NYPD Spying On Muslims Bred Political And Religious Suppression, Report Finds

A sign in the Muslim Student Association room at Hunter College. The sign points to a news report on NYPD spying.

Systematic and widespread monitoring of Muslims’ everyday life by undercover informants, brought to light by an Associated Press investigative series last year, has had a severe chilling effect on speech, religious activity and community life, according to a new report by several civil rights organizations. Muslims fear speaking out even about the New York Police Department surveillance itself, and even youths described the fear of being arrested as “very real,” deterring them from activity that ranges from community involvement and speaking in class, to posting expressive messages on Facebook. “[W]hen your speech is limited, you can’t really do much: you can’t write on the internet, you can’t talk on the phone because they’re tapped, you can’t speak in public,” said one 22-year-old Sunday School teacher.

In interviews with 57 students, business owners, community leaders and educators, many recount having been asked to spy on their peers. One student recalled having been called into the principal’s office at age 16 and asked by the NYPD about her online activity. Several individuals described being questioned as suspects, and then later offered bribes to serve as informants when police realized they were not suspicious – told in moments of financial weakness that the police could “give them their freedom” by paying them for spying or providing them with a place to live. “These incidents – not infrequent in certain communities – have led many to realize that others, possibly their own peers, may not be as able to resist the pressures of working as informants,” the report said. This has bred mistrust both within the Muslim community and of law enforcement officers, prompting individuals and even businesses to accuse one another of being informants.

One of the most widespread and alarming elements of this NYPD surveillance was the recruitment of young people to infiltrate college groups. AP reports revealed that informants even accompanied students on a whitewater rafting trip, leading to fear that informants could be anyone and infiltrate anywhere. The report explains the impact on college campuses:

For college students, typically aged between 17 and 22, the prospect of dealing with surveillance by a police department, infiltration of events and extracurricular activities by informants, and the potentially devastating academic, professional, and personal repercussions can be overwhelming. … We found that the NYPD’s surveillance of students chilled First Amendment activity in what is perhaps the single most important formative and expressive space for any American youth: the college campus. […]

[W]ith a general understanding that dealing with “politics” is controversial, Muslim students find themselves steering away from those majors, classes, or extracurricular activities. Two students, both active members of their MSAs, reported switching their majors from political science to more conventional majors after becoming concerned about law enforcement scrutiny of “political” young Muslim males. […]

The isolationism that comes with being a member of a “spied on” community means that Muslim students are getting a fundamentally different, and less rewarding college experience compared to their non-Muslim peers.

As the report explains, these impacts suggest both First Amendment (free speech and religious suppression) and Fourteenth Amendment (discriminatory practices) implications, in a program that that may have broken the law and yielded no leads or cases.

View the original article here

Political cards

(Difference between revisions)| Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid.| Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid.| Make religious and social conservatives appear to be irrational "Bible-thumpers" who follow the Holy Bible nonsensically.| Liberal Hollywood degrading conservative preachers in movies such as ''Jesus Camp'' and ''Religulous''.| Alienates leaders of religious movements from the average person.| Creates straw men out of real conservatives, which ultimately backfires as stereotypes are dispelled.

Political cards are tactics used by liberals in politics, the media, and other adversarial settings in order to appeal to emotion or even prejudice rather than reason. The term is a metaphor for what happens in the card game of bridge, where one card can be played to "trump" (defeat) all other cards. Political cards are thus a form of thought-terminating cliché.

In contrast with most card games, however, a political card can be played at any time, no matter how irrational or irrelevant to the topic. Many liberal articles and commentaries consist of little more than playing one or more political cards.

A card is "played" when one side relies on a particular issue in order to gain an often-unjustified upper hand in the debate or controversy.

Liberals have had a difficult time playing a political card against the Tea Party Movement, due to its amorphous nature.

