect.
As a multitude business owner, they can have my name and shut me down. Life might be a lot more less stressfull and I would at least have the satisfaction of not paying 75% overall tax, fees and regulations.
So they can take this job and shove it.

Proud of us Americans, not the system for which has a hold on us.
LRGuerrero


----------



## Blake Bowden (Aug 10, 2009)

LRG said:


> Proud of us Americans, not the system for which has a hold on us.
> LRGuerrero



Amen


----------



## drapetomaniac (Aug 10, 2009)

Here's the original source of the e-mail request.  It took me a a while to find it because of all the internet being littered with claims of sniper squads being deployed to kill your kittens and ironing your pants with the crease on the wrong side - as well as turning you over to the grand reptilian freemason... anyway, the original source 
The White House - Blog Post - Facts Are Stubborn Things

Palin, this past week, claimed there was a death panel that would kill her baby. Does anyone think that's true - or is it fishy? Is it almost true?  Spin?  Death panels for babies as pending legislation?

Obama has access to the same wiretapping programming Bush put into place.  I stopped actively campaigning for Obama once he supported stalling any lawsuits to even uncover how deep it went.  It went deep BTW:
AT&T ‘Spy Room’ Documents Released, Confirm Wired News’ Earlier Publication | Threat Level | Wired.com

Luckily, he doesn't have Bush's attempt to repeal Posse Comitatus to use 
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And he's on record for objecting to the stronger theory of Unitary Executive:
Unitary executive theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
FACT CHECK: JUDGE ALITO ON THE THEORY OF THE UNITARY EXECUTIVE

Unfortunately, Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito believe in it as I understand.

But it's not too late - we can still call for an open investigation into past and current abuses - before they start torturing people. Email Cornyn and ask for it.   Unfortunately, a lot of people are still wanting to prevent even investigating what has happened thoroughly, so the precedents just continue and it's hard to build momentum when the same or more harsh acts are still being defended.

My hope was that Obama would come in and abridge his own powers that were wildly expanded by the last administration and call for more checks and balances, but the reality is most presidents enjoy the expanded power of their predecessors and build upon it.

What powers from the last administration does Obama have to build upon if he wants to?


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 11, 2009)

heard this morning that they want to place a cookie on your computer to track what websites you use.
Am I just getting paranoid, or is there something really going on here I need to be concerned with?

I would also like to ask, There is a line in the FC charge: to be a good citizen and conform etc...how does this apply to the dismantling of our republic?


----------



## drapetomaniac (Aug 11, 2009)

Brother James,
Remember when this came up in 2005 with the prior administration?
WhiteHouse.gov Uses Cookies, Bugs

Notice how in many of these "horrors" - things they take an action and _inject_ motivation and intentions. (I remember this being warned against in the midst of the reunion charges, although I'd have to look up the degree)

It's very easy to invent intention - Whoever said, "they are using cookies to track where you are going" could have just as easily said, "they are using cookies to find out your address and send you flowers."

One news program said the government was using a plain yes/no checkbox  to take over your computer and take all the information on it.

This was part of an open comment program:
White House Confronts Cookies - Tech Insider

The White House - Blog Post - Federal Websites: Cookie Policy

I heard a lot of people discussing this program, but nobody creating intentions seemed to point people the site to comment. Possibly because it would have clarified the actual proposal.

I don't see anything at all in the proposal that would track you outside of the single site you are visiting.

You should disable all cookies in your browser preferences and go about your normal routine to see why this question was asked.

I'm amazed, given our charges, how often abandoning them has come up in the past few months. I seem to almost hear it more among masons than others, which is even more disturbing.

Let's try a mid-term election first.

If you're interested in how various privacy and web organizations commented:
Federal Websites: Cookie Policy  OSTP Blog

This was a policy review and public request for open input, not tyranny.


----------



## Sirius (Aug 11, 2009)

drapetomaniac said:


> I'm amazed, given our charges, how often abandoning them has come up in the past few months. I seem to almost hear it more among masons than others, which is even more disturbing.
> 
> Let's try a mid-term election first.
> 
> ...



