A written exam administered by the Pentagon labels "protests" as a form of “low-level terrorism” — enraging civil liberties advocates and activist groups who say it shows blatant disregard of the First Amendment.
The written exam, given as part of Department of Defense employees’ routine training, includes a multiple-choice question that asks:
“Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorism?”
— Attacking the Pentagon
— IEDs
— Hate crimes against racial groups
— Protests
The correct answer, according to the exam, is "Protests."
“Its part of a pattern of equating dissent and protest with terrorism," said Ann Brick, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which obtained a copy of the question after a Defense Department employee who was taking the test printed the screen on his or her computer terminal.
"It undermines the core constitutional values the Department of Defense is supposed to be defending,” Brick said, referring to the First Amendment right to peaceably assemble.
She said the ACLU has asked the Defense Department to remove the question and send out a correction to all employees who took the exam.
“There were other employees who were unhappy with it and disturbed by it,” Brick said.
Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Les Melnyk said the Defense Department is looking into the matter and expects to provide more information later Wednesday.
“We need to determine if it’s something we’re currently doing,” Melnyk said. “A lot of the information in this exam is intended for people stationed abroad. We counsel those people to avoid demonstrations.”
Anti-war protesters, who say they have been targets of federal surveillance for years, were livid when they were told about the exam question.
“That’s illegal,” said George Martin, national co-chairman of United for Peace and Justice. “Protest in terms of legal dissent has to be recognized, especially by the authorities.
"It’s not terrorism or a lack of patriotism. We care enough to be active in our government.”
Bill Wilson, president of the Americans for Limited Government, which supported the Tea Party demonstrations earlier this year, agreed.
"Groups like Al Qaeda and Hezbollah, paramilitary orgainzations that are striking at out at something they oppose or hate, that's terrorism," Wilson said.
"To equate that in any degree with citizens being able to express themselves seems to me to be headed down a road where all dissent is suspect and questionable."
Ben Friedman, a research fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington, said the U.S. government has a long history of infringing upon citizens’ civil liberties in the name of domestic security.
“It’s the kind of thing that happens when you have large security bureaucracies, which is why they need to be kept in check,” Friedman said. “These things tend to occur in times of panic, like after Sept. 11.”
The ACLU, in a letter of complaint it sent to the Defense Department, catalogued a list of what it said were recent civil liberties violations by federal authorities, including the monitoring of anti-war protests and the FBI’s surveillance of potential protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention in New York.
Martin said getting information on the extent of the FBI and National Security Agency’s surveillance programs is nearly impossible.
“I have been arrested within 100 yards of George W. Bush and spoken out against the policies of our government in more than 100 countries," he said. "But they said they have no record on me. I don’t believe that.”
During Bush's presidency, the Defense Department was criticized for infringing on citizens’ civil rights through surveillance programs designed to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Brick said she has seen no indication that there will be a change in policy under President Obama.
“We need to see what they do,” she said. “In a number of areas the Obama administration has not backed off and kept the Bush administration line.”
Cass Sunstein, a Harvard Law professor who has been appointed to a shadowy post that will grant him powers that are merely mind-boggling, explicitly supports using the courts to impose a "chilling effect" on speech that might hurt someone's feelings. He thinks that the bloggers have been rampaging out of control and that new laws need to be written to corral them.
"Although obscure," reported the Wall Street Journal, "the post wields outsize power. It oversees regulations throughout the government, from the Environmental Protection Agency to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Obama aides have said the job will be crucial as the new administration overhauls financial-services regulations, attempts to pass universal health care and tries to forge a new approach to controlling emissions of greenhouse gases."
Sunstein was appointed, no doubt, off the success of "Nudge," his previous book, which suggests that government ought to gently force people to be better human beings.
Roll Call reports on a fracas between Democrats and Republicans in the House over the right of Representatives to communicate with their constituents. Republicans want to send this chart, created by Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) to represent the flowchart of health services under ObamaCare, in order to show how much more complicated such care will become. Democrats filed a complaint with the franking committee and blocked it (via Drudge Report):
Democrats are preventing Republican House Members from sending their constituents a mailing that is critical of the majority’s health care reform plan, blocking the mailing by alleging that it is inaccurate.
House Republicans are crying foul and claiming that the Democrats are using their majority to prevent GOP Members from communicating with their constituents. …
“Hiding the truth about wildly unpopular policies is a Democrat specialty,” said one GOP aide. “I’d like to see the flow chart on how Speaker [Nancy] Pelosi plans on implementing the open and transparent government she keeps promising everyone.”
