The Conflagration over Flag@WhiteHouse.Gov
Up front, let me remind readers that, in the current health care debate, I have multiple, strong reservations about the so-called “public option.” I’d much rather see Congressional energy focused on enacting these fundamental consumer protections sans a “public option.” Some will argue you don’t get the latter without the former, but I’m just not convinced that’s true.
Regardless — though I’m not sold on the President’s plan and I think his team and their allies in Congress have mismanaged large chunks of the reform process to date — I am compelled to step to their defense on the now infamous “flag@whitehouse.gov,” which can be sourced to the following paragraph from this blog post:
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.
That seemingly innocuous invitation has since been characterized by certain members of the political right as an attempt by the Obama Administration to compile an “enemies list.” Phrases like “we’re asking for your help” are translated to mean “heavy handed tactics of demanding names and information.”
In turn, when the Administration goes out of it’s way to rebut such charges, noting that it does not retain “names” and “sources of information,” other members of the political right are quick to accuse the White House of breaking the law.
The latter critic adds this question:
If George Bush had told people to send “fishy information” to the White House about the Iraq War, so he could tell you the truth[, w]ould you have supported it?
Maybe, but if you remember, I didn’t get a chance to support or not support it because the prior administration never asked. Instead, they authorized a program wherein government sources were allowed to monitor communication without prior judicial consent.
Seriously: Do many of the same people who (presumably) defended warrantless wiretapping and possibly other forms of unchecked surveillance now want us to believe that such an approach was better, more legal — more American — than an openly published request that information be voluntarily submitted?
———–
Addendum: I also have to wonder if it occured to these right-wing critics that, if anyone was legitimately concerned about sending along personally identifiable information to the White House, they could easily delete that information — or copy and paste the text only into a separate email — before forwarding it? If such options did not occur to said critics, I’m guessing they might not understand the unkind humor at this site.
39 Responses to “The Conflagration over Flag@WhiteHouse.Gov”
Bush went overboard on invasion of personal privacy, but that doesn't excuse Obama making mistakes of a lesser degree. I doubt very much Obama is going to misuse the information, but the question really is this the kind of thing you want the government doing – telling people to forward e-mails that don't agree with them?
I think this is a case where people have a high degree of trust in Obama that he will not use the info inappropriately. What you have to ask is how will a policy like this be used by any president or any politician? The potential for abuse is there, why start this sort of program?
Your addendum is unrealistic – anyone getting a misleading e-mail that wants to forward it to the White House is just going to hit “forward” on their mail program and the identifying information from the original sender will go to the White House, as well as the info from the “snitch”.
The extremists in this country never cease to amaze. Calling a call for questions an attempt to create an ememies list is nothing but fear mongering.
You, like the White House, miss the point. Asking Americans to report conversations and emails to the government is the violation of trust. Whether they were to use that information merely for “rebuttal” purposes is not the issue, and we'll never know for sure anyway. Gathering private communications crosses the line.
I don't know, markfitzgibbons. When any government is trying to set up a program, they of course should know what people are saying about it, what the rumors are, what the opinion is, etc. Do we agree to that point? I realize even that could seem suspicious, but if we don't say a government has the right to do that, then we are saying they the only honest way for the government to operate is in the dark. It is immoral for them to have any idea what is being said. That seems absurd to me, so therefore I will conclude that the government should try to figure out what's going on in their own nation with regard to policies they are supposed to develop and implement.
The question now becomes: what are acceptable ways to see what public opinion and information is? Common ways to do this normally are: 1) read accounts in the mainstream media. This is a good start, but few of the bogus emails I get forwarded by conservative friends and family would ever show up there. This isn't necessarily because of liberal bias, it's because they are easily debunked and have been by places like Factcheck and snopes.com. So depending only on the media for info about what's going on with info about a policy seems limited at best. 2) The people working in the government will talk to friends, read emails and letters, etc., and then let others in the government know what's going on. This will get most of the info desired, and it's a very natural thing to do. I work in the White House, and I get an email saying “Obama wants to euthanize seniors” forwarded to me, so I let others know this rumor is going around, and then people can respond to it in press conferences or town halls in the future.