Political card Meaning Example Advantage Disadvantage allegations men are ignorant slobs and women need a protected status as a voting bloc within the Democratic Party. Lawrence Summers was driven from his presidency of Harvard for merely mentioning the possibility that women may not have as much aptitude for math as men. implies women are helpless unless they receive special treatment from the government Bringing race into a debate by suggesting that criticism is racially motivated or that one's opponent is racist Used effectively to silence criticism of Obama in 2008 prove you're not a racist is like saying, "when did you stop beating your wife?" Scare grandpa and grandma into thinking their government benefits will be cut off Under President Obama, Social Security for the first time in its history, has a negative cash flow and has been paying out more in benefits than the cash it demands from younger workers.[1] Slander your opponent for proposing solutions. Political and economic stagnation. Anything that highlights or is critical of the historical record of liberal governance. programmed response for liberal failures. Bringing country of origin into a debate by suggesting that criticism is motivated by a fear of foreigners (eg. Australians) Polite and responsible criticism of President Obama is deemed xenophobic.[3] At first seems to be an effective way to pose the opponent as racist. Ultimately fails when both debaters are of the same country or when the person making the original claim is from the country of the claim. Calling opponents of the homosexual agenda intolerant instead of focusing on the immorality of homosexuality. Used against Rick Santorum leading up to his defeat for reelection in 2006 African-Americans oppose the promotion of gay rights in greater numbers than the general population of the United States as a whole.[4] demonstrating inconsistencies in liberal ideology. the most despicable forms of liberal intolerance traditionally have been reserved for, and manifested in, the vile abuses heaped upon Black conservatives, Black Republicans, and Black Tea Party activists. in a democracy, the voice of opposition can always be labeled intolerant Used to support socialized medicine cite Ted Kennedy’s “dream”, the “the cause of my life”, “Senator Kennedy eloquently captured how our long-term care system is failing the American people when he said, too often, they have to give up the American Dream" [5] emotional appeal for passing legislation Only 26% of the population can relate to liberalism, the Kennedy card has zero effect on legislation. Used to imply a few Republicans, mostly RINOs, are "responsible." "During the health care battle, President Obama was unable to find a single Responsible Republican." [6] In 1990 President George H.W. Bush was hailed as a Responsible Republican for breaking his "read my lips" pledge. in typical MSM newspeak, anything right of center or not liberal. Polls show mainstream journalists are more liberal than the American public.[8] Attacking oil companies for their profits, even though oil companies create jobs and pay into the federal Treasury, and profits make up a reasonable portion of total revenue. Most people care about money and fairness. Seems hypocritical if the person using the strategy is wealthy (like most liberal politicians) or benefits from capitalism (like all Americans) millionaires and billionaires card President Obama said on June 29, 2011, "I'm proposing we get rid of tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires." [9] appeals to voters motivated by envy politicians that use it are dependent on campaign contributions from millionaires and billionaires. the one making the charge cannot explain facts. Hillary Clinton charged that her husband's behavior was the result of a "vast right-wing conspiracy". provides plausible reasons for the simple minded. contradictory evidence leads to more conspiracy theories. Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of homosexuals. Opposition to the radical redefinition of marriage as expressed in California's Proposition 8 was deemed homophobia.[10] Old stand-by in the arsenal of liberal slander attacks. Attempts to ostracize and criminalize an emotional disorder. Many if not most homophobes are gay. Accusing the opponent of having an irrational fear or hatred of Muslims Don't question behavior because an individual happens to be Muslim Scare people from speaking out or investigating Look foolish making excuses for a religion publicly committed to the downfall of the West. apparently there is a ready market for hyperbole and fear among leftists. Ignores the fact the Reagan reforms gave birth to the longest, most extended era of peacetime prosperity in U.S. history.[12] equates moderates with ignorant fascists. A claim that tries to portray the opponent badly by placing them as someone who "hates the environment". The simple-minded will swallow any line of garbage. failure to behave in a realistic manner and being afraid to upset people Plays on others' fear of seeming weak. Because a person is stupid, they are unqualified to be president. Reading from a prop, Dan Quayle once misspelled "potato", and liberals destroyed him by playing this card. A momentary lapse is seized upon to make a person look like an idiot. Works well until a liberal candidate utters a statement like the United States is made up of 57 states. seeks to link Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism. appeals to the fears of atheists and religious bigots. cry "free speech," "free speech" for everything offensive to Christianity, while censoring the truth and limiting political speech Supreme