“We have initiated discussions with the minority to try and resolve current differences and are operating in good faith to achieve that goal,” said Kyle Anderson, a spokesman for House Administration Chairman Robert Brady (D-Pa.). The committee has oversight of the commission.
Rep. Dan Lungren (R-Calif.), ranking member of the committee and a member of the franking commission, said through a spokeswoman that he is also aware of the situation and is working with the members of the franking commission to resolve the differences, but he added that he believed Democrats on the commission were overreaching.
You can see the chart for yourself here, and click the image to get the full-size PDF:
Even if the Democrats have solid ground for complaining about the graphic, the best remedy for bad speech is more speech, not censorship. Let the Democrats argue the rebuttal in their own mailings. Frankly (pun intended), their criticisms are picayune, amounting in essence to a complaint that Brady didn’t draw enough lines — which just makes Brady’s point even more clear.
An open and transparent Congress and leadership which understood those concepts would not have been frightened of a flow chart.
The bumper stickers and posters sold at "Free Market Warrior" at Concord Mills are meant to be "biting," the kiosk's owner Loren Spivack said.
At least one passerby found them racist and bigoted, and took time to tell the mall in a letter and a letter to the editor of the Charlotte Observer.
Whatever your opinion, the fact is this: At the end of July, Free Market Warrior will not be allowed at Concord Mills Mall. The kiosk chain's owner shared e-mail correspondence with NewsChannel 36 that explains that the mall management has decided that the items sold are not "neutral" enough. The lease will be allowed to expire July 31, 2009 without an option to renew.
Spivack, who first leased the space this spring, says the decision came as a shock to him. He says mall management seemed pleased with the kiosk just a few weeks ago.
"Nobody in that mall is selling anything from a conservative perspective. Plenty of people are selling things with a liberal perspective, with a pro-Obama perspective," he said. "Given that we are in America and not North Korea, we probably should have some stuff on the other side."
Spivack says he is careful not to sell things that personally attack a politician and wants a fair exchange of ideas. "The material that I sell is about politics and ideas," he told Newschannel 36. "It's all legitimate criticism."
Concord Mills, owned by Simon Property Group, would not comment for this story, cited a policy against talking about tenant and landlord situations.
Spivack says the company first contacted him about his lease after a letter to the editor appeared in the Charlotte Observer. The author, recent UNC-Charlotte graduate Jennifer Ibanez, wrote:
"Free Market Warrior, a kiosk located adjacent to Bass Pro Shops, specializes in memorabilia embellished with pro-confederacy statements as well as those opposing both the government and President Obama. In addition, these products support ideas such as racisms, sexism, and even slavery. While freedom of speech is a Constitutional right it's difficult not to believe that something just isn't quite right here.
"I find it appalling that Concord Mills, North Carolina’s #1 visitor attraction, would condone such a message to be portrayed by their vendors and can't imagine how the outside visitors' perceptions of North Carolinians have been skewed by such an establishment.
"It’s hard to stay open-minded when such uncivilized and outdated ideas are endorsed on a daily basis. It's 2009; please, let's at least try to put this type of bigotry to an end."
Ibanez told NewsChannel 36 she was so offended, she wrote the mall as well. She says a friend of hers also wrote in. Both threatened not to return to Concord Mills.
The owner of the mall group, Mel Simon, has been a generous contributor to Democratic causes and politicians, including Barack Obama. Spivack thinks the decision about his lease is political.
"If they have decided to make their malls conservative/libertarian free zones, where those opinions can't be expressed, I do think it's their right to do that, but it's our rights to publicize the fact that they are doing that," he said.
If the issue is about causing offense, he told us, the mall should police other stores. Spivack sent NewsChannel 36 pictures of several T-shirts and banners from novelty stores at the mall that were so crude we've chosen not to share them.
"What I think the mall should have done if they thought that we were expressing one set of ideas and not another, is that they should have gotten another store to come in and sell their ideas," he said. "I would've been all in favor of that. I would have helped them move in."
NewsChannel 36 has been swamped with e-mails and comments on this story. A spokesperson for the mall did not return a call Thursday about the e-mails, which were hand-carried to the office by reporter Rad Berky. A receptionist unlocked a door and took the e-mails but we don't know if anyone read them.
I think the Dem plan is working well. The lady that wrote the letter to the editor used all the keywords, "racist" "hate speech". It's a great tactic to shout down any opposition to the One.
