Original Post: CS Monitor
By Husna Haq
Associated Press reporters are not alone. One week after news broke that the Justice Department secretly obtained phone records from AP, more news has emerged about the Obama administration’s campaign to silence leaks.
Gary Pruitt, CEO of the Associated press, told CBS's "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
This time, it’s new details about a 2010 Justice Department investigation into a Fox News correspondent who reported government secrets on North Korea. The twist is that in the Fox News case, the government is suggesting that the reporter broke the law and criminal charges could result.
The news points to how the Obama administration is going to unprecedented lengths to defend secrets – prosecuting more government leakers under the 1917 Espionage Act than all prior administrations combined.
Anecdotal evidence suggests the crackdown is having an effect, with AP saying some of its sources are falling silent. But that success could come at the expense of the newsgathering and investigative-reporting process that the Founding Fathers saw as a crucial check on federal power.
The Fox News case, in particular, suggests the “criminalization of investigative journalism,” writes Glenn Greenwald in The Guardian, a British newspaper.
According to a Washington Post report Sunday, Fox News chief Washington correspondent James Rosen reported in June 2009 on a CIA analysis that suggested North Korea may respond to UN sanctions with more nuclear tests. The story was published online the same day that a confidential report on the matter was released to select officials in the intelligence community, including a State Department security adviser, Stephen Jin-Woo Kim.
Detecting a connection, FBI investigators built a case alleging Mr. Kim leaked information to Mr. Rosen. To do so, they used every tool in their arsenal: analyzing security badge access records to track Rosen’s comings and goings from the State Department, tracing the timing of his calls to Kim, even subpoenaing his personal e-mails.
Ultimately, FBI agents concluded Kim did, in fact, leak information to Rosen using a complex, if clumsy, system of communication including aliases and coded signals.
In his report, FBI investigator Reginald Reyes said evidence suggested Rosen had broken the law, “at the very least, either as an aider, abettor and/or co-conspirator.”
While details on the case are forthcoming, it is not a crime for journalists to report classified information, except in rare circumstances. Furthermore, government seizure of media records is tightly circumscribed under the government’s Code of Federal Regulations.
The AP and Fox News cases renew concerns about the potential stifling effect government investigations have on reporters and their sources.
“Search warrants like these have a severe chilling effect on the free flow of important information to the public,” said First Amendment lawyer Charles Tobin in the Washington Post report. “That’s a very dangerous road to go down.”
Jane Mayer of The New Yorker goes further: “It's a huge impediment to reporting, and so chilling isn't quite strong enough, it's more like freezing the whole process into a standstill,” she told the New Republic.
As a case in point, Gary Pruitt, CEO of the AP, told CBS’s "Face the Nation" this weekend that the Justice Department’s investigation is already silencing AP sources.
“Already, officials that would normally talk to us and people we talk to in the normal course of news gathering are already saying to us that they're a little reluctant to talk to us,” he said. “They fear that they – they will be monitored by the government.”
Perhaps the most serious implication, however, is that the investigations threaten to jeopardize the very practice of investigative journalism, already endangered by budget cuts and the 24/7 news cycle.
“Under US law, it is not illegal to publish classified information,” writes The Guardian's Mr. Greenwald. “That fact, along with the First Amendment's guarantee of press freedoms, is what has prevented the US government from ever prosecuting journalists for reporting on what the US government does in secret. This newfound theory of the Obama DOJ – that a journalist can be guilty of crimes for 'soliciting' the disclosure of classified information – is a means for circumventing those safeguards and criminalizing the act of investigative journalism itself.”
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label free speech. Show all posts
Thursday, May 23, 2013
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
The IRS admits to targeting conservative groups but were they also leaking?
Original Post: Daily Caller
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted:
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.
A little over a year ago, I reported that, ”It is likely that someone at the Internal Revenue Service illegally leaked confidential donor information showing a contribution from Mitt Romney’s political action committee to the National Organization for Marriage, says the group.”
Now — on the heels of news the IRS’s apology for having targeted conservative groups — NOM is renewing their demand that the Internal Revenue Service reveal the identity of the people responsible.
“There is little question that one or more employees at the IRS stole our confidential tax return and leaked it to our political enemies, in violation of federal law,” said NOM’s president Brian Brow, in a prepared statement. “The only questions are who did it, and whether there was any knowledge or coordination between people in the White House, the Obama reelection campaign and the Human Rights Campaign. We and the American people deserve answers.”
Recent reports indicate the IRS may have begun targeting conservative groups as early as 2010.
In a 2012 speech, Sen. Mitch McConnell noted, “The head of one national advocacy group has released documents which show that his group’s confidential IRS information found its way into the hands of a staunch critic on the Left who also happens to be a co-chairman of President Obama’s re-election committee. The only way this information could have been made public is if someone leaked it from inside the IRS.”
And so, the next question may be this: If the IRS was targeting conservative groups — as they now admit to doing — were they also leaking information?
UPDATE: In December of 2012, ProPublica wrote that they had obtained the application for recognition of tax-exempt status for Crossroads GPS, filed in September of 2010.
As the ProPublica story noted:
“‘As far as we know, the Crossroads application is still pending, in which case it seems that either you obtained whatever document you have illegally, or that it has been approved,’ Jonathan Collegio, the group’s spokesman, said in an email.
“The IRS sent Crossroads’ application to ProPublica in response to a public-records request. The document sent to ProPublica didn’t include an official IRS recognition letter, which is typically attached to applications of nonprofits that have been recognized. The IRS is only required to give out applications of groups recognized as tax-exempt.
“In an email Thursday, an IRS spokeswoman said the agency had no record of an approved application for Crossroads GPS, meaning that the group’s application was still in limbo.
Monday, May 21, 2012
TEACHER SUSPENDED FOR TELLING STUDENT HE COULD BE ARRESTED FOR TALKING BADLY ABOUT OBAMA
Original Post: The Blaze
by Mike Opelka
Last Monday, a high school student in North Carolina engaged his social studies teacher in a heated debate about politics and the two leading presidential candidates. During the exchange, the teacher (an obvious Obama supporter) got very angry with the student and accused him of disrespecting the president. She even went so far as to tell the boy that he could be jailed for speaking ill of Obama.
Sarah Campbell of the Salisbury Post first reported on the story. She claims that the school district is not releasing the name of the teacher and that she is not responding to requests for public comment (although the two students identified her to the newspaper). According to Campbell’s story, the teacher will not be suspended or even face disciplinary action for what was heard on the recording. A statement from the school was released at the end of the week:
“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students. Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.” So, how bad was the exchange? It got fairly heated, with the teacher shouting at times. The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:
“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?” The teacher started to get angry and said:
“Not to my knowledge.” A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.
“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.” As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:
“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.” Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:
“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.” The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:
“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.
“I’ll say what I want.” The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.
“Not about him, you won’t!” The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:
“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.” To which the teacher responded:
“Because he was sh-tty.” The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.
Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush. The local newspaper story also mentioned that their discussions about the story with a political science professor could not recall the arrests that the teacher was speaking about.
Update:
We learned the name and the fate of the Social Studies teacher heard on the video posted below. Toyna Dixon-Neely is the woman heard yelling at students who dared to express negative opinions about President Obama. We also found out that Ms. Dixon-Neely’s outrageous statements may not have led to a strict punishment: the local newspaper is reporting that she has been suspended with pay. (Curiously the Huffington Post says that the teacher is on an unpaid suspension, pending the outcome of the investigation by the school board.)
The entire confrontation was recorded by a student and posted on YouTube. Listen below; slight content warning for language.
by Mike Opelka
Last Monday, a high school student in North Carolina engaged his social studies teacher in a heated debate about politics and the two leading presidential candidates. During the exchange, the teacher (an obvious Obama supporter) got very angry with the student and accused him of disrespecting the president. She even went so far as to tell the boy that he could be jailed for speaking ill of Obama.