Court ruled exotic dancing protected free expression but disallowed a high school football team's pregame prayer under the same grounds. Legally it is technically correct Just because something is "free speech" does not mean it is not wrong Creationism is an emotive issue for many people on either side of the debate, so this can be a clever way to side-track sensible argument. claims those asking unanswered questions are conspiracy kooks Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal [16] Senator Ted Kennedy implied that Justice Bork would turn back Roe V. Wade forcing women to have back-alley abortions. fear Republican laws and personal responsibility you can't run from your conscience and consequence of actions can lead to a lifetime of suffering mocking a conservative opponent rather than dealing with substantive issues Using snarky (sometimes even offensive) humor to attack the opponent. Rachael Maddow, Jon Stewart, etc. Often a cue for other liberals to "join in" the laughter Nobody else is laughing (or they are laughing at the snark attempt-er). Claiming "What would Jesus do" to try to paint the opponent as not a true Christian (a common liberal tactic when cornered on a religious issue, such as homosexuality) As noted above, liberals often use this to defend homosexuality [17] by claiming that Jesus never specifically mentioned it. A true Christian can easily find the flaws in such an argument by pointing our how it is taken out of context. slurs anyone who wants to take away defensive weapons The shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was blamed on Sarah Palin; opponents of Constitutional Rights immediately clamored for bigger and more government oppression.[18] Appeals to pro-gun-control people's negative stereotypes of gun enthusiasts. changing the definition of a word to suit one's purposes An insidious way to reframe debate that can be effective if one's opponents are not vigilant or use imprecise thinking. Liberals often use certain "trends" to support their claims. Citing the Clinton surplus vs the Bush deficit At first makes the user look like they have done their research Often taken out of context (for example the Clinton surplus was largely due to a Republican congress and the end of the Cold War, while the Bush deficit was caused greatly by two wars and need for Homeland Security. selectively picking out cases that support one's arguments from a wide variety of material and ignoring all the cases that don't Many people struggle with statistics, so poorly-informed observers may assume the user is correct. dishonest and easy to point out counterexamples never-admit-a-mistake card [20] Obama said his stimulus would hold unemployment below 8%; instead it rose to over 9% and straddled the U.S. with the debt ceiling crisis. [21] incrementalism leads to compromise Denying American exceptionalism. Trots out false examples of how European countries have better standard of living. Lies or distorts truth in order to win argument. Can impress ill-informed or credulous observers. You're only fooling yourself if you believe any of it. Impersonation of Conservatives to discredit their positions. Liberals often create straw men during this impersonation. Adds to negative stereotypes of real conservatives, especially where people have not met many genuine conservatives. claiming that a policy benefits the rich and powerful Appeals to people's "Robin Hood" impulse to support underdogs and mistrust the wealthy. arguing someone must be right because he has more compassion Attempts to paint opponents' pragmatism as cold-heartedness. claiming some inconsistency in positions The idea that a pro-lifer must oppose death penalty Often the people making the Hypocrite claim exhibit hypocrisy themselves (see Liberal hypocrisy) insinuating that someone is bad because he was once in the same room with some extremist look who's calling the kettle back. Many people still have trouble with new media and struggle to draw correct conclusions from search results. None that are currently known. Postures Democrats as advocates for people who hold jobs and have children. Politicians who employ such rhetoric invariably work to pass legislation that destroys jobs and undermines families. the idea people born in a given country are xenophobic exclusionary bigots. Opposition to the Ground Zero mosque. divides the people against themselves Liberal George Soros likened the Bush administration to the Nazi regime. appeals to emotion and extremists, and less educated leftists. Seeks to paint loyal Americans as racist. "patriotism is little more than a disguised form of racism"[23] Some "Patriot movement" groups call for tighter immigration control. Democrats can be sensitive to the charge of being unpatriotic. Implies Democrats are sympathetic to a person's immigration status, despite the fact there is no historical record of legislative achievements in this area and Democrats associate being opposed to illegal immigration as being "anti-immigration" as a whole, which is bigoted and completely insulting to people that come to this country legally. The Obama Dream Act, a "cynical exercise in political charades", failed to pass the Democratic controlled Senate, 55-41. Seeks to pit voters against each other along racial and ethnic lines, which Democrats view as a win. Nixon's Southern Strategy card implies Richard Nixon appealed to Southern Democrats and racists after Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. "probably the biggest lie that's been told to the blacks since Woodrow Wilson segregated the federal government" [24] ignores the fact that (1) Richard Nixon did not carry the South; a Democrat, George Wallace received 49 electoral votes exclusively from the South; and (2) passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was entirely dependent on Republican votes with Democrats in both houses voting against passage.