Option 2) could be very sinister, of course. I could spin it to say, “hey, Obama's told everyone in the federal government to report to him anyone who says something he doesn't approve of.” But surely that's a very bogus way to characterize the idea that people report rumors they hear so that a response can be formulated.
So now with the flag email, option 3), there was an idea that others could report rumors they hear as well. Can you tell me why option 3) crosses the line where option 2) does not? Either one could be portrayed as a secret police, while neither need be anything of the sort.
Pacatrue, you scare me. If citizens want their own comments submitted to the government, they may do so on their own. But for the government to ask people to report what other citizens say in conversations is better suited for other nations where freedoms are cherished. The government has the obligation to be truthful to its citizens, and to allow debate. Debate is often misinformed on all sides, but that's the nature of a democracy. Now, when citizens appear at town halls to voluntarilly express their views, we have elected officials cancelling those meetings. I think you have this democracy thing backwards.
Um…the difference is *consent*. You can choose to send your personal correspondences to the White House, or you can choose not to send them. If you don't want to send them, don't! If I'm sitting at my computer looking at some ridiculous fact-free missive on the demons of health care sent to me by right-wing Uncle Jeff, and if I think “gee, nobody is addressing this BS, I wish I knew how to get it addressed”, now I know where to send it. I am allowed to do that, and you are allowed not to, if you so desire.
And I think you are conflating several things that don't need to be conflated. You said, for instance, that the government should be truthful to its citizens? I wholeheartedly agree, but how does that relate to having a place to forward an email? Next you say it should allow debate. Again, I agree. How does that relate to this email address and the request? Then you bring up people canceling town halls. I would need to know specifics, but then again, how does this relate to the email address?
Then you didn't address any of my points. I fully understand that you don't want people reporting private conversations to the government. Generally speaking I agree, but that's not really the purpose of this email address, is it? It's about the chain emails from roro's (see comment above) Uncle Jeff that convey talking points?
Again, do you think the government should operate in the dark and have no idea of the rumors being spread about policy? If not, what are the reasonable methods?
#1 – IMO this is not what is happening. #2 – Were you equally outraged when the last President overrode and then rewrote the “Patriot Act” authorized capricious data mining of your private communications that sidestepped judicial review or is your worries and fears something new… developing only after Democrats became the majority and Obama became President?
“[B]ut that's not really the purpose of this email address, is it?”
That's its expressly stated purpose. It asks people to report conversations AND emails. Those are private communications, which are part of the right of peaceable assembly and association. If the communicators wanted those communications sent to the White House, they could do so themselves. That is the right to petition the government.
By the bye, Mr. Obama seems to be spreading disinformation in an attempt to make what others say and do to appear as disinformation. This reported about his NH town hall today:
“The provision cited by opponents would authorize Medicare to pay doctors for counseling patients about end-of-life care, living wills, hospice care and other issues, if the patient wants it, Obama said. He said the idea originally came from Republican former congressman, now Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia.
It would not “basically pull the plug on grandma because we decided that it's too expensive to let her live anymore.”
After the event, Isakson issued a statement denouncing Obama's attempt to connect him to language in the bill. He said that he successfully offered an amendment in a Senate version of the bill that allows individuals to 'make their own choices on these critical issues rather than the government incentivizing doctors to conduct counseling on government-mandated topics.'”
“It asks people to report conversations AND emails…If the communicators wanted those communications sent to the White House, they could do so themselves.”
That's exactly what's going on! It's not: I broke into someone's email and sent them to the White House. It is: I got an email and sent it to the White House. It's not: I eavesdropped on my neighbor's conversation by listening outside her window and then reported what she said to the White House. It is: I was having a conversation and I don't know if this thing that my neighbor said was actually true.
And how in the world does your example of “misinformation” in any way represent misinformation? “He said that he successfully offered an amendment in a Senate version of the bill that allows individuals to 'make their own choices on these critical issues rather than the government incentivizing doctors to conduct counseling on government-mandated topics.” That is exactly what Obama said! This Senator offered up the idea, others thought it was a good one, it made it in the bill, then the whole world thought it meant Dems want to kill old people. So, by the bye, there's no misinformation there.
There are a gazillion non-profit think tanks that write reports and give informal advice to politicians about how to proceed. This has long been the case.