Sarah Campbell of the Salisbury Post first reported on the story. She claims that the school district is not releasing the name of the teacher and that she is not responding to requests for public comment (although the two students identified her to the newspaper). According to Campbell’s story, the teacher will not be suspended or even face disciplinary action for what was heard on the recording. A statement from the school was released at the end of the week:
“The Rowan-Salisbury School System expects all students and employees to be respectful in the school environment and for all teachers to maintain their professionalism in the classroom. This incident should serve as an education for all teachers to stop and reflect on their interaction with students. Due to personnel and student confidentiality, we cannot discuss the matter publicly.” So, how bad was the exchange? It got fairly heated, with the teacher shouting at times. The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:
“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?” The teacher started to get angry and said:
“Not to my knowledge.” A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.
“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.” As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:
“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.” Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:
“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.” The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:
“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.” Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.
“I’ll say what I want.” The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.
“Not about him, you won’t!” The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:
“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.” To which the teacher responded:
“Because he was sh-tty.” The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.
Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush. The local newspaper story also mentioned that their discussions about the story with a political science professor could not recall the arrests that the teacher was speaking about.
Update:
We learned the name and the fate of the Social Studies teacher heard on the video posted below. Toyna Dixon-Neely is the woman heard yelling at students who dared to express negative opinions about President Obama. We also found out that Ms. Dixon-Neely’s outrageous statements may not have led to a strict punishment: the local newspaper is reporting that she has been suspended with pay. (Curiously the Huffington Post says that the teacher is on an unpaid suspension, pending the outcome of the investigation by the school board.)
The entire confrontation was recorded by a student and posted on YouTube. Listen below; slight content warning for language.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
White House tries to intimidate reporter
Original Post: Weekly Standard
By MARK HEMINGWAY Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department knowingly gave Mexican criminal gangs thousands of guns, just keeps escalating. The latest development centers around whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about having knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking operation. Recently released documents say Holder was briefed about the operation long before he told the Judiciary Committee he was first aware of what was going on. (Holder now claims he misunderstood the question was being asked.) Then I would like him to tell us what question he was being asked, and why his answer is then acceptable
What's more, CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson -- who's been covering the scandal from the beginning -- says in an interview on the Laura Ingraham Show today that the White House and Justice Department have taken to screaming at her for reporting on the story. You can listen to the full interview below, but here are the key excerpts from Attkisson:
In between the yelling that I received from Justice Department yesterday, the spokeswoman--who would not put anything in writing, I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said, she wouldn't put anything in writing--so we talked on the phone and she said things such as the question Holder answered was different than the one he asked. But he phrased it, he said very explicitly, 'I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.'
Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you? Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House."
Finally, Attkisson notes that the White House is claiming that a thorough investigation of the scandal is unwarranted:
[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I'm the only reporter--as they told me--that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I'm the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I'm unfair and biased by pursuing it.
Here's the audio from the interview:
CBS News Reporter Says White House Screamed, Swore at Her Over Fast and Furious
By MARK HEMINGWAY Single Page Print Larger Text Smaller Text Alerts
The Fast and Furious scandal, in which the Justice Department knowingly gave Mexican criminal gangs thousands of guns, just keeps escalating. The latest development centers around whether or not Attorney General Eric Holder lied to Congress about having knowledge of the controversial gun trafficking operation. Recently released documents say Holder was briefed about the operation long before he told the Judiciary Committee he was first aware of what was going on. (Holder now claims he misunderstood the question was being asked.) Then I would like him to tell us what question he was being asked, and why his answer is then acceptable
What's more, CBS News investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson -- who's been covering the scandal from the beginning -- says in an interview on the Laura Ingraham Show today that the White House and Justice Department have taken to screaming at her for reporting on the story. You can listen to the full interview below, but here are the key excerpts from Attkisson:
In between the yelling that I received from Justice Department yesterday, the spokeswoman--who would not put anything in writing, I was asking for her explanation so there would be clarity and no confusion later over what had been said, she wouldn't put anything in writing--so we talked on the phone and she said things such as the question Holder answered was different than the one he asked. But he phrased it, he said very explicitly, 'I probably heard about Fast and Furious for the first time over the last few weeks.'
Ingraham: So they were literally screaming at you? Attkisson: Yes. Well the DOJ woman was just yelling at me. The guy from the White House on Friday night literally screamed at me and cussed at me. [Laura: Who was the person? Who was the person at Justice screaming?] Eric Schultz. Oh, the person screaming was [DOJ spokeswoman] Tracy Schmaler, she was yelling not screaming. And the person who screamed at me was Eric Schultz at the White House."
Finally, Attkisson notes that the White House is claiming that a thorough investigation of the scandal is unwarranted:
[The White House and Justice Department] will tell you that I'm the only reporter--as they told me--that is not reasonable. They say the Washington Post is reasonable, the LA Times is reasonable, the New York Times is reasonable, I'm the only one who thinks this is a story, and they think I'm unfair and biased by pursuing it.
Here's the audio from the interview:
Friday, April 1, 2011
Union thugs try to squelch free speech from the radio
WISN
You can voice your disgust at their mafia like tactics directly
Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200
6200 W. Bluemound Road
Milwaukee, WI 53213
Phone (414) 771-6363
Toll free (800) 272-3934
Fax (414) 771-5850
You can voice your disgust at their mafia like tactics directly
Teamsters "General" Local Union No. 200
6200 W. Bluemound Road
Milwaukee, WI 53213
Phone (414) 771-6363
Toll free (800) 272-3934
Fax (414) 771-5850
Marquette Warrior Blogger Threatened by Provost, Dean and Department Chair
Original Post: MU Warrior
We just got out of a meeting with Provost John Pauly, interim Arts & Sciences Dean Phil Rossi, and Political Science Department Chair Barry McCormick.
This was the meeting we were summoned to by Pauly.
Pauly, in an e-mail to us, said the meeting was about “some of the ongoing potential conflicts between your role as Marquette professor and employee, and independent blogger-journalist.”
The bottom line: all three – Pauly, Rossi and McCormick – want us to entirely stop blogging about student organizations.
Pauly claimed to have no problem with our blogging about faculty and administrators, but claimed our blogging about student affairs has been out of line. How much of this was a genuine concern (some of it probably was) and how much was the result of an ideological bias from liberal administrators two a conservative blogger (there was almost certainly some of that too) we can’t say.
Two specific instances were mentioned. First, we called the listed home number of a student, talked to (apparently) her father and left a polite message asking for a return call, explaining that we were working on a blog post about The Vagina Monologues (the student was listed as the Marquette contact on vday.org). Apparently, the student’s parents freaked. All three administrators (Pauly, Rossi and McCormick) condemned the call saying that faculty should never call the parents of students. They said that the parents should have been in Fr. Wild’s office loudly complaining about it.
We replied that we were calling the listed number of the student (and had no way of knowing that she was living with her parents), and that’s it’s standard practice for a journalist to call a potential source at home. But Pauly, Rossi and McCormick explicitly stated that we should somehow have known that the parents would freak. We were accused of merely offering “rationalizations.”
All thee insisted that we don’t have any of the prerogatives of a journalist, since the role of a professor trumps that of a faculty blogger.
The other issue raised was the fact that we had mentioned a student’s research paper, and were accused of “criticizing” it. In reality, we did not mention the student’s name, and the point of the blog post was that “‘gender studies’ has been added to ‘women’s studies’ signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer . . . .” The blog post was, quite simply, a comment on the fact that the Women’s and Gender Studies program has begun to slip “queer studies” into the university.
Pauly, Rossi and McCormick lamely replied that people could find the name of the student (we included the title of the paper, which could be googled), and that some people knew that we had supposedly “criticized the student.” In fact, nothing was said that was favorable or unfavorable about the student.
A Sandbox?