[25] On the 150th anniversary of start of the Civil War, MSNBC's liberal hosts never missed an opportunity to associate today's conservative movement with the Confederacy, secession, slavery and racism.[26] implication rural inhabitants are uneducated and possibly racist Used to smear most conservatives pejorative aimed at Bluedog Democrats, Red State dwellers, and others in flyover country. When motivated, this group forms an important part of a center-right majority. bitter and cling to guns or religion card Why don't common people vote Democrat? Attempts to justify Democrat's failure to coffeehouse liberals, and persuade hick voters by belittling them. insinuates NASCAR fans are uneducated and racist NASCAR fans tend to vote Republican,[27] more so than fans of most others sports. Republicans failed to balance the budget by cutting $7.4 million from the Pentagon's sponsorship of NASCAR for Army recruiting. [28] NASCAR has an estimated 75 million fans. a former Miss California was stripped of her crown for saying she thought marriage was between a man and a woman. [29] ostracizing others among the unenlightened masses leads to feelings of superiority. not everyone keeps up to date on the lastest liberal tripe. accuse someone of being like the (false) liberal portrayal of Joseph McCarthy "Racist!" as an Epithet of Repression [30] baseless smear, such as calling someone a racist. Extremely flexible, and with great glee you can ruin someone's life just for fun. Requires no morals or conscience. Pretending to be a victim of the right wingers. Liberals looking for alleged conservative bias everywhere. Makes them look weak, petty and paranoid. Make religious and social conservatives appear to be irrational "Bible-thumpers" who follow the Holy Bible nonsensically. Liberal Hollywood degrading conservative preachers in movies such as Jesus Camp and Religulous. Alienates leaders of religious movements from the average person. Creates straw men out of real conservatives, which ultimately backfires as stereotypes are dispelled. ? http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/15/6273181-obama-agenda-social-security-still-the-third-rail? http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/20/fcc-church-conspiracy-to-silen/print#? See:JournoList? http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2008/10/30/proposition_8? Dems invoke the ‘Kennedy Card’ to defend Obamacare in wake of failing CLASS Act, Daily Caller, October 26, 2011? http://www.slate.com/id/2251101/? Ibid.? The Liberal Media, Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than the American Public — And the Public Knows It, Rich Noyes, Director of Research, Media Research Center, June 30, 2004.? The Washington Post Fact Checker column said, "in the context of a $4 trillion goal, it is essentially meaningless. The item is so small the White House could not even provide an estimate of the revenue that would be raised, but other estimates suggest it would amount to $3 billion over 10 years."? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html? Paul Krugman Says GOP 'Zombies' Are Going to Eat Obama's Brain, Newsbusters.? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574344230339019304.html? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-roberts/global-warming-and-the-ho_b_74210.html? http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/on_comparing_global_warming_de.html? http://www.uncoverage.net/2011/03/new-tv-ad-for-epa-republicans-poison-babies/? Truthers vs. Birthers: Not All Conspiracy Theories Are Created Equal; Birthers aren't remotely as crazy — and dangerous — as Truthers. September 23, 2009 by Arthur Chrenkoff. Pajama's Media.? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-shore/what-would-jesus-do-if-in_b_480013.html? http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-01-09/news/27086902_1_gun-ban-sarah-palin-gun-incident? http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124451592762396883.html? Thomas Sowell writes, (a) goals are redefined after the fact to give the public the illusion of success; (b) bad motives are ascribed to the opposition or society in general; (c) good intentions of the anointed are highlighted; and (d) they attack the accuracy of the data showing failure. Thomas Sowell, The Vision of the Anointed, Chap. 2.? http://www.abqjournal.com/main/2011/07/20/opinion/only-hope-is-undoing-obamas-mess.html Only Hope Is Undoing Obama’s Mess], Kenneth Brown And Micha Gisser, Albuquerque Journal, July 20 2011.? Google Search Results.? http://atheism.about.com/od/politicspoliticalissues/a/problempride_2.htm? Nixon's Southern Strategy: The Democrat-Lie Keeping Their Control Over the Black Community, Ken Raymond, June 6, 2011. associatedcontent from Yahoo.? Final tally in the House among Republicans was 138 to 34; Democrats 152-96; in the Senate 21 Democrats voted against passage while only 6 Republicans opposed. [1]? http://www.mrc.org/cmi/eyeonculture/2011/_MSNBCs_UnCivil_War_on_the_Right.html? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/04/24/109269/-Why-do-NASCAR-Fans-Vote-Republican? http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/19/sports/autoracing/19nascar.html? http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2009/04/20/carrie-prejean-says-answer-gay-marriage-question-cost-miss-usa-crown/? “Racist!” as an Epithet of Repression, Dr. Paul Trout, Montana Professor Journal, Fall 1995.

