FACT CHECK: The Supposed "EO"'s Issued On January, 16, 2013.

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by okiecowboy

 

Originally posted by okiecowboy

In a reply to a letter I sent to sen. Jim inhofe....he also called them executive orders

So why are even the law makers calling them that?

IMO they are using the fallacious terminology for various reasons. One, they are human and exposed to the same rhetoric and propaganda that we are. Secondly, they serve their masters - the lobby. The NRA has a huge lobby, as do arms makers. If I were the owner of a company that made guns? I'd be of a mind to push the rhetoric for no other reason than free advertising and solidification of my customer base. It would simply be good business to want that. If I had a senator or two in my pocket? The better.

I also imagine that a few from the right simply use the exaggerated terms because it suits their long term goal of gaining control of the Government in the next election.

I think there is a hell of a lot of truth to this right here.

The mems/"actions" are empty shirts. Gets you all riled up, pacifies the ninnies, makes more money for all involved.. and unfortunately does nada for the real problems. A few of them he doesnt have a snowballs chance of actually advancing on... some are deceptive and could be dangerous... others COULD be helpful if not abused by this or subsequent admins.

Heff, if "the right" AKA republican party thinks Romney is choice president material.. they should be disregarded by "the right" aka citizen voting base. Im afraid to see who they trot out after both McCain and Romney, to be honest. I voted for Johnson and dont care who calls it a vote for Obama or a wasted vote.

I happen to be a gun owner and 2nd Ammendment proponant that is NOT a great fan of the NRA. That makes me roundly hated by both sides. LOL! Republicans have gone barking mad and it snowballed in the last 15-20 yrs since I turned my back on them. Dem politicians.. the same... nuts. Just another shade of nutball. Hell, half of the libertarians are doofy and think libertarianism means anarchy. I hope soon the majority of folks will wake up to and rebel against being used by the major parties and lied to constantly by both.. and find someone of accomplishemnt and character that doesnt worship a donkey, elephant, or tow a hard party line. Then again.. its late. I may be awake and dreaming. Cant we just fire THEM ALL??

Start rant :
In any case, Im so puking sick of the cheerleaders for both sides on here and in the media... I hope aliens or Ison knocks the satellites out and we dont have to hear the PSYCHOphant sheep bleat the regurgitated talking points on EVERY thread... on every channel... almost verbatim.. regardless of what the thread is about. Even if you show them youre not talking about the dem repub pissing match.... they will babble crazily and repeat talking points and catch words. One side thinks you HATE Obama and are some kind of a bible thumping gun nut if you disagree with something.. and the other side thinks youre FOR obama and a libtard if you dont disagree on everything Obama does! This crap has even infiltrated my board.. and it has NOTHING to do with current events, conspiracy, or politics. My first account here was in 07.. right before the election. Its so strange how the shoe fits both hard dem and hard repub feet depending on which one wears it.. there really is no difference in the irrationality.
/ rant

My concerns are not with the issuing of the "memos", I think alot of them are superficial. There are a few that are VERY poorly worded IMO and have potential to be greatly abused. Doctors asking about firearms with no reason to and then reporting the answer regardless of ethics. Also, they do not define what mental illnesses would make one a candidate to lose rights. As has been pointed out has the potential to be abused, you have PTSD? denied You have anxiety? denied You have depression? denied Those are potentials to be abused. What does CDC have to do with any of this unless they are aiming at a blanket statement of calling mental illness a disease?

reply to post by kaylaluv


No, I am afraid it is further reaching than you understand or care to entertain. I will give you that it is nothing like what some people are afraid of, but when you grasp the full implications of a select few of the EO's it is pretty unnerving.

Excellent post, thanks for taking to the time to dissect the truth, the real problem is people getting concerned at what mass media, perceived credible news sources and other people are broadcasting as a problem, then without fact checking or educating their ownselves, they blindly, believe follow and agree.

Too many people nowadays are too ignorant to go research and rely too heavily on information that is possibly not even true, but even worse, there are many sheeple trumpeting causes for the wrong reasons, that are possibly not even capable to even comprehend written rules, regulations or laws themselves.

It is astounding how many people depend on the media, pundents and sensationalizers with their own agendas to feed them the news and from that point all they know is what they are being told, this to me is the most dangerous thing we should worry about in America, because if a revolution or some other civil uprising is sparked either on false pretenses, falsehoods or complete misinterpretation that would be a shame.

reply to post by phinubian


At the same time though there are people that can't grasp the implications of what he has done and so downplay them as nothing. There are several EO's on that list that when combined together have huge implications.I seriously think that the others on the list that are basically pointless are just there to take the focus off of the push to out gun owners via their doctors and also change the criteria for what constitutes mental illness/who is allowed to have guns legally.