McCormick, using a metaphor that was supremely insulting to students, insisted that student activities are a “sandbox,” and that faculty should never comment on what student organizations do.
We pointed out that, in the issues they brought up, Marquette as an institution had been the issue. The Vagina Monologues will be sponsored by Social and Cultural Sciences, and the post that “criticized student research” was about the Women’s and Gender Studies Program.
We further pointed out that when students do high-profile public things, there is a legitimate news interest in what they do. In fact, it serves students well to learn that when they do highly visible controversial public things in some official role, they might get criticized.
Further, what student organizations do has consequences for the University. When Fr. Wild announced that Marquette is going to provide domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples, he explicitly cited a resolution calling for that from Marquette University Student Government. If student organizations can affect Marquette University policy, it’s hard to see how they should be exempt from scrutiny.
As the meeting moved on, Rossi and McCormick became more ad hominem, Rossi accusing us of having a “blind spot,” and McCormick asserting that nobody he knew felt that our blogging about student organizations was acceptable. Since we’ve gotten multiple supporting e-mails, that says more about McCormick’s circle of friends than about what “everybody believes.”
All three implied (and sometimes stated) that we had been guilty of some violation of professional ethics, but could not explain what that would be, beyond McCormick’s “sandbox” metaphor, and the general notion that faculty should never publicly say anything negative about a student, even a student in a very public role doing something controversial.
We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names. (It typically isn’t that significant who the student is anyway.) But that wasn’t enough.
They hang tough with the position that we should never comment on student affairs, and we were threatened by both Pauly and McCormick saying that we would “be here [in a meeting like this] again” if we persisted in blogging about the activities of student groups.
Needless to say, we will continue to blog about activities on campus, and when the actions of student organizations have substantial news interest, we will report them.
We just got out of a meeting with Provost John Pauly, interim Arts & Sciences Dean Phil Rossi, and Political Science Department Chair Barry McCormick.
This was the meeting we were summoned to by Pauly.
Pauly, in an e-mail to us, said the meeting was about “some of the ongoing potential conflicts between your role as Marquette professor and employee, and independent blogger-journalist.”
The bottom line: all three – Pauly, Rossi and McCormick – want us to entirely stop blogging about student organizations.
Pauly claimed to have no problem with our blogging about faculty and administrators, but claimed our blogging about student affairs has been out of line. How much of this was a genuine concern (some of it probably was) and how much was the result of an ideological bias from liberal administrators two a conservative blogger (there was almost certainly some of that too) we can’t say.
Two specific instances were mentioned. First, we called the listed home number of a student, talked to (apparently) her father and left a polite message asking for a return call, explaining that we were working on a blog post about The Vagina Monologues (the student was listed as the Marquette contact on vday.org). Apparently, the student’s parents freaked. All three administrators (Pauly, Rossi and McCormick) condemned the call saying that faculty should never call the parents of students. They said that the parents should have been in Fr. Wild’s office loudly complaining about it.
We replied that we were calling the listed number of the student (and had no way of knowing that she was living with her parents), and that’s it’s standard practice for a journalist to call a potential source at home. But Pauly, Rossi and McCormick explicitly stated that we should somehow have known that the parents would freak. We were accused of merely offering “rationalizations.”
All thee insisted that we don’t have any of the prerogatives of a journalist, since the role of a professor trumps that of a faculty blogger.
The other issue raised was the fact that we had mentioned a student’s research paper, and were accused of “criticizing” it. In reality, we did not mention the student’s name, and the point of the blog post was that “‘gender studies’ has been added to ‘women’s studies’ signals a move toward a homosexual emphasis, as shown by one of the papers completed by a WGST fellow this summer . . . .” The blog post was, quite simply, a comment on the fact that the Women’s and Gender Studies program has begun to slip “queer studies” into the university.
Pauly, Rossi and McCormick lamely replied that people could find the name of the student (we included the title of the paper, which could be googled), and that some people knew that we had supposedly “criticized the student.” In fact, nothing was said that was favorable or unfavorable about the student.
A Sandbox?
McCormick, using a metaphor that was supremely insulting to students, insisted that student activities are a “sandbox,” and that faculty should never comment on what student organizations do.
We pointed out that, in the issues they brought up, Marquette as an institution had been the issue. The Vagina Monologues will be sponsored by Social and Cultural Sciences, and the post that “criticized student research” was about the Women’s and Gender Studies Program.
We further pointed out that when students do high-profile public things, there is a legitimate news interest in what they do. In fact, it serves students well to learn that when they do highly visible controversial public things in some official role, they might get criticized.
Further, what student organizations do has consequences for the University. When Fr. Wild announced that Marquette is going to provide domestic partner benefits for gay and lesbian couples, he explicitly cited a resolution calling for that from Marquette University Student Government. If student organizations can affect Marquette University policy, it’s hard to see how they should be exempt from scrutiny.
As the meeting moved on, Rossi and McCormick became more ad hominem, Rossi accusing us of having a “blind spot,” and McCormick asserting that nobody he knew felt that our blogging about student organizations was acceptable. Since we’ve gotten multiple supporting e-mails, that says more about McCormick’s circle of friends than about what “everybody believes.”
All three implied (and sometimes stated) that we had been guilty of some violation of professional ethics, but could not explain what that would be, beyond McCormick’s “sandbox” metaphor, and the general notion that faculty should never publicly say anything negative about a student, even a student in a very public role doing something controversial.
We were willing to make only one concession: we assured the group that we would be more careful in the future about mentioning student’s names. (It typically isn’t that significant who the student is anyway.) But that wasn’t enough.
They hang tough with the position that we should never comment on student affairs, and we were threatened by both Pauly and McCormick saying that we would “be here [in a meeting like this] again” if we persisted in blogging about the activities of student groups.
Needless to say, we will continue to blog about activities on campus, and when the actions of student organizations have substantial news interest, we will report them.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Civilized peaceful union supporter threatens blogger with opposing view
Original Post: Maggies Notebook
Wisconsin Law Prof and Blogger, Ann Althouse, Threatened in Madison by Cyberstalker
By Maggie
There’s a Wisconsin story that I’ve not had a chance to cover this week, and everyone should know about it
Ann Althouse
because a blogger has been publicly threatened with violence for supporting Republican Governor Scott Walker. Ann Althouse is a law professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison. She and her husband Laurence Meade were present inside the Madison Capitol building and document some unsavory and uncivil behavior at The People’s House.
Althouse dared to write about it, and film it. It didn’t take long before they both became public targets. According to the Wall Street Journal, one Jim Shankman posted the following on Scirbd.com:
“We will hang up wanted posters of you everywhere you like to go. We will picket on public property as close to your house as we can every day. We will harrass the ever loving sh–out of you all the time. . . . Because we aren’t anti-social, life-denying, world-sterilizing pieces of human garbage like the two of you. WE WILL F— YOU UP.”
That’s a small sample. There are threats with the cyberstalker asking “Who are you gonna call? Cops for Labor?” – In otherwords, cops are union and they won’t be helping you. There may be more than a little truth in that.
More from Shankman:
There is no calvary. It is us vs you on the streets of the city going as far as it has to go until A) We Win or B) Doomsday.
So the obscenity in Madison has spilled over onto a well-respected and brilliant blogger. And she has been warned that she will be ruined, her career will ruined and her “sense of safety and wellbeing will be ruined.”
When Shankman works, he’s apparently a dishwasher. And now he wants to bow out of the controversy; issue the threats to life, limb and job, and drop out. Do dishwashers usually live in “townie” houses in groups of 5-7 at a time, and …well, you don’t want to know that – what am I thinking.
The same WSJ article says another Wisconsin private citizen and supporter of Governor Scott Walker, received a threat posted from a Facebook page, that promised to leave him in pool of his own blood.
Browse through Althouse’s archives for the full story.