View the original article here

The Political Legacy of Robert Kennedy — Barack Obama?

By John Halpin, Guest Blogger and Ruy Teixeira, Guest Blogger on Mar 16, 2013 at 11:57 am

This is part 1 of a 2 part series on RFK and the Obama coalition.

Forty-five years ago today, Senator Robert F. Kennedy announced his candidacy for the President of the United States promising to lead a moral and political uprising to end the war in Vietnam and to fight the corrosive poverty afflicting American cities and rural areas.  Affected greatly by the legacy of his brother President John F. Kennedy, his growing alignment with the Civil Rights and anti-war movements, and his work to fight the war on poverty, Sen. Kennedy sought to do what no liberal politician before him had been able to accomplish—unite African Americans, Latinos, young people, and liberal intellectuals with blue collar whites to advance progressive causes and give political voice to the disenfranchised in American society.

Kennedy’s straightforward talk about the problems of “the other America” and the need for racial reconciliation and expanded opportunities for all people—across racial and ethnic lines—rallied communities across the country.  Although his campaign lasted only 82 days before he was gunned down in Los Angeles—a few months after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.—Robert Kennedy’s forward-looking vision and unique political strategy presaged a fundamental transformation of American liberalism away from its New Deal roots and towards the emergent coalition of minorities, young people, women, professionals, and middle class whites that would eventually elect Barack Obama in 2008 and re-elect him in 2012.

The decades following Kennedy’s presidential run were not easy for center-left forces as progressives faced numerous political difficulties, ideological set-backs, and outright campaign and governing failures.  A resurgent conservative movement that gained strength during the 1970’s and 1980’s successfully shifted ideological discourse and public policy away from New Deal and Great Society liberalism and towards supply-side principles, social conservatism, and aggressive militarism.  At the national level, the Democratic Party lost control of many states, particularly in the South, and a large percentage of its white working class base to an increasingly conservative Republican Party under Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich.