Scary chain emails and videos are starting to percolate on the internet, breathlessly claiming, for example, to ‘uncover’ the truth about the President’s health insurance reform positions...
There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.
Given what happened to Joe the Plumber I'm sure that the White House won't attempt to track down and publicly humiliate anyone who disagrees with their position on socialized medicine.
Howard Kurtz of the Washington Post reports that when networks began fussing over broadcasting yet another Obama snoozefest, [White House Chief of staff Rahm] Emanuel called not the programming chiefs, but the heads of parent companies in an effort to pressure networks to greenlight his boss’s show. According to Kurtz, Emanuel buzzed Les Moonves, chief executive of CBS, Jeffrey Immelt, chief executive of General Electric, which owns NBC, and Bob Iger, chief executive of Disney, which owns ABC.
So the Obama White House has to use personal cache in order to push the networks to program its propaganda. More than that, the White House has to use the covert threat of a cutoff in White House access for networks that refuse to play ball. The alphabet networks all know that the Obama White House has largely frozen Fox’s access to administration officials. They know that Obama grants his friends access while cutting off his enemies.
This endangers the independence of the press in a catastrophic way. The media has been excoriated -- and rightly so -- for its easy treatment of Obama and his cronies. But with Obama openly pressuring the networks to accede to its requests or face a reportorial cutoff, we are witnessing the hijacking of the First Amendment in toto. Obama administration officials are used to blackmailing private entities (GM, Chrysler, Bank of America), but they cross an even more dangerous line when they endanger the free press by linking press access with network time slots.
This is a horrific precedent. It is not difficult to foresee a time when an administration grants all exclusive access to one network while cutting everyone else off. Will the tough questions be asked then? Or will we simply see an ultra-sanitized version of events, pre-scrubbed by Rahm Emanuel and his ilk?
These are scary times. When in the history of the US has the government asked citizens to report other citizens for political speech?
I'm interested in finding out about the people organizing the disinformation campaigns going on and if there's something comparable to what happened in 2000 during the election, where Republicans staged angry mobs.
These are scary times. When in the history of the US has the government asked citizens to report other citizens for political speech?
I'm interested in finding out about the people organizing the disinformation campaigns going on and if there's something comparable to what happened in 2000 during the election, where Republicans staged angry mobs.
The "republicans/insurance companies/talk radio/today's boogeymen are staging this" is the current official DNC talking point so I'm not surpised that Zick is parroting it here.
Unfortunately, it misses a key point, namely, that even if it WERE staged, there's a First Amendment right to do so. In fact, even if it WERE staged (a point I do not concede), the right to stage and organize protests is quite possibly the MOST basic of rights given under the U.S. Constitution. It's called "Freedom of Assembly."
Therefore, when Zick says it's okay for Obama to be doing this he's basically admitting that he thinks harassing people for exercising their First Amendment rights is okay...as long as the harassed are protesting a Democrat.
The cockroaches are always afraid of the light. Nothing is being done that hinders anyone's First Amendment right.
The White House encouraging people to "out" anyone who disagrees with it is pretty much the definition of what constitutional law scholars call "a chilling effect," especially when it's a White House whose supporters went after Joe the Plumber and various reporters for questioning it.
Chris Zick argumentative User Fair Play! 6000+ posts 08/05/09 09:09 PM Making a new reply Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Re: Chris Zick Supports Censorshp
The cockroaches are always afraid of the light. Nothing is being done that hinders anyone's First Amendment right.
The White House encouraging people to "out" anyone who disagrees with it is pretty much the definition of what constitutional law scholars call "a chilling effect," especially when it's a White House whose supporters went after Joe the Plumber and various reporters for questioning it.
Is it illegal? No. Considering that their interest is in the fishy stuff I could see how that bothers the cockroaches.
Seriously MEM you need to look at this objectively. Just because someone disagrees with you they shouldn't be reported and put on an enemies list by the government.
Remember how, before Obama got elected, Zick swore up and down that rumors of Obama trying to censor people (mostly through the Fairness Doctrine) were ridiculous and that he (Zick) was against that sort of thing?
Now that Obama's in office, Zick's doing a 180. He's suddenly decided that some political speech (namely that which disagrees with his own views) is "fishy" or "hate speech" and should be investigated.
That's truly the definition of "a cowardly cockroach."
On the bright side at least now we know he thinks outing one's political opponents on the internet is an admirable thing.
... Again, you prove my point that you support censorship as long as the censor is a Democrat.