Then return to The Other McCain and the story on how Shankman is identified, and is quoted saying “I’m done with it,” to which McCain replies: “you’re done with it, Jim — just like a cockroach is done feeding on crumbs when somebody turns on the kitchen light.”
If you’ve been missing McCain’s Smitty, he’s writing from Afghanistan has been filling some pages with excellence. Smitty, What is a “Death-Porn Doorstop, anyway?
Wisconsin Law Prof and Blogger, Ann Althouse, Threatened in Madison by Cyberstalker
By Maggie
There’s a Wisconsin story that I’ve not had a chance to cover this week, and everyone should know about it
Ann Althouse
because a blogger has been publicly threatened with violence for supporting Republican Governor Scott Walker. Ann Althouse is a law professor at the University of Wisconsin Madison. She and her husband Laurence Meade were present inside the Madison Capitol building and document some unsavory and uncivil behavior at The People’s House.
Althouse dared to write about it, and film it. It didn’t take long before they both became public targets. According to the Wall Street Journal, one Jim Shankman posted the following on Scirbd.com:
“We will hang up wanted posters of you everywhere you like to go. We will picket on public property as close to your house as we can every day. We will harrass the ever loving sh–out of you all the time. . . . Because we aren’t anti-social, life-denying, world-sterilizing pieces of human garbage like the two of you. WE WILL F— YOU UP.”
That’s a small sample. There are threats with the cyberstalker asking “Who are you gonna call? Cops for Labor?” – In otherwords, cops are union and they won’t be helping you. There may be more than a little truth in that.
More from Shankman:
There is no calvary. It is us vs you on the streets of the city going as far as it has to go until A) We Win or B) Doomsday.
So the obscenity in Madison has spilled over onto a well-respected and brilliant blogger. And she has been warned that she will be ruined, her career will ruined and her “sense of safety and wellbeing will be ruined.”
When Shankman works, he’s apparently a dishwasher. And now he wants to bow out of the controversy; issue the threats to life, limb and job, and drop out. Do dishwashers usually live in “townie” houses in groups of 5-7 at a time, and …well, you don’t want to know that – what am I thinking.
The same WSJ article says another Wisconsin private citizen and supporter of Governor Scott Walker, received a threat posted from a Facebook page, that promised to leave him in pool of his own blood.
Browse through Althouse’s archives for the full story.
Then return to The Other McCain and the story on how Shankman is identified, and is quoted saying “I’m done with it,” to which McCain replies: “you’re done with it, Jim — just like a cockroach is done feeding on crumbs when somebody turns on the kitchen light.”
If you’ve been missing McCain’s Smitty, he’s writing from Afghanistan has been filling some pages with excellence. Smitty, What is a “Death-Porn Doorstop, anyway?
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller wishes the internet had never been invented
There go the Democrats again, the party of science and free speech, decrying both.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Public School Bans U.S. Flag To Avoid “Racial Tension”
Original Post: Judicial Watch
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
A public middle school student in central California was forced to take an American flag off his bike because administrators feared Old Glory would ignite “racial tension”among Hispanic students.
The enraging violation of the teenager’s First Amendment right took place this week in Stanislaus County’s Denair Unified School District, where officials say Mexican flags brought in by Hispanic students created racial tension on Cinco de Mayo, the holiday that commemorates Mexico’s victory over France in the Battle of Puebla.
To avoid similar problems, a boy at Denair Middle School was forced to put away an American flag displayed on his bike to support war heroes, including some in his family, on Veterans Day week. The 13-year-old was ordered to remove it after students at his U.S. taxpayer-financed school complained, according to officials quoted in a local news report. All this while an American flag flaps in the wind on campus as is the case at practically all of the nation’s public schools.
Here is the official explanation offered by the district’s superintendant, Edward Parraz: "Our Hispanic, you know, kids will, you know, bring their Mexican flags and they'll display it, and then of course the kids would do the American flag situation, and it does cause kind of a racial tension which we don't really want. We want them to appreciate the cultures."
Who would have ever imagined that the Stars and Stripes would be considered offensive on its own soil and in a government-financed institution, no less? An acclaimed educational center dedicated to studying the First Amendment (Vanderbilt University’s First Amendment Center), points out that a 1969 Supreme Court ruling allows school officials to ban student expression if they can reasonably forecast that the speech or display will cause substantial disruption.
However, addressing this incident, one of its First Amendment scholars asks: “Since when is honoring Veterans Day with the display of the American flag disruptive?” He goes on to suggest that schools facing tensions over cultural differences can teach all students that disruptions over displays such as flags on bikes or backpacks will not be tolerated rather than banning the expression.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Democrat Senator Jay Rockefeller wants to kill free speech
Original Post: Huffington Post
Senator Rockefeller Wants FCC To 'End' Fox News, MSNBC
During a committee meeting on Wednesday about television retransmission consent, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) veered away from his prepared remarks to take aim at both Fox News and MSNBC:
More than just retransmission consent ails our television markets. We need new catalysts for quality news and entertainment programming. I hunger for quality news. I'm tired of the right and the left. There's a little bug inside of me which wants to get the FCC to say to Fox and to MSNBC, "Out. Off. End. Goodbye." It'd be a big favor to political discourse, our ability to do our work here in Congress, and to the American people, to be able to talk with each other and have some faith in their government and, more importantly, in their future.
As the New York Times points out, "There is little the Federal Communications Commission can say about Fox News or MSNBC since the channels are on cable, not delivered over the broadcast airwaves."
Rockefeller opened his remarks with a stinging rebuke of the 24-hour news cycle and the blurring of news and entertainment:
When it comes to developing content, our entertainment machine is too often in a race to the bottom. In fact, it is in a race to the bottom. Getting close. Even worse, our news media has all but surrendered to the forces of entertainment. And much of our news media is entertainment as opposed to news. Instead of a watchdog that is a check on the excesses of government and business, we have the endless barking of a 24-hour news cycle. We have journalism that is always ravenous for the next rumor, but insufficiently hungry for the facts that can nourish something called our democracy. As citizens, we are paying one heck of a price in the dumbing down of America. You're probably responsible for that.
Monday, September 20, 2010
Reporter fired for mentioning Obama's connection to BP
Original Post: Washington Post
Friday, September 17, 2010
WJLA-TV fires veteran anchor Doug McKelway, cites insubordination, misconduct
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post Staff WriterFriday, September 17, 2010
WJLA-TV has fired veteran anchorman Doug McKelway for a verbal confrontation this summer with the station's news director that came after McKelway broadcast a sharply worded live report about congressional Democrats and President Obama.
McKelway was placed on indefinite suspension in late July after his run-in with ABC7's news director and general manager, Bill Lord. In a letter to McKelway this week, the station said it was terminating his contract immediately, citing insubordination and misconduct.
Amid the ongoing BP oil spill in July, McKelway covered a Capitol Hill demonstration by environmental groups protesting the influence of oil-industry contributions to members of Congress.
In his piece, McKelway said the sparsely attended event attracted protesters "largely representing far-left environmental groups." He went on to say the protest "may be a risky strategy because the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP."
After a brief taped segment updating efforts to cap the BP well, McKelway added that the Senate was unlikely to pass "cap-and-trade" legislation this year, because "the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then."
Lord took exception to McKelway's reporting and asked to meet with him, according to several station sources who were granted anonymity to discuss the sensitive personnel matter. A shouting match between the two men ensued, leading to McKelway's suspension, sources said.
McKelway has alleged liberal favoritism in news reporting before; when he left his anchor chair at WRC after nine years to join WJLA in mid-2001, he blasted the station's lack of "balance," in a newspaper article.
McKelway declined to comment on his status at WJLA; Lord also declined to comment.
McKelway said that he is currently working on a book about his family's history in journalism in Washington. McKelway's grandfather, Benjamin, was the longtime editor of the Washington Star; his great-uncle St. Clair was a writer and editor for the New Yorker for 30 years; and his late uncle John was a columnist with the Star and the Washington Times.