Since there are so many that can keep track of the debate and be on mailing lists and such, I don't see any reason that the government should be directly involved. It's not like the talking points are secretive.
Like most people I often get nutty political e-mails. I have one brother who is a staunch Democrat and I would often get e-mails “Bush is terrible, blah, blah, blah”. I have another brother who is a staunch Republican and I get e-mails “Obama is terrible, blah, blah, blah”. My Mom is in her 70's and I get “Obama will kill old people” stuff from her.
So the White House is saying if I see something fishy in those e-mails I'm supposed to forward them the e-mails? And people are OK with this? I would be a total a-hole if I did something like that. The government has no business here no matter who the president is.
People need to just look at the issue. Part of the reason I am no longer a Republican is the privacy over-reaches by Bush. No the e-mail flagging isn't as bad as that but that's not the point, we shouldn't accept a policy because it's less bad than another policy.
Note to Dick Polman re: idea for tomorrow's follow-up article—Dems are tone-deaf as well.
Let's review the bidding……the missive hit the non-liberal general public's sensibilities with a thud from moment one. The issue was lost the moment it went out as it did.
Now, several days later, you are parsing out words as if to still claim some sort of victory in the ash pit.
And as far as the humor goes, maybe it's at your expense for chastising on technical prowess when no normal person was even interested in considering responding.
It is not hard to see how it could have been written to evoke a much less negative reaction, but why spoil your learning opportunities.
Dear Mr. Pete Abel:
You'll be happy to know that I've taken the liberty of reporting you to flag@whitehouse.gov for posting erroneous information about the healthcare bill. Shame.
This is what flag@whitehouse.gov will be used for: http://muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/2009/08/mash-pamela-geller-internet-snitch.html
On August 4, 2009 a post titled “Facts Are Stubborn Things” appeared on the White House blog. It contained the following paragraph:
“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.”
Every Fourth of July, we celebrate the Birth of the Nation. Every Fourth of August, we shall celebrate the Birth of the Internet Snitch Brigade.
How long do you think it took before the Internet Snitch Brigade expanded its reporting from something fishy about health insurance reform to Anti-American Activities? Just five days! Move over McCarthy; here comes Bill Warner. In the post titled “ASSASSINATE BARACK OBAMA PLOTS INCREASE TO 10 RACIST RIGHT WING BLOGGERS FUEL WHITE SUPREMISTS (sic.) SECRET SERVICE SHUT EM DOWN by Bill Warner investigator” Bill Warner writes:
“Articles posted on ultra right wings blogs like “Muslims Against Sharia” by Khamim Massoud such as Obama spies monitoring Jews house-to-house and Freed to Kill More American Soldiers: Taliban Thrives, Thanks to Obama Policy and “Atlas Shrugs Website” by Pamela Geller who posts articles such as “Obama backs Iraqi Terrorists: Iraq investigates alleged US-insurgent talks” are hastening the demise of Preisdent Barack Obama. … The US Secret Service so needs to investigate “Muslims Against Sharia by Khalim Massoud and Pamela Geller for her Anti-American racist activities on her website, which she operates out of her Manhattan NY apartment, and her incitement to hate by others and the possible murder of President Barack Obama.”
Yes, it only took five days to jump from snitching about dissent on health insurance reform to making up wild accusations about “incitement to hate by others and the possible murder of President Barack Obama.” A quote attributed to Joseph Goebbels, a Propaganda Minister in Nazi Germany reads:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”
Bill Warner may not be a good P.I. (as he claims to be) or not a good bar fighter and martial artist (as he claims to be), but he has certainly mastered the art of Nazi propaganda.
Isakson is also lying to cover his behind. Look what he said just last year on this very issue. Note the brazen utilitarian language he uses too! Encouraging end-of-life care would save “gazillions of dollars.”
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/8/11/765326/…
Not sure if anyone's still reading this thread, but…
@Roro: What you said about consent gets things completely backward. The person who communicates the thought to begin with would be the one who would need to give consent to have his private communication to you and others forwarded to the White House. That is not the case in this situation- quite the contrary, in fact.