Nice post.


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 11, 2009)

Before we all start slamming our current administration, let's remember what Bush and his Patriot Act did.  That set the precedent for the rest of this nonsense.


----------



## Sirius (Aug 11, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Before we all start slamming our current administration, let's remember what Bush and his Patriot Act did.  That set the precedent for the rest of this nonsense.



Well said.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 11, 2009)

with congressional approval I might add.  And reauthorized


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 11, 2009)

and by the way... saying that Bush did it is NOT freaking justification!  Bush was WRONG to start the bailouts and was wrong about many other things.  But WTF, Bush made some errors so lets let Obama go and create his Czars to run his shadow government, take over the auto industry, banking industry, health care... after all Bush allowed waterboarding (which was legal under US code in 2003/2004).


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 11, 2009)

drapetomaniac said:


> I'm amazed, given our charges, how often abandoning them has come up in the past few months. I seem to almost hear it more among masons than others, which is even more disturbing.



I hope Im misunderstanding what you are saying.  Are you saying questioning the messiah is violating our masonic charges?


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 11, 2009)

_I'm amazed, given our charges, how often abandoning them has come up in the past few months. I seem to almost hear it more among masons than others, which is even more disturbing._

I do not wish to abandon my sworn oath and do not avocate doing so. But for the sake of debate...at what point will our charges leave us vunerable?

I do not follow any one aspect of our current political system, and am a big fan of term limits and small government.  I can't wait for an independent to win something big and shake the system.  Anyone who "run's for office" for a living has a screw loose and I don't really want that person leading my country.

I do not think that for one minute that our "government" has the ability to do half the stuff they announce, but people who are afraid are easier to control; and thanks to our media, you have to admit they can make a bake sale sound scarey


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 11, 2009)

Jamesb said:


> I can't wait for an independent to win something big and shake the system.


+1.  Well said.


----------



## LRG (Aug 12, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> , let's remember what Bush and his Patriot Act did. That set the precedent for the rest of this nonsense.
> 
> +1


after all Bush allowed waterboarding (which was legal under US code in 2003/2004).
Which saved no telling how many American lives.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Aug 12, 2009)

Wingnut said:


> I hope Im misunderstanding what you are saying.  Are you saying questioning the messiah is violating our masonic charges?



Yes, you are misunderstanding - although questioning Jesus Christ is your own business.

I was responding to:


> I would also like to ask, There is a line in the FC charge: to be a good citizen and conform etc...how does this apply to the dismantling of our republic?



What does challenging that charge mean to you?


----------



## drapetomaniac (Aug 12, 2009)

Wingnut said:


> and by the way... saying that Bush did it is NOT freaking justification!  Bush was WRONG to start the bailouts and was wrong about many other things.  But WTF, Bush made some errors so lets let Obama go



Nobody said let him go.  But let's stop pretending Obama is a unique creature (half Communist half Nazi)  for doing the same things.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Aug 12, 2009)

Jamesb said:


> I do not wish to abandon my sworn oath and do not avocate doing so. But for the sake of debate...at what point will our charges leave us vunerable?



I would have picked the temporary abandon of Pose Camitatus, secret detentions, mass wiretapping, torture.  Others seem to think its bail-outs during severe recessions and universal health care (all being done by other democratic countries, except we're among the last for health care).

If I understand the history of our charges - they would have developed under Kings. So, where are the limitations there? 

I've often mused about the charges and the fact that  the founding father of so many countries abandoned them.  It makes me more curious about the first three degrees of the Scottish Rite and if the charges differ there.



Jamesb said:


> I do not follow any one aspect of our current political system, and am a big fan of term limits and small government.  I can't wait for an independent to win something big and shake the system.  Anyone who "run's for office" for a living has a screw loose and I don't really want that person leading my country.



I think anyone who does follow one part should attend their parties caucuses and conventions just one election year.  The nature of these two corporations vying for power becomes evident.