WJLA is owned by Allbritton Communications of Arlington, which also owns TBD TV (formerly NewsChannel 8), Politico and TBD.com.
Monday, September 13, 2010
WRONG TO BURN QURANS, BUT OK FOR US MILITARY TO BURN BIBLES
Original Post: All Voices
A pro-family organization says it's hypocritical for high-ranking officials in the Pentagon to condemn a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans when U.S. military personnel burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.
Pastor Terry Jones told reporters outside his church in Gainesville Wednesday afternoon that he remains unconvinced that "backing down is the right thing" to do regarding the planned burning of Qurans on Saturday. That protest has drawn objection from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander, who says images of burning Qurans will be used by extremists to inflame public opinion and incite worldwide violence. (See earlier story)
Earlier today on ABC's Good Morning America, President Barack Obama criticized the event, calling it a "stunt" and warning it could become "a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." Other notable Obama administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have also condemned the planned Quran burning.
But Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), thinks it is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to condemn the church, considering the fact that the U.S. military incinerated Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan in May 2009. "There's really a staggering level of hypocrisy and double standard here for the military to burn the Holy Bible and then complain when a pastor's going to do the same thing to the Quran," Fischer contends. "You know, if the military was going to be fair here and even-handed, they would count up the number of Holy Bibles that they incinerated in Afghanistan, and then they would allow Reverend Jones to burn the same number of Qurans."
The AFA issues analysis director believes the whole incident illustrates the difference between Christianity and Islam. "When these Bibles were burned [in May 2009], the Christian community did not riot in the streets; we did not threaten violence against anyone," he points out. "[But] when even the threat of Qurans being burned takes place, it's like we're dealing with Armageddon [or] with World War III."
In a OneNewsNow poll conducted in May 2009, more than 60 percent of respondents said -- in reaction to the decision by the U.S. military to destroy the Bibles -- that "if it had been the Quran, this never would have happened."
Hypocrisy 'pretty well established'
Meanwhile, a senior Army strategist and Pentagon advisor also sees hypocrisy in high-ranking officials in the Pentagon strongly condemning the plans of Florida's Dove World Outreach Center to burn Qurans, when the Pentagon itself burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) says while the concerns expressed by Petraeus, Gates, Clinton, and Obama are certainly legitimate, there is a note of hypocrisy in light of the fact that the U.S. military -- in order to appease Muslims -- last year torched Bibles sent to Afghanistan. (Listen to audio report)
"[Certainly] the armed forces should be sensitive to people's religious symbols or their text," he states. "[And] I said at the time [of the Bible burning] that I thought people would go ballistic if the armed forces were to burn Korans.
"But instead of burning the Bibles, there is no reason that they shouldn't have returned them to those who purchased the Bibles," he continues. "But we recognize that in a Muslim country, Christians are just not welcome. The hypocrisy is pretty well established. It is disconcerting."
Maginnis notes that unlike Islam, which tends to make the Quran itself a symbol of holiness, Christians base their faith on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- not on the Bible.
By Chad Groening
WRONG TO BURN QURANS, BUT OK FOR US MILITARY TO BURN BIBLES
Original Post: All Voices
A pro-family organization says it's hypocritical for high-ranking officials in the Pentagon to condemn a Florida church's plans to burn Qurans when U.S. military personnel burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.
Pastor Terry Jones told reporters outside his church in Gainesville Wednesday afternoon that he remains unconvinced that "backing down is the right thing" to do regarding the planned burning of Qurans on Saturday. That protest has drawn objection from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. and NATO commander, who says images of burning Qurans will be used by extremists to inflame public opinion and incite worldwide violence. (See earlier story)
Earlier today on ABC's Good Morning America, President Barack Obama criticized the event, calling it a "stunt" and warning it could become "a recruitment bonanza for al-Qaeda." Other notable Obama administration officials, including Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, have also condemned the planned Quran burning.
But Bryan Fischer, director of issues analysis at the American Family Association (AFA), thinks it is the height of hypocrisy for the U.S. government to condemn the church, considering the fact that the U.S. military incinerated Bibles that were sent to Afghanistan in May 2009. "There's really a staggering level of hypocrisy and double standard here for the military to burn the Holy Bible and then complain when a pastor's going to do the same thing to the Quran," Fischer contends. "You know, if the military was going to be fair here and even-handed, they would count up the number of Holy Bibles that they incinerated in Afghanistan, and then they would allow Reverend Jones to burn the same number of Qurans."
The AFA issues analysis director believes the whole incident illustrates the difference between Christianity and Islam. "When these Bibles were burned [in May 2009], the Christian community did not riot in the streets; we did not threaten violence against anyone," he points out. "[But] when even the threat of Qurans being burned takes place, it's like we're dealing with Armageddon [or] with World War III."
In a OneNewsNow poll conducted in May 2009, more than 60 percent of respondents said -- in reaction to the decision by the U.S. military to destroy the Bibles -- that "if it had been the Quran, this never would have happened."
Hypocrisy 'pretty well established'
Meanwhile, a senior Army strategist and Pentagon advisor also sees hypocrisy in high-ranking officials in the Pentagon strongly condemning the plans of Florida's Dove World Outreach Center to burn Qurans, when the Pentagon itself burned Bibles last year in Afghanistan.
Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis (USA-Ret.) says while the concerns expressed by Petraeus, Gates, Clinton, and Obama are certainly legitimate, there is a note of hypocrisy in light of the fact that the U.S. military -- in order to appease Muslims -- last year torched Bibles sent to Afghanistan. (Listen to audio report)
"[Certainly] the armed forces should be sensitive to people's religious symbols or their text," he states. "[And] I said at the time [of the Bible burning] that I thought people would go ballistic if the armed forces were to burn Korans.
"But instead of burning the Bibles, there is no reason that they shouldn't have returned them to those who purchased the Bibles," he continues. "But we recognize that in a Muslim country, Christians are just not welcome. The hypocrisy is pretty well established. It is disconcerting."
Maginnis notes that unlike Islam, which tends to make the Quran itself a symbol of holiness, Christians base their faith on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ -- not on the Bible.
By Chad Groening
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Michigan Considers Law to Register Journalists
Original Post: Fox News
By: Jana Winter
A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”
State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated -- and an even greater amount of misinformation.
“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized, with disgruntled politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They also say that adding members of the fourth estate to the list of government-regulated occupations is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the Michigan legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all,” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”
According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a "Board of Michigan Registered Reporters" with proof of:
-- "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
-- Three or more writing samples.
Unregistered reporters would not be prevented from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He said he’s winding down his two-decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
“I would argue the First Amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The First Amendment protects those as well.”
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.
“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
He said he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.
“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate -- non-professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists -- and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust, she said the bill introducing government-registered reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said, governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process -- and these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that the proposed bill would license reporters in Michigan. Sen. Patterson's proposed legislation calls for a voluntary system of registration with a government board.
By: Jana Winter
A Michigan lawmaker wants to register reporters to ensure they’re credible and have “good moral character.”
State Sen. Bruce Patterson is introducing legislation that will regulate reporters much as the state regulates hairdressers, auto mechanics and plumbers. Patterson, who also practices constitutional law, says the general public is being overwhelmed by an increasing number of media outlets -- traditional, online and citizen generated -- and an even greater amount of misinformation.
“Legitimate media sources are critically important to our government,” he said.
He told FoxNews.com that some reporters covering state politics don’t know what they’re talking about and they’re working for publications he’s never heard of, so he wants to install a process that’ll help him and the general public figure out which reporters to trust.
“We have to be able to get good information,” he said. “We have to be able to rely on the source and to understand the credentials of the source.”