And I was going to make the point that Mikkel made- it's farcical to think that the WH really deems it necessary to do this in order to tap into the rumors and complaints being made against these healthcare reform plans. All of the statements, true or distorted, are well known or could be gleaned just from paying attention to blogs, factchecking sites, etc. I don't know if the intent was innocent or not in terms of gathering names, but the potential for real mischief is certainly there and with no plausible rationale for why this 'information seeking' would be necessary.
“with no plausible rationale for why this 'information seeking' would be necessary”
Not sure if you ever took statistics or a science class, but in general, the larger your sample, the more you can rely on your results. If they have the man power to sort through the data, it would be silly for them to not ask for it. It is by no mean illegal. They aren't tapping your phone lines.
You comment implies that something mischievous is going on by falsely stating that there is no rational for the WH to seek additional information.
This is a perfect example of what the WH is fighting against…you're lucky I'm not a tattle tale
Elrod- No, it's Obama who either lied or misspoke and conflated several different things, which ended up giving an impression that Isakson disputed (angrily, because the misrepresention made a material difference in how his participation in this is portrayed.)
Here's what Obama said:
Quite obviously, a Senator is not going to be involved in the drafting or amending of House bills. Obama has some wording in there that sort of implies that Isakson was in the House at the time this was drafted, which makes no sense since he's been a Senator since 2005.
And the reason that makes a difference is that Isakson's amendment to the SENATE version of the bill specifically targeted that House provision that Obama's talking about, because although Isakson does promote voluntary end-of-life planning by patients with their doctors, he felt that the way the House bill was written would end up with a coercive mandate on physicians to promote this with patients who wouldn't necessarily be choosing the consults voluntarily. That is why Isakson objected to Obama's statements, and since Obama was clearly incorrect in the way he stated the Senator's involvement he should correct the record.
If they have the man power to sort through the data, it would be silly for them to not ask for it. They aren't tapping your phone lines.
They are asking for it from people who don't have to get the consent of the person who actually made the communication. There is no substantive difference between that and phone tapping, because in both cases the person who is communicating has no power to give or deny consent for the White House to be on the receiving end.
The part about whether or not there's a plausible reason for them to need this information is purely my opinion, of course, but it seems illogical to think otherwise. Even if there is a plausible rationale, though, the infringement of privacy is still just as important here as it was when people were concerned about the data mining and warrantless phone tapping under Bush, which also had plausible rationale for tapping into terrorist plotting communications (leaving aside whether or not it was really expedient or possible for them to get that information through the casting of wide nets.)
Sorry Pete… I just had to report you to the white house for disseminating and fomenting incorrect information about obamacare. Hope they don't bother you.
CStanley –
No, I don't have it backwards. If YOU say something to ME, or send ME and email, that is no longer YOUR communication, it is also MY communication. If what you said or emailed was true and unknown to me, I'll likely pass it on as a piece of new information; if not, I'll likely call bullsh*t to your face and maybe forward it as a “can you believe this guy?” joke to a friend. I can do this without problems because when you forwarded it to me or said it to me, it became mine AND yours. Unless there's some agreement between the two of us that this was said in confidence, I'm allowed to do with that communication anything I darn well please. I have not beat the information out of you, I have not forced you to say or email anything. In fact, forwarding is what those emails were made for, as evidenced by FW: fw: FW: Re: FW: preceeding the subject. If you don't want it forwarded, why did you forward it in the first place?
@CStanley: “There is no substantive difference between that and phone tapping, because in both cases the person who is communicating has no power to give or deny consent for the White House to be on the receiving end.”
Yes, there is most certainly a difference. It is 100% legal to request a tap of your own phone without a warrant issued by a judge. Why? BECAUSE IT IS YOUR OWN PHONE. I have actually done this when I was getting extremely scary and disturbing phone calls from an ex. I used the recordings as evidence to get a restraining order. I did not have to get his permission to tap my own damn phone, because, again, it's my own damn phone. He was communicating with me, without coersion by anyone, and when someone communicates with you, it becomes as much your communication as theirs. Why is this a difficult concept?
Maybe it would make you feel better if the White House asked you to first forward an email on to someone else, then resend your own forwarded email to the White House?
roro- legally you may be correct but ethically I'd say that you don't have the right to use someone's correspondence against them or forward it on in a manner that they clearly didn't intend to consent to.