Unfortunately, if we can't find a more reasoned way to discuss government in general, it won't matter if the person is independent or not.  There are prominent people spreading lies of "death panels" and "internment camps" and "re-education camps" with little check on the claims (including Senators and Congressmen) and plenty of people fanning the flames and buying into them. 

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care.  These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation.  Since we canâ€™t keep track of all of them here at the White House, weâ€™re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."

A direct and plainly worded request to forward misinformation was turned into "report[ing] their fellow citizens," an enemies list and future gestapo.

Independent won't matter if we're still paranoid and don't encourage more critical thinking from the public when they're elected.

The results aren't good SPLCenter.org: New SPLC Report Details the Resurgent Militia Movement




Jamesb said:


> I do not think that for one minute that our "government" has the ability to do half the stuff they announce,



I'd like to see people who hate government and think it's instantly incompetent the moment it's formed - stop trying to be those incompetent people. It's the only job in the world where somebody can say,"If I take this job, I'm going to suck at it" and people rally behind it."

I personally think American are bright and competent and can leading many areas we are behind in.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

a good citizen would stand up against a major change in the principles of our republic.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

drapetomaniac said:


> Nobody said let him go.  But let's stop pretending Obama is a unique creature (half Communist half Nazi)  for doing the same things.




Apples and oranges... nothing Bush did was done without congressional approval, and in the case of the Patriot Act, it has been re-authorized.  This was after all a democrat congress.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Aug 12, 2009)

Wingnut said:


> a good citizen would stand up against a major change in the principles of our republic.



I think it's commonly assumed our founding father's all had one single idea of what those principles are.

We've had severe improvements in our nation and national culture since the founding fathers.

I do think all good citizens should stand up for their conscience, as they make up the republic.


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

I find it simply amazing that 545 people are the only people that have direct control over anything that is done in American Government.  

President (1): 
    * May veto laws (not line item sadly was ruled unconstitutional because it gave the President the power to effect legislation)
    * May not refuse to spend money allocated for certain purposes
    * Wages war at the direction of Congress (Congress makes the rules for the military)
    * Makes decrees or declarations (for example, declaring a state of emergency) and promulgates lawful regulations and executive orders
    * Often appoints judges
    * Has power to grant pardons to convicted criminals

435 Congressmen in the House of Representatives and 100 Senators (535 total):      
    * Writes and enacts laws
    * Enacts taxes, authorizes borrowing, and sets the budget
    * Has sole power to declare war
    * May start investigations, especially against the executive branch
    * Often appoints the heads of the executive branch
    * Sometimes appoints judges
    * Ratifies treaties

Supreme Court (9 judges):
    * Determines which laws Congress intended to apply to any given case
    * Determines whether a law is unconstitutional
    * Determines how Congress meant the law to apply to disputes
    * Determines whether what Congress has legislated is unconstitutional
    * Determines how a law acts to determine the disposition of prisoners
    * Determines how a law acts to compel testimony and the production of evidence
    * Determines how laws should be interpreted to assure uniform policies in a top-down fashion via the appeals process, but gives discretion in individual cases to low-level judges. (The amount of discretion depends upon the standard of review, determined by the type of case in question.)
    * Polices its own members
    * Is never immune to arbitrary dismissal by Congress through impeachment proceedings

With any one party in total control of 2 branches (or three arms if you wish to count the house and senate as seperate since they also provide checks and balances on each other) the entire balance of power is screwed.   

No matter what anyone on either side says Sotomyors appoint didnt really make any major change to the Supreme Court, it is still a liberal leaning court, she replaced a liberal.  The only real effect it has is that it will remain a liberal leaning court for much longer since she is relatively young by Justice standards.

No matter how its spun, 545 people are the root cause of every problem in America, but the sheeple keep electing the same 545 people (or ones cut from the same cloth) that caused the messes and expect to get a different result.  

*They *can blame the 'system' or the economy or whatever but in the end, *they *are the ones that are legally, morally and ultimately responsible.  *They *are the bureaucracy that has screwed the pooch.  Taxes are out of control because *they *allow them to be.  No matter who *they *want to point fingers at and blame, *they *are those 545 people...