Critics say the proposed law will stem press freedoms and is bound to be politicized, with disgruntled politicians going after reporters who don’t paint them in a positive light. They also say that adding members of the fourth estate to the list of government-regulated occupations is probably unconstitutional.
“It’s misguided and it’s never going to fly,” said Kelly McBride, media ethics expert at the Poynter Institute. She is currently involved in a project examining the transformation of the journalism profession.
The bill was introduced on May 11 and has been referred to the Michigan legislature’s Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform.
“It’s a single sponsor bill. I think that says it all,” said Mike MacLaren, executive director of the Michigan Press Association.
“I’ve not talked to the senator about this but whenever you see a single sponsor it’s usually indicative of what others think of it, which is not much.”
According to the bill, reporters who register will have to pay an application and registration fee and provide a "Board of Michigan Registered Reporters" with proof of:
-- "Good moral character” and demonstrate they have industry “ethics standards acceptable to the board.”
-- Possession of a degree in journalism or other degree substantially equivalent.
-- Not less than 3 years experience as a reporter or any other relevant background information.
-- Awards or recognition related to being a reporter.
-- Three or more writing samples.
Unregistered reporters would not be prevented from covering Michigan politics, and registering with the state would be voluntary.
Patterson conceded that he didn’t actually think his bill would be enacted into law. He said he’s winding down his two-decade political career and wants to provoke public discussion before he leaves office.
“I would argue the First Amendment feels otherwise,” said MacLaren. “He’s entitled to his thoughts. The First Amendment protects those as well.”
“What’s the definition of a reporter? I haven’t been able to find out? What’s a reporter? What’s a journalist?” Patterson said. “I thought you had to have a degree in journalism, but apparently not. I could retire and be a journalist.”
Patterson said he wants a central place where members of the public can go to find out about reporters’ credentials, background and experience.
“I’m talking about a central depository for information so someone can go find all that out,” Patterson said, comparing his idea to the vetting process for expert witnesses who testify in court.
He said he feels that there’s no way to tell who’s a legitimate journalist and who’s just rewriting other reporters’ reporting and twisting facts.
“He is right, the problem is “How do I know where I’m getting my news from?”” said McBride, who is working on a Ford Foundation project for the Poynter Institute that address the issue of the growing fifth estate -- non-professional bloggers, community reporters, and citizen journalists -- and the shrinking of the fourth estate, the traditional press.
But even though McBride agreed with Patterson’s concerns that people don’t know which news outlets to trust, she said the bill introducing government-registered reporters is just a bad idea.
Plus, she said, governments often try to control journalists through a credentialing process -- and these attempts are usually deemed unconstitutional.
“I think that his concern is a legitimate one,” McBride said, “But you’re not going to solve the problem by creating some kind of licensing system.”
EDITOR'S NOTE: An earlier version of this article stated incorrectly that the proposed bill would license reporters in Michigan. Sen. Patterson's proposed legislation calls for a voluntary system of registration with a government board.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
More attacks on patriotism
Teacher Deems American Flag ‘Offensive’
Original Post: Fox News Radio
The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.
Tracy Hathaway, of Salinas, CA, told FOX News Radio her 13-year-old daughter was ordered to stop drawing the American flag by an art teacher at Gavilan View Middle School.
“She had drawn the flag and was sketching the letters, ‘God bless America,’ when the teacher confronted her,” Hathaway told FOX. “She said, ‘You can’t draw that – that’s offensive.’”
Even more striking, another student in the same art class drew a picture of President Obama and was praised by the teacher.
“The picture of Barack Obama was in red, white and blue hues,” Hathaway said. “The teacher said it was great. But when it comes to the flag – all of a sudden it was offensive?”
Hathaway said she took her concerns to the principal – and he was “floored” and apologized for what happened. He arranged a meeting with the Hathaways and the teacher.
“My husband point-blank asked her what she found offensive about the picture – the American flag or the words, ‘God Bless America,’” she said. “The teacher didn’t say a word.”
Hathaway said she was especially concerned that a picture of President Obama was praised yet a picture of the American flag was deemed offensive.
“That showed where she stood in the political spectrum,” she said “But this was not a political class. This was not a religious class. This was an art class. “
“My daughter wasn’t trying to break any rules and she wasn’t trying to create a scene,” she said. “She was just expressing her view and saying this is America and I want God to bless it.”
Mike Brusa, the superintendent of schools, told FOX in a written statement that he had contacted the principal and that the issue “was taken care of to their (the parent’s) satisfaction.”
“The school administration and the parents did not view this as significant enough to bring it to the superintendent’s office,” he wrote.
However, Hathaway said her daughter has yet to receive an apology – and in fact – the teacher told the girl that she should not have gotten her parents involved in the matter.
“My daughter felt like her rights were being trampled on – she was doing what she thought was right.” she said. “It’s disturbing. It really is disturbing. When I was in junior high we didn’t have a lot of the problems they are having now. We were allowed to speak our mind. It’s absolutely devastating for me. Last time I looked, this is America. This is still a free country.”
Todd Starnes is a FOX News Radio reporter and best-selling author.
NOTE: Here is the full response from Superintendent Brusa:
When we were aware there may be additional concerns, I asked the administration to contact parents again to see if there is any expectations from prior contact that have not been met. The Principal did so, and indicated the parents were satisfied that the situation had been handled. They told the Principal they had twittered Fox and had indicated that the situation had been handled. Secondly, there are 3,000 students in the district, 250 employees, and parents that go with the students. Every day there are many interactions that occur between all these individuals. As I indicated, this event occurred several weeks ago, and in that time there would be literally thousands of events large and small between the people involved with the school. This was one small event that did not even come to the level of my office. There is an informal and formal process that is used to resolve issues. The school administration and the parents did not view this as significant enough to bring it to the Superintendent’s office. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this situation.
Original Post: Fox News Radio
The battle over the American flag has reached a middle school art class in California’s Santa Rita School District where a student was told not to draw Old Glory because it was “offensive,” but another student — in the same class – was praised for drawing a picture of President Obama.
Tracy Hathaway, of Salinas, CA, told FOX News Radio her 13-year-old daughter was ordered to stop drawing the American flag by an art teacher at Gavilan View Middle School.
“She had drawn the flag and was sketching the letters, ‘God bless America,’ when the teacher confronted her,” Hathaway told FOX. “She said, ‘You can’t draw that – that’s offensive.’”
Even more striking, another student in the same art class drew a picture of President Obama and was praised by the teacher.
“The picture of Barack Obama was in red, white and blue hues,” Hathaway said. “The teacher said it was great. But when it comes to the flag – all of a sudden it was offensive?”
Hathaway said she took her concerns to the principal – and he was “floored” and apologized for what happened. He arranged a meeting with the Hathaways and the teacher.
“My husband point-blank asked her what she found offensive about the picture – the American flag or the words, ‘God Bless America,’” she said. “The teacher didn’t say a word.”
Hathaway said she was especially concerned that a picture of President Obama was praised yet a picture of the American flag was deemed offensive.
“That showed where she stood in the political spectrum,” she said “But this was not a political class. This was not a religious class. This was an art class. “
“My daughter wasn’t trying to break any rules and she wasn’t trying to create a scene,” she said. “She was just expressing her view and saying this is America and I want God to bless it.”
Mike Brusa, the superintendent of schools, told FOX in a written statement that he had contacted the principal and that the issue “was taken care of to their (the parent’s) satisfaction.”
“The school administration and the parents did not view this as significant enough to bring it to the superintendent’s office,” he wrote.
However, Hathaway said her daughter has yet to receive an apology – and in fact – the teacher told the girl that she should not have gotten her parents involved in the matter.
“My daughter felt like her rights were being trampled on – she was doing what she thought was right.” she said. “It’s disturbing. It really is disturbing. When I was in junior high we didn’t have a lot of the problems they are having now. We were allowed to speak our mind. It’s absolutely devastating for me. Last time I looked, this is America. This is still a free country.”