Unless we're talking about illegal behavior, the government has no right to even be discussing whether or not its critics opinions are "fishy."
The government does have a right. There is no law preventing them from asking people to forward e-mail to them.
Chilling Effect Doctrine: "In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech." (emphasis added)
...Chilling Effect Doctrine[/url]: "In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech." (emphasis added)
That could apply to a political party organizing dissruptive mobs to scare and shout down people.
...Chilling Effect Doctrine[/url]: "In Constitutional Law, any practice or law that has the effect of seriously dissuading the exercise of a constitutional right, such as Freedom of Speech." (emphasis added)
That could apply to a political party organizing dissruptive mobs to scare and shout down people.
Oh...you're talking about ACORN.
But, seriously Zick, no.
The "chilling effect" comes into play when it involves the government and it's police powers.
A political party and a government are not the same thing. A political party, even one whose members might be president, has no police power. It can't punish people for their exercise of free speech. In fact, the point of a political party's whole existence is to engage in free speech.
When you try to draw comparisons like this, Zick, you're really no better than Snarf when he was whining that the constitution prevented people on a message board from calling him a dumbass.
Unemployment rising, dollar crashing, a news media with no objectivity or ability to criticize Obama, Russian submarines right off our coast, and long-range Russian bombers flying right up to Alaskan air-space for the first time since the Cold War... but hey, the Annointed One is our president, so the media says everything's great !
Why don't I believe them? Because I can see with my own eyes that it's not.
In an effort to push back against criticism of its health care reform plans, the Obama administration is sending one of the many former journalists in its employ onto the digital airwaves of Youtube to attack Matt Drudge and other critics for spreading "disinformation" and "lies." Since "we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House," health reform Communications Director Linda Douglass says, "we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov."
Reason.tv's Dan Hayes is nothing if not patriotic, and with a good nose for fish, so he took his camera in the dead of night and went hunting for perpetrators. The results, as shown in this two-and-a-half-minute video, should scare every American who cares about truth and health care.
Wish we had a real lawyer that had some credability here on the board. G-man could be right but his logic of late is so fringe wacko. I'm not a lawyer so I just went with the definition that was posted that used the word "any practice". My guess is there isn't a legal issue with this, just cockroaches scurrying around upset that they might get caught.
In an effort to push back against criticism of its health care reform plans, the Obama administration is sending one of the many former journalists in its employ onto the digital airwaves of Youtube to attack Matt Drudge and other critics for spreading "disinformation" and "lies." Since "we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House," health reform Communications Director Linda Douglass says, "we're asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov http://www.youtube.com/v/r9bWqcZnrDg
Reason.tv's Dan Hayes is nothing if not patriotic, and with a good nose for fish, so he took his camera in the dead of night and went hunting for perpetrators. The results, as shown in this two-and-a-half-minute video, should scare every American who cares about truth and health care.
Yeah, O'Reilly Factor's talking points memo had a great commentary on Linda Douglass' comments last night (August 4th).
O'Reilly also showed Andrea Mitchell saying in a broadcast panel discussion that regarding Obama's proposed healthcare reform and its widespread unpopularity, that "the American people might not know what's best for them", in a classic manifestation of condescending liberal elitism.
My guess is there isn't a legal issue with this, just cockroaches scurrying around upset that they might get caught.
"Caught" doing what? Exercising their free speech rights?
Zick is tacitly admitting that he thinks people who disagree with Obama are doing something that can get them "caught."
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
Bullshit. Zick has never shown a whit of interest in prosecuting the UAW or ACORN.
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
Bullshit. Zick has never shown a whit of interest in prosecuting the UAW or ACORN.
You don't support this, so take a look in the mirror and take a good whiff of your own logic.
there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
You're going to hear this a lot from him. The newest DNC talking point (seriously) is that there is yet another "vast right wing conspiracy" of potential terrorists out to "lie and intimidate" people in order to oppose Obama.
The Weekly Standard has a great piece exposing this latest version of the "if you're not with Obama you're a potential terrorist/cockroach/racist/bigot/etc. The whole conspiracy theory is based on, get this, a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization with something like---OOH SCARY--thirty members:
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.
Think Progress highlighted his memo's directives to "‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’," calling it a "right-wing harassment strategy against Dems." The blog falsely connected MacGuffie to the national conservative group FreedomWorks through the most tenuous of threads. The Think Progress link that purports to establish MacGuffie as a FreedomWorks "volunteer" leads to his one blog posting on a Tea Party website (on the free social networking site, ning.com). Think Progress calls Tea Party Patriots a "FreedomWorks website."