I elaborated further in an earlier post, maybe a page or two back. Basically it's not as bad as some people think as far as immediate consequences, BUT it has the potential to change everything through some of the seemingly benign EO's.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I am in complete agreement with you on these points as well, very good analysis, you'd have to have a crystal ball to see the future implications of a lot of executive orders or just about any law, because as you know there are other decisions to be made in the future that can either nullify, change the course of current policies or perhaps, amplify beyond original intent (good or bad) laws, executive or legislative that today on the face value seem insignificant.

reply to post by phinubian


Yep. When you have the President calling for the CDC to research gun violence and mental illness, you consider that they will likely blame depression instead of the meds to treat the depression (which are likely a huge factor) because of the governments relationship with Big Pharma, THEN you notice that he is trying to remove "unnecessary legal barriers" in HIPPA that prevent doctors from sharing this information in cases where it isn't pertinent, and finally the emphasis that doctors are allowed to ask, you start to get a real sense of something being prepared.

Assess, Ask, Share, and Act (lol).

I am still waiting to see any of the eo's he was supposed to sign but wasn't aware of the memorandum. But am i taking too much from this to feel that because he didn't sign the expected eo's his government is not hellbent to turn this country communist is that your stance? Are you trying to insinuate that because there's no eo's there is no conspiracy to remove guns from the American people in order to accomplish his aims?

I'd be willing to blame this on Faux News as just another way to demonize Obama and try to gain the White House again in 2016, if it wasn't for the fact that the rest of the MSM is in on it too.

So that leaves what? Are gun manufacturers bribing all the heads of the media, plus some Democratic senators, just to boost sales? That's crazy sauce.

If it's a psy-op, what's the end game? They want to pretend to take the guns so it will provoke patriots into doing something violent, so that they can-what? Take the guns. They want to do something draconian but not go down in history as the bad guy, so they entrap those who would oppose them with a fake-out.

In the end, it's the same thing. This clarification on the EO thing doesn't make me rest any eaiser.

Nice post OP

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow

 

Doctors have ALWAYS had the right - the duty -- to ask if there are guns in the home when they have a patient they feel is a threat to themselves or to others. Nothing new there. Doctors have ALWAYS had the duty to report someone they feel is a threat - doctor/patient confidentiality is legally waived here - nothing new there.

As for the CDC study -- why don't we wait for the actual results of the study before we start spreading panic and paranoia.

edit on 30-1-2013 by kaylaluv because: (no reason given)

Glad you clarified the clarification there, but I'm afraid many people just won't believe what is right there for them to see. The poster you replied to is still referring to the points of the memorandum as EO's, and blatantly deleted, in his mind, the whole point about clarifying that doctors ARE STILL allowed to ask about guns in the home. Again, no change, but apparently some people are only capable of reading the words they wish to see.

I am bothered by the fact that everyone from Fox to CNN has made this out to be much more than it is. President Obama STILL, after 4 years, has not taken the 2nd amendment away, and if there were a clearing house available to bet on it with people, i'd be offering 10:1 odds aginst, and I'd put my life savings on it.

Originally posted by tmeister182
I am still waiting to see any of the eo's he was supposed to sign but wasn't aware of the memorandum. But am i taking too much from this to feel that because he didn't sign the expected eo's his government is not hellbent to turn this country communist is that your stance? Are you trying to insinuate that because there's no eo's there is no conspiracy to remove guns from the American people in order to accomplish his aims?

Where did you get the idea that Obama is hell-bent on turning the US into a disarmed communist dictatorship? Any political analyst worth his salt will tell you that, while Obama may be left of the far-right extremists, he is still center-right, just like the nation as a whole (average), and just like every president for decades. I don't think the fact that the anti-Obama nuts were wrong about this means there's no pending communist takeover of the US. I think the fact that there's no pending commie takeover means that.

reply to post by dogstar23

I am bothered by the fact that everyone from Fox to CNN has made this out to be much more than it is.

I am bothered by the fact everyone says it is the media that has made it out this way...when in fact law makers on both sides of the isle are saying this...and media is just reporting it..

I am supprised that people are so brainwashed they don't see a problem with a dr. Asking about guns when you go in for a prostate exam

I am suprised so few people care about the rights that are being abused and stolen..

I am supprised no one questions how the government can do this...

In fact where in the constitution does it give the feds the power to look after our health and safety??

I am suprised no one asks what the cdc has to do with guns....I mean what is the second word in CDC?? Really? So thats what guns are now?

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I applaud you as well.

I (and a few others) have been saying this ever since Obama released this, but kept getting shut down by the "fanatics". You are very much respected on this site, so maybe they will listen to you.

I blame the NRA and Alex Jones for hyping these 23 "actions" as some kind of attempt by Obama to be an "evil dictator". You can disagree with Obama's policies and ideologies, but these 23 items are nothing more than an attempt to make people feel better after the Newtown tragedy. There's absolutely no "meat" in any of it. No new laws -- no modification of any existing laws.