Todd Starnes is a FOX News Radio reporter and best-selling author.
NOTE: Here is the full response from Superintendent Brusa:
When we were aware there may be additional concerns, I asked the administration to contact parents again to see if there is any expectations from prior contact that have not been met. The Principal did so, and indicated the parents were satisfied that the situation had been handled. They told the Principal they had twittered Fox and had indicated that the situation had been handled. Secondly, there are 3,000 students in the district, 250 employees, and parents that go with the students. Every day there are many interactions that occur between all these individuals. As I indicated, this event occurred several weeks ago, and in that time there would be literally thousands of events large and small between the people involved with the school. This was one small event that did not even come to the level of my office. There is an informal and formal process that is used to resolve issues. The school administration and the parents did not view this as significant enough to bring it to the Superintendent’s office. Thank you for allowing me to clarify this situation.
Monday, April 19, 2010
Alan Grayson: Urologist Who Put Anti-Obama Signs Up in Violation of Ethics Rules
Original Post: Crooksandliars.com
By: Heather
Congressman Alan Grayson has filed a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Medical board after a voter in his district sent him a picture of this -- Pissed-off Florida urologist to Obama supporters: Go somewhere else. Par for the course Anderson Cooper questioned Rep. Grayson's motives with filing the complaints.
COOPER:Democratic Congressman now Alan Grayson. A woman whose daughter took a picture of the sign sent it to the congressman complaining. He's filing a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Medical Board. Congressman Grayson joins us now.
You -- does it make sense, what the doctor is saying? I mean, he's claiming he's not turning any patients away.
REP. ALAN GRAYSON: He's a very confused individual. That much is obvious.
But what he's doing clearly is a violation of the ethics rules that you cited earlier, the Hippocratic oath, the rules of the AMA. And it's at the expense of his patients and care. What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."
I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.
COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.
GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.
So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.
COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.
GRAYSON: No, I'm saying -- I'm saying that it shows very poor judgment. And the effect of this -- the effect of this is to set us back as a country. That's why I'm disgusted by it.
COOPER: But, again, he's not doing anything illegal.
GRAYSON: Well, that remains to be seen. You know, he's licensed. There are licensing authorities who are going to look into what he's doing. And I hope that they will take action, because, frankly, I think a lot of people are disturbed just to go into his office. He's turned his inner office, his reception area, into some shrine of right-wing nuttery.
And he said earlier today on FOX News that he's upset about the health care bill because it means that old people won't able to go to nursing homes anymore.
COOPER: Critics of you, though, will say, well, look, this comes across as a partisan attack, that you're using the legal system, or the medical ethics system, to pressure someone who doesn't agree with you.
GRAYSON: Well, that's not true.
COOPER: I mean, if this was an Obama supporter who put up a sign saying, "I don't like Republicans, and Republicans should go elsewhere," would you be as outraged?
GRAYSON: I'm protecting the people in my district who deserve medical care, even if they happen to have voted for Obama.
COOPER: Nobody, though, seems to be alleging that he treats any of his patients any differently based on what they believe. I mean, so far, no one has said that their care has suffered because they were an Obama supporter.
GRAYSON: How many people walked in -- walked up to his front door, saw the sign, and turned away? How many people referred from other physicians in the community, including primary care physicians, how many patients saw that sign and walked away?
COOPER: What kind of penalty do you think he should get?
GRAYSON: Well, whatever the medical authorities think he should get. But it is a clear violation of ethics, and it's a particularly ugly one. Why is it that the right wing is so preoccupied with denying people health? Why is that?
COOPER: Representative Alan Grayson, appreciate you being on for your perspective. Thank you very much.
GRAYSON: Thank you.
By: Heather
Congressman Alan Grayson has filed a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Medical board after a voter in his district sent him a picture of this -- Pissed-off Florida urologist to Obama supporters: Go somewhere else. Par for the course Anderson Cooper questioned Rep. Grayson's motives with filing the complaints.
COOPER:Democratic Congressman now Alan Grayson. A woman whose daughter took a picture of the sign sent it to the congressman complaining. He's filing a formal complaint with the Florida Department of Health and the Florida Medical Board. Congressman Grayson joins us now.
You -- does it make sense, what the doctor is saying? I mean, he's claiming he's not turning any patients away.
REP. ALAN GRAYSON: He's a very confused individual. That much is obvious.
But what he's doing clearly is a violation of the ethics rules that you cited earlier, the Hippocratic oath, the rules of the AMA. And it's at the expense of his patients and care. What he's doing is no different from saying, "I will not treat a black person. I will not treat a Catholic."
I thought that we, as a country, has moved beyond that.
COOPER: But wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute.
I mean, I'm not taking a side. I'm not taking anybody's side in this, but, just for accuracy's sake, he has said nothing about race. And race is a protected category. I mean, there are -- it is illegal to discriminate someone based on race. It is not illegal to say you don't want to treat somebody because you don't like their politics. Politics is not a protected class.
GRAYSON: Well, in fact, where he lives, in Mount Dora, which is in my district, many, many of the Democrats who live in Mount Dora happen to be African-Americans.
So, by saying that he will not treat somebody who supported Obama, he's saying that he's not going to treat a large number of African-Americans in the community.
COOPER: Wait. So, you're saying race is at the core of this? Come on. There is no evidence of that at all.
GRAYSON: No, I'm saying -- I'm saying that it shows very poor judgment. And the effect of this -- the effect of this is to set us back as a country. That's why I'm disgusted by it.
COOPER: But, again, he's not doing anything illegal.
GRAYSON: Well, that remains to be seen. You know, he's licensed. There are licensing authorities who are going to look into what he's doing. And I hope that they will take action, because, frankly, I think a lot of people are disturbed just to go into his office. He's turned his inner office, his reception area, into some shrine of right-wing nuttery.
And he said earlier today on FOX News that he's upset about the health care bill because it means that old people won't able to go to nursing homes anymore.
COOPER: Critics of you, though, will say, well, look, this comes across as a partisan attack, that you're using the legal system, or the medical ethics system, to pressure someone who doesn't agree with you.
GRAYSON: Well, that's not true.
COOPER: I mean, if this was an Obama supporter who put up a sign saying, "I don't like Republicans, and Republicans should go elsewhere," would you be as outraged?
GRAYSON: I'm protecting the people in my district who deserve medical care, even if they happen to have voted for Obama.
COOPER: Nobody, though, seems to be alleging that he treats any of his patients any differently based on what they believe. I mean, so far, no one has said that their care has suffered because they were an Obama supporter.
GRAYSON: How many people walked in -- walked up to his front door, saw the sign, and turned away? How many people referred from other physicians in the community, including primary care physicians, how many patients saw that sign and walked away?
COOPER: What kind of penalty do you think he should get?
GRAYSON: Well, whatever the medical authorities think he should get. But it is a clear violation of ethics, and it's a particularly ugly one. Why is it that the right wing is so preoccupied with denying people health? Why is that?
COOPER: Representative Alan Grayson, appreciate you being on for your perspective. Thank you very much.
GRAYSON: Thank you.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
At least eight student protestors shot after anti-Chavez march
Original Post: monstersandcritics
Caracas - At least eight people were shot when gunmen opened fire on students peacefully demonstrating against President Hugo Chavez's plan to amend the constitution, media reports said.
The identities of the gunmen who shot Wednesday night at the protestors at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas were not known, but the opposition accused Chavez's government of being responsible for the attack.
Tens of thousands of students marched to the Supreme Court building Wednesday, calling for a delay of a December 2 referendum on the proposed constitutional changes. The gunfire came after the protest as the students returned to campus, the media reports said, citing emergency services.
The constitutional amendments sought by Chavez and passed by the legislature include abolishing presidential term limits and the autonomy of the central bank, reducing the power of state governments and declaring socialism as Venezuela's official ideology.