To me what you describe would be like taping someone's private phone conversation with you, and then using it against them by reporting them to authorities. You do have the right to repeat what they said to you to other people, and they may even have intended for you to do so in a manner that they'd approve- but there's no implied consent to have one's voice communication tape recorded. Even if legally you may be correct that the written word is handled differently, and that people should be aware that their words can be used against them, I doubt that most people up until now had even considered that that could be the case.
roro- our posts crossed and I see that your anecdote relates to my hypothetical about phone tapping. Again, I am willing to stand corrected on the legality- but we're still talking about the ethics involved in using peoples communications against them in regard to political speech- not 'creepy phone calls'. You may be 100% correct that you could legally have obtained the tap without having to prove just cause relating to the type of speech, but I doubt that anyone would think it was ethically above board to get such a tap to record Uncle Jerry going on a rant about the government, and turning that over to said government.
In short- even if the WH legally CAN request the forwarding of such information, it still remains that they SHOULD NOT, IMO.
From Camille Paglia: “The ethical collapse of the left was nowhere more evident than in the near total silence of liberal media and Web sites at the Obama administration's outrageous solicitation to private citizens to report unacceptable “casual conversations” to the White House. If Republicans had done this, there would have been an angry explosion by Democrats from coast to coast. I was stunned at the failure of liberals to see the blatant totalitarianism in this incident, which the president should have immediately denounced. His failure to do so implicates him in it.”
“using peoples communications against them”
Ok CStanley, I can see where you're coming from. However, I would like to point out that nobody is collecting the personal information of the people passing on these emails, nobody will be looking for them to arrest them for their speech, nobody is even implying that there is anything wrong whatsoever with passing on whatever piece of information they heard. They are simply looking for new rumors going around so that they can figure out whether they are correct or not, and then get out ahead of the story.
I do understand your ethical concerns, but I think they could be easily bypassed by copying/pasting content of an email, or saying “I heard this — is it true?” No names, no email addresses, no ethics issues. Perhaps the White House should even request that the info be sent like that for this very reason. I was coming from the legality point of view (with my creepy ex anecdote) just because you compared it to wiretapping — clearly illegal — and I think legal collection of data is way more ethical than illegal collection of data in any case. Hopefully you would agree.
I think we're closer to understanding each other, roro, but I just want to point out that your good faith interpretation of what the WH wants to do or will do with the information is no different than what Bush's supporters felt about his WH. I think in all cases, just as the founders did, we shouldn't allow our best case interpretations about govt officials' intent to cloud our judgement.
I'd be interested to know your honest answer to this- would you feel as comfortable with your opinion about the intent of this program if it had been instituted by Bush?
CStanley — Fair enough. How about the suggestion that they specifically request the information in a format that doesn't include anyone's email/personal information than the senders? Maybe even make an anonymous web form so that even the sender's identity could be concealed if they wish? I would agree that the government could theoretically be compiling email addresses of people they consider enemies, but it's true that I just don't see the current administration doing that in the same way the last one did.
As to your question: honestly, probably not. Of course, Bush never *asked* for information from the public at all. There was no opportunity to for me to test out whether or not I felt it was ok under him, because he didn't seem all too concerned about perhaps ethically dubious but obviously legal methods of information-gathering; he bypassed that step altogether and jumped immediately to ethically repugnant and totally illegal methods.
Your scenario is very particular because he was breaking the law by refusing to abide by your wishes. In most states it is illegal to record phone conversations if both parties aren't aware of it and you are obligated to say at the beginning “I wish to record this conversation, is that acceptable” on tape and record their answer. If they say no you are obligated to turn off the tape.
I am unclear what the rules are if you're being harassed and I obviously don't know your details, but in most cases they do want you to contact the police and have them tap your phone to record the offending conversations.
Can't they already get all this information from all that unregulated NSA electronic eavesdropping?
Hi CStanley,
My so-far-failed point was that one could “spin” or simply find potential fault with any method. If the government wanted to know rumors by watching blogs, using google alerts, etc., then that could be portrayed as “Did you know that Obama's told his minions in the government to monitor all internet traffic to see who disagrees with him? Whoever thought America would come to this? Where the government reads personal blogs to look for dissension?!” I'm alarmed by my own spin already. Obama must be stopped from reading the internet!