Plain and simple - the media intentionally hyped the entire EO thing out of proportion. Obama did nothing to allay the anxiety of the people, but only contributed to it, and hence he never denied any of it because its part of the overall scare tactic psy-op agenda against not just the 2nd, but the 1st and eventually the entire Bill of Rights. Sandy Hook/Newtown is all a part of the destruction of the Constitution and BofR so this is one great psy-op and not merely regarding the EO issues. The entire thing is a fraud.

Originally posted by tmeister182
I am still waiting to see any of the eo's he was supposed to sign but wasn't aware of the memorandum. But am i taking too much from this to feel that because he didn't sign the expected eo's his government is not hellbent to turn this country communist is that your stance? Are you trying to insinuate that because there's no eo's there is no conspiracy to remove guns from the American people in order to accomplish his aims?

That is exactly what I am saying. I will also clarify - whether or not he's a good POTUS, he is not a communist, nor an illegal alien, nor was he born in another country, nor did he attend college under an illegal alias, nor any of the other meme's that have been created to mislead America to the point where so many are willing to forego their sanity in fits of misinformation induced paranoia.

There are things to actually hold the man accountable for. He's not perfect and he should be taken to task for his trespasses. Sadly we'll never see that happen because we'll spend his entire second term the same way we spent his first term - debating absolute BS, rather than looking at reality with a clear mind.

~Heff

reply to post by kaylaluv


reply to post by timetothink

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Please point out specifically where this memorandum enacted a new law, or modified an existing law.

___________________________________________________________________________________
For starters: Obama care expressly forbids DRs from asking about guns.

EOs don't make new laws, they just narrow or widen the scope of existing laws. And they must pass judicial review. The one about DRs will not pass review.

reply to post by dogstar23


I am still discussing it because she isn't entirely correct.
They might be able to discuss and share this information if they feel it is a threat, but that's not what we are talking about. These "EOs" which are actually executive actions change the rules and people in this thread are being willfully ignorant of this. Doctors generally don't ask these questions if it isn't in regard to the matter at hand and they have NO reason to share this information and would actually not be allowed. That is why you see certain language in that "EO" it says something to the effect of "eliminate unnecessary legal barriers" in regards to HIPPA.

So yes it actually does change things. I don't see why you didn't just address me, unless you are trying to spark a conversation with her for some other reason. Because it's a lady poster me thinks.

I am not making it anything more or less than it actually is. I am pointing out what the real world implications are, not down playing and no sensationalizing. Continue reading my next post as I was going to include the information in it to you as well, but saved it for the other poster to avoid repeating.

reply to post by Muadib777


In this instance you should have pointed out number 2 on the list.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

What makes these legal barriers unnecessary? They wouldn't be there if they were. They are actually very necessary because they deal with patient confidentiality. Trust me this will garner a coordinated push to change the definition of mental illness to include things like bouts of depression. This is the "EO" that is most telling and that people on this thread are basically playing dumb about. HIPPA exists for a reason.

reply to post by Snsoc


I would think gun manufacturers are too busy just trying to get banks to accept their deposits to do much bribing.

reply to post by GogoVicMorrow


I believe this has bearing:

An individual who believes that the Privacy Rule is not being upheld can file a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights (OCR).[25][26] However, according to the Wall Street Journal, the OCR has a long backlog and ignores most complaints. "Complaints of privacy violations have been piling up at the Department of Health and Human Services. Between April of 2003 and November 2006, the agency fielded 23,886 complaints related to medical-privacy rules, but it has not yet taken any enforcement actions against hospitals, doctors, insurers or anyone else for rule violations. A spokesman for the agency says it has closed three-quarters of the complaints, typically because it found no violation or after it provided informal guidance to the parties involved."[27] However, in July 2011, UCLA agreed to pay $865,500 in a settlement regarding potential HIPAA violations. An HHS Office for Civil Rights investigation showed that from 2005 to 2008 unauthorized employees repeatedly and without legitimate cause looked at the electronic protected health information of numerous UCLAHS patients.[28]

Source

The protections are already impotent and have been since at least the previous administration it seems. nearly 24 thousand complaints and not a single enforcement action?

It was a protection without any teeth to begin with. This is how political pandering works. By addressing something that is already gone - it makes the POTUS appear as though he's taking definitive action, even though nothing changes.

That is the point. The POTUS, currently, has to find a way to pacify the parents who are screaming for him to make it safe for their kids to show up at school - all while having to also appease the folks on the other side of the issue.

You know, honestly, if it wasn't for the extremists discussing secession and open and armed revolution I would simply keep reading, watching, and forming an opinion as the situation gels. But since hyperbole and disinfo have taken such a strong, early root? Now it's not only a mad scramble to try and find the truth - but to try and share it with as many folks as I can before somebody messes around and tips the entire boat over for all of us.