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

drapetomaniac said:


> I think it's commonly assumed our founding father's all had one single idea of what those principles are.
> 
> We've had severe improvements in our nation and national culture since the founding fathers.
> 
> I do think all good citizens should stand up for their conscience, as they make up the republic.



Not at all, spending some time reading the Federalist Papers it becomes very obvious they disagreed on many, if not most, things.  But did agree on a some very important aspects and were willing to work together to come to a compromise.  

Getting away from the principles enumerated in the Constitution has caused many of the problems we face today.  Bail outs shouldn't be a question.  Government funded health care isnt an enumerated power of the Federal Government.  the most abused Right in the Bill of Rights is the 10th (which I feel was put as the last because it is the most important and our founding fathers wanted it to be the one that was read last to keep if in peoples head):  *The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 12, 2009)

LRG said:


> after all Bush allowed waterboarding (which was legal under US code in 2003/2004).
> Which saved no telling how many American lives.



Where is the documentation that it saved any at all?


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Where is the documentation that it saved any at all?



Still classified, thats the documentation that Cheney has been pushing for obama to release, and most likely why the issue has been back burnered, a full hearing would cause that kind of information to be released.  Releasing it would set that straw man on fire.


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 12, 2009)

I'll believe it when I see it.  I didn't know that any type of confession under torture was acceptable in this country anyway.  

LRG, advocating the use of torture for any reason is troublesome, and goes directly against what America stands for.  And to think that I would be standing on the side of traditional values in this debate is shocking...

Back to the Patiot Act, it basically gave the government free reign to look into any personal records/e-mails/phone calls, and even voicemail for little to no reason.  When the great big scary "terrorism" word gets thrown into the mix, our government had the right to invade any kind of privacy we thought we had.  That is a HUGE erosion of the personal freedoms that our Bill of Rights guarantees.  But, we all know it is the Obama Adminstration's fault. lol


----------



## Wingnut (Aug 12, 2009)

Congress passed two laws, the Detainee Treatment Act in 2005 and the Military Commissions Act in 2006.  Both banned the use of harsh interrogation methods.

The Pentagon published a new Army field manual in 2006 that limits interrogation techniques and bans harsh methods, including waterboarding, hoods and mock executions. 

It can be inferred from these laws being passed, the new handbook issued, that it was legal until a law was made that made it illegal.

It should be noted that water boarding was only performed on 3 people by CIA interrogators, including the master mind of the 9-11 attacks.  

And to answer any future question:  If it could be reasonably presumed that using 'enhanced interrogation' techniques on a known terrorist would save one of my loved ones lives, water boarding would be the least of their worries.

As for the Patriot Act, it again should be noted that this wasnt an executive order that Bush put into place.  It was a law that Both Houses of congress, by a pretty large majority passed not once, not twice but three times in 2001, 2005 and 2006.  In fact it actually changed very little of what was put in place with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) (passed in 78 by the Carter Administration).  It did however change how some law enforcement duties were preformed.


----------



## TCShelton (Aug 12, 2009)

Even better.  With a trend that is as old as this one is, we can probably stop blaming the current administration of all these problems.


----------



## Robert Marshall (Aug 13, 2009)

TCShelton said:


> Even better.  With a trend that is as old as this one is, we can probably stop blaming the current administration of all these problems.



I can't speak for anyone else but at least in my eyes, I'm not "blaming" the current administration for all these problems. I flat dislike many of the actions being taken by the Obama administration for many of the reasons already discussed here. I could care less if Bush, Clinton, or Lincoln set the problems into motion because I can't do anything about that. I expect that everyone would concede that each President can only initially use the power held at the end of the previous administration and also, many of the problems stem from abuses made by previous Presidents, BUT, that does NOT mean that the abuse should continue to build into a giant rolling snow ball of s***. "Bush did this, bush did that." This argument is null and void to me. Whether you were pro-Bush or anti-Bush is irrelevant. If there is a problem, it is now. Yesterday's problem can no longer be prevented.


----------



## Jamesb (Aug 13, 2009)

I second Longhorn's statement


----------