Or let's say the government was looking at medical fraud and added something to a web page. “If you think something fishy is going on with your doctor or insurance company, please let us know about it.” That would be okay, right? Yet it could also be interpreted as, “Obama has organized his millions of worshippers to email the government to report the private conversations between people and their doctor without that doctor having had the chance to consent in any way to it! The left is morally bankrupt!”
There's nothing inherently wrong (I am still arguing) with an email address to send rumors to. It all depends upon what's being done with the info. Is personal info collected? Are actions taken on this? Etc. I would be of the opinion that no personal info should be collected at all in any form, so if it is, they should stop it immediately and apologize.
Does anyone know if there's been any report on what actually happens with these emails? My guess would actually be, “not much.” And that this was just a way someone came up with to get the grassroots involved so they stay passionate and engaged. Whenever I email a senator I get no response at all, not even a form letter. My guess would be the same is happening here.
random-
Sure, people would probably criticize other types of information gathering, and in many of those cases they'd be wrong or at best, exaggerating the problem. But that has nothing to do with addressing the legitimate problems with this particular program which was in fact announced and initiated, without any safeguard about how the data will be used except “trust us, we're not making lists of names.”
And as for what is actually happening with the emails that are submitted, I realize the source for this is Fox but when you read what is being said it makes sense that there's a problem (and the person at Fox who is putting forth this argument, Napolitano, is a libertarian and doesn't tend to be a GOP partisan, so take that into consideration as well.) Anyway, the point he makes is that there are two statutes, and one or the other must be violated for this program. There's one statute that was passed in response to Nixon's shenanigans which prohibits the govt from gathering data on people who exercise first amendment protected political speech. So to satisfy that, they'd have to destroy the emails which contain the identifying information- but the problem is that another statute prohibits them from destroying any communications they receive. They can't possibly work within the legal parameters of both of those statutes.
Well, I don't think anyone's reading anymore, but I'm coming around on this. I've been focused on the idea of whether it always wrong for citizens to tell the government something. I still feel my arguments are correct here, i.e., that it is not, and it depends upon what the government is doing with the info.
However, if you concentrate just on the idea of forwarding emails, then there might indeed be an inherent problem. E-mails exist in some sort of neverland of privacy. We all know that you shouldn't forward certain content to others, but yet we routinely forward other emails all the time. If I get an official budget estimate from a colleague, I will forward it to others without asking that colleague's permission, as that sort of content is understood to be “shareable”.
Anyway, I think, as roro says here, that you can get around most ethical dilemmas about how personal an email is by getting rid of the email address and having a little web form instead. Don't have entries asking for identifier info or anything, just let people type in the sort of claims they are hearing on health care. Yeah, someone could type in “My Uncle Joe who lives at 123 Elm St. says….” but then people could phone the White House as well and give that if it pleases them. Just don't ask for it and don't record it.
I think this would satisfy the legitimate request for info and alleviate most of the concerns.
random5431 also known as pacatrue on a public computer
CStanley, I think I've come around to much of your way of thinking on this. I think they should get rid of the email address as well. Our posts crossed. (Pacatrue / random)
Paca- thanks for clarifying your identity so we can correctly finger you if we need to (just kidding!)
But thanks also for acknowledging your change of opinion. Honestly it's not an issue I'm losing sleep over, just like I didn't lie awake nights with concerns about the Bush administration wiretapping- but I do have the opinion that in both instances there are legitimate concerns (mainly in the abstract, as in allowing something that could later be used inappropriately.)
Does anyone remember McCarthyism?? Make sure you let Uncle Sam know if anyone is having a discussion (town hall meeting?) that may be “subversive” to your opinion. Follow blindly if you wish…
**McCarthyism is the politically motivated practice of making accusations of disloyalty, subversion, or treason without proper regard for evidence**
Yes, and this has almost nothing to do with McCarthyism. Republican Rep. Michelle Bachman, however, knows quite a lot. You should see some of her videos.
[...] The Conflagration over Flag@WhiteHouse.Gov [...]