A strong police presence at the Supreme Court presented clashes between the students and Chavez supporters.
Interior Minister Pedro Carreno accused the students of violence and seeking 'the destabilization of democracy.'
Wednesday's protest followed a November 1 demonstration by thousands of students that was violently broken up by police. Ten people were injured.
Chavez said the constitutional amendments would anchor reforms through '21st-century socialism' in the constitution and improve the fight against corruption. The opposition accused Chavez of governing like a dictator.
Currently, Venezuela's president can be re-elected once, which would end Chavez's tenure in 2012.
Caracas - At least eight people were shot when gunmen opened fire on students peacefully demonstrating against President Hugo Chavez's plan to amend the constitution, media reports said.
The identities of the gunmen who shot Wednesday night at the protestors at the Central University of Venezuela in Caracas were not known, but the opposition accused Chavez's government of being responsible for the attack.
Tens of thousands of students marched to the Supreme Court building Wednesday, calling for a delay of a December 2 referendum on the proposed constitutional changes. The gunfire came after the protest as the students returned to campus, the media reports said, citing emergency services.
The constitutional amendments sought by Chavez and passed by the legislature include abolishing presidential term limits and the autonomy of the central bank, reducing the power of state governments and declaring socialism as Venezuela's official ideology.
A strong police presence at the Supreme Court presented clashes between the students and Chavez supporters.
Interior Minister Pedro Carreno accused the students of violence and seeking 'the destabilization of democracy.'
Wednesday's protest followed a November 1 demonstration by thousands of students that was violently broken up by police. Ten people were injured.
Chavez said the constitutional amendments would anchor reforms through '21st-century socialism' in the constitution and improve the fight against corruption. The opposition accused Chavez of governing like a dictator.
Currently, Venezuela's president can be re-elected once, which would end Chavez's tenure in 2012.
Friday, February 19, 2010
John McLaughlin: Freedom is 'Most Overrated' Political Concept
Original Post: newsbusters
By: Jeff Poor
By: Jeff Poor
How out-of-touch is the D.C. pundit class with the rest country? Look to John McLaughlin for the answer.
During part two of "The McLaughlin Group 2009 Year-End Awards," McLaughlin, who has hosted the program since 1982, declared the concept of freedom, at least from a political standpoint in the United States, is overrated.
"The most overrated is freedom," McLaughlin said. "When faced with economic uncertainty, people don't want freedom. When they can't see their economic future, they want the nanny state."
McLaughlin's troubling view doesn't necessarily square with polling data and other anecdotal indicators. Even back at the height of economic uncertainty, only 30 percent of Americans supported the TARP bailout to save the financial system, according to a September 2008 Associated Press poll.
And since then, the entire bailout culture introduced by former President George W. Bush and continued under the presidency of Barack Obama has faced the backlash of the tea party movement, inspired by CNBC's Rick Santelli voicing his opposition to a housing bailout.
Other members of "The McLaughlin Group" pointed to other "most overrated" factors that affect the economy. For MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan, it was global warming overrated. Newsweek's Eleanor Clift, providing the left-of-center voice on the panel, said Florida Gov. Charlie Crist was overrated. Conservative talker Monica Crowley called the so-called "boy genius" Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner the most overrated. But U.S. News & World Report editor-in-chief Mort Zuckerman took a shot at the leaders in the business community.
"The leaders of most of our major financial institutions in this country," Zuckerman said of the "Most Overrated."
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Man With Pro-Life Anti-Obama Sign Pulled Over, Faces Police, Secret Service
Original Post: lifenews
By: Steven Ertelt
Enid, OK (LifeNews.com) -- An Oklahoma man with a homemade sign on his vehicle was pulled over and harassed by police for allegedly making a threat against the president. Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police officer followed him for several miles and eventually signaled him to pull over.
The officer mistook the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn," as threatening.
"I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong," Harrison told the McClatchy-Tribune news service in a interview.
"It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said, saying he disagrees with Obama. "I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?' He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'"
The officers confiscated the sign and gave him a slip of paper saying he would be subjected to an investigation.
Harrison told the news service he eventually received a call from someone claiming to be a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and who wanted to know how to return his sign to him.
The person asked Harrison if he wanted to file a complaint and he took some papers in case he wanted to do so.
After the call, Harrison received a second call from someone with the Secret Service who said agents were at his home. Upon calling his attorney, Harrison went home.
"When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups," he recounted.
"We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said, describing the agents as friendly. He said they interviewed him for 30 minutes and left.
"I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison told McClatchy-Tribune. "I don't know what I'm going to do."
Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, told the Tulsa World newspaper that the officer misunderstood the sign and never should have seized it.
"We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."
"(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."
By: Steven Ertelt
Enid, OK (LifeNews.com) -- An Oklahoma man with a homemade sign on his vehicle was pulled over and harassed by police for allegedly making a threat against the president. Chip Harrison said he was driving to work when a police officer followed him for several miles and eventually signaled him to pull over.
The officer mistook the sign, which read "Abort Obama, not the unborn," as threatening.
"I pulled over, knowing I hadn't done anything wrong," Harrison told the McClatchy-Tribune news service in a interview.
"It's not meant to be a threat, it's a statement about abortion," Harrison said, saying he disagrees with Obama. "I asked the officer, 'Do you know what abort means?' He said, 'Yeah, it means to kill.' I said, 'No, it means to remove or terminate.'"
The officers confiscated the sign and gave him a slip of paper saying he would be subjected to an investigation.
Harrison told the news service he eventually received a call from someone claiming to be a lieutenant supervisor for the Internal Investigations Department and who wanted to know how to return his sign to him.
The person asked Harrison if he wanted to file a complaint and he took some papers in case he wanted to do so.
After the call, Harrison received a second call from someone with the Secret Service who said agents were at his home. Upon calling his attorney, Harrison went home.
"When I was on my way there, the Secret Service called me and said they weren't going to ransack my house or anything ... they just wanted to (walk through the house) and make sure I wasn't a part of any hate groups," he recounted.
"We walked through the house and my wife and 2-year-old were in the house," Harrison said, describing the agents as friendly. He said they interviewed him for 30 minutes and left.
"I'm still in contact with a lawyer right now," Harrison told McClatchy-Tribune. "I don't know what I'm going to do."
Capt. Steve McCool, of the Oklahoma City Police Department, told the Tulsa World newspaper that the officer misunderstood the sign and never should have seized it.
"We had an officer that his interpretation of the sign was different than what was meant," McCool said. "You've got an officer who had a different thought on what the word 'abort' meant."
"(The officer) shouldn't have taken the sign," McCool said. "That was (Harrison's) First Amendment right to voice his concern."
Dept. of Homeland Security declairs about half the country terrorists
Report
This report is pretty awesome and not at all Orwellian or Totalitarian in any way. It only declares:
-Returning Veterans
-small government enthusiasts
-anti-abortionists
-states rightists
-and people with combat training
terrorists that have to be watched because we're a huge threat to America because of the violence we've been known to inflict.
People like Nidal Hasan are fine, but I have to be watched (apparently with out the presumption of innocence) because I want a smaller government and believe that states should have more authority as per the Constitution.
It's also rather shocking for my Liberal friend and roommate to find out that they are now Right wing extremists. The former is a Vet and the latter has combat training.
This report is pretty awesome and not at all Orwellian or Totalitarian in any way. It only declares:
-Returning Veterans
-small government enthusiasts
-anti-abortionists
-states rightists
-and people with combat training
terrorists that have to be watched because we're a huge threat to America because of the violence we've been known to inflict.
People like Nidal Hasan are fine, but I have to be watched (apparently with out the presumption of innocence) because I want a smaller government and believe that states should have more authority as per the Constitution.
It's also rather shocking for my Liberal friend and roommate to find out that they are now Right wing extremists. The former is a Vet and the latter has combat training.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)