The problem is it's not a FreedomWorks site, according to FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. FreedomWorks is a "coalition partner" of TeaPartyPatriots.org, but does not fund the site in any way.
Wow. A 'vast right conspiracy' that could fit comfortably in a public school classroom. Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down.
there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
You're going to hear this a lot from him. The newest DNC talking point (seriously) is that there is yet another "vast right wing conspiracy" of potential terrorists out to "lie and intimidate" people in order to oppose Obama.
The Weekly Standard has a great piece exposing this latest version of the "if you're not with Obama you're a potential terrorist/cockroach/racist/bigot/etc. The whole conspiracy theory is based on, get this, a memo written by the leader of an obscure grassroots organization with something like---OOH SCARY--thirty members:
Right Principles PAC was formed by Bob MacGuffie and four friends in 2008, and has taken in a whopping $5,017 and disbursed $1,777, according to its FEC filing.
"We're just trying to shake this state up and make a difference up here," MacGuffie told me during a telephone interview. He's surprised at his elevation to national rabble-rouser by the Left.
Right Principles has a Facebook group with 23 members and a Twitter account with five followers. MacGuffie describes himself as an "opponent of leftist thinking in America," and told me he's "never pulled a lever" for a Republican or Democrat on a federal level. Yet this Connecticut libertarian's influence over a national, orchestrated Republican health-care push-back is strong, indeed, if you listen to liberal pundits and the Democratic National Committee, who have crafted a nefarious web out of refutable evidence.
Think Progress highlighted his memo's directives to "‘Yell,’ ‘Stand Up And Shout Out,’ ‘Rattle Him’," calling it a "right-wing harassment strategy against Dems." The blog falsely connected MacGuffie to the national conservative group FreedomWorks through the most tenuous of threads. The Think Progress link that purports to establish MacGuffie as a FreedomWorks "volunteer" leads to his one blog posting on a Tea Party website (on the free social networking site, ning.com). Think Progress calls Tea Party Patriots a "FreedomWorks website."
The problem is it's not a FreedomWorks site, according to FreedomWorks spokesman Adam Brandon. FreedomWorks is a "coalition partner" of TeaPartyPatriots.org, but does not fund the site in any way.
Wow. A 'vast right conspiracy' that could fit comfortably in a public school classroom. Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down.
So how is this considered censorship from the left?
What evidence do you base such rhetoric as, "Thank goodness Obama and Homeland Security are fixing to shut them down." or is this something you just know?
Interesting how when popular opinion went against Bush, it was reported as "grass roots opposition". But when popular opinion goes against Obama, it's reported as an "angry mob", or as a staged republican event.
With no evidence, town hall opposition to Obama that looks to be clearly spontaneous and by average citizens, are labelled by Obama and his people as "astro-turf" staged Republican orchestractions, despite absolutely no evidence to support the allegation.
But when emotional appeals to Obama at a town hall discussion were discovered later to ACTUALLY BE OBAMA CAMPAIGN WORKERS, no one in the media questions its obvious lack of authenticity.
My guess is there isn't a legal issue with this, just cockroaches scurrying around upset that they might get caught.
"Caught" doing what? Exercising their free speech rights?
Zick is tacitly admitting that he thinks people who disagree with Obama are doing something that can get them "caught."
No I'm not. You can disagree with Obama all you want but if there is an organized effort to lie and intimidate others going on I want to know about it. That's what I want caught.
Correction: There is an organized effort BY OBAMA to lie and intimidate others !
The evidence is overwhelming. The Obama secret police are out in force, to slander all opposition, and otherwise intimidate them into silence.
And the beauty is, despite the Obama smear machine, opposition --both spontaneous grassroots opposition, as well as separate organized GOP opposition-- is increasing. It is having effect, *NOT* because it's a lie, but precisely because the opposition to Obama is true and legitimate in its concerns.
Obama is the one who is lying, who says he isn't trying to destroy private heathcare. When in fact he said "If I had my choice, I'd prefer to set up a single payer system." [i.e., socialized medicine] And that while he is allowing private healthcare to remain in existence, he anticipates that his state-run healthcare system will take "ten, fifteen, maybe 20 years" to snap the spine of private healthcare and private health insurance, and that advocates of a completely state-run system should just "be patient". In light of these comments, straight from Obama's mouth and videotaped, readily available on Youtube, who is the liar, M E M ?