These ideological and political streams eventually converged to cause the most damage during the failed presidency of George W. Bush in the early 2000’s when the United States embarked on series of policy mistakes from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq to unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy and the dismantling of federal regulations to protect the environment, public health, and the economy.

With President Obama’s re-election, the tide has clearly turned for progressives as the conservative realignment in American politics has reached its peak and is rapidly declining due to long term changes in America; a new and vibrant coalition in American politics has indisputably arrived.  This powerful Obama coalition, presaged by Kennedy in 1968, has the potential to dominate politics for a generation and usher in a new era of progressive public policy.

But will it?  That depends on the extent to which this coalition can be mobilized and broadened as we move forward.

The strengths of the coalition are obvious, starting with minority voters.  The share of minority voters in the 2012 election increased by 2 percentage points, bringing their share of the voting electorate to 28 percent.  That compares to just 15 percent of voters in 1988.

Overall, Obama received 80 percent support from people of color in 2012 just as he did in 2008.  His support among African-Americans was almost as overwhelming last November (93-6) as it was in 2008 (95-4).  And his support among Hispanics (71-27) improved substantially over its 2008 level (67-31).  In addition, Obama achieved historic levels of support among Asian-Americans, carrying them by 73-26, compared to 62-35 in 2008.

Adding to the power of the minority vote is the certainty of its continued growth.  The share of minority voters in the 2016 election should be around 30 percent and, in the 2020 election, around 32 percent.

Millennial generation (born 1978-2000) voters are also a central component of the Obama coalition.  Young voters in the 18-29 year old age group — all Millennials — defied skepticism about their likely levels of voter turnout, comprising 19 percent of voters in 2012, up from 18 percent in Obama’s historic campaign of 2008.  In addition, since many Millennials are now older than 29, the share of Millennials among voters is significantly underestimated by just looking at 18-29 year olds.  Taking these older Millennials into account, the true share of Millennials in the 2012 electorate was probably around 26 percent.

Millennial 18-29 year olds supported Obama by a 23-point margin in the 2012 election (60 percent to 37 percent). This is strong support, by far Obama’s best performance among any age group, just as was the case in 2008, when Obama performed even more strongly among these voters (66-32).

As with people of color, we will see more and more of these voters in the electorate over the next several elections, as the number of Millennial eligible voters increases by about 4 million a year.  By the 2016 election, Millennials should be about 36 percent of eligible voters and roughly a third of actual voters.  And by the 2020 election, Millennials should be nearly 2 in 5 (39 percent) eligible voters and around 36 percent of actual voters.

Unmarried women are another key part of the Obama coalition.  Obama carried this group by a wide 67-31 margin in 2012, not far off his 70-29 margin in 2008.  Unmarried women were also a larger share of voters, 23 percent vs. 21 percent in 2008.  This trend may continue in the future, since the growth rate of unmarried women is roughly twice that of married women.

While not as strong for Obama as unmarried women, their male counterparts also favored Obama, giving him a healthy 56-40 margin, close to the 58-38 margin they gave him in 2008.  And their share of voters went up even more, increasing by 4 points to 18 percent.  All told, unmarried voters were 40 percent of voters in 2012, up 6 points from 2008’s 34 percent share.

Obama also received strong support from those of non-Christian faiths (72-27) and those with no religious affiliation (70-26).  In addition, voters with a postgraduate education (a good proxy for professionals) supported Obama by 55-42 and residents of large metropolitan areas (54 percent of voters) supported him by 56-42.  Again, all of these groups have been growing and should continue to grow over time.

Obama generally did poorly among white voters but the college-educated were a relative bright spot.  He lost this group by 14 points (as compared to 20 points among all white voters) and did substantially better among white college-educated women, losing them by a modest 6 points.  White college-educated voters have been increasing both as a share of overall voters and—very rapidly–as a share of white voters.  Based on historical patterns and projections of future educational attainment, these trends should continue for some time.

(Part 2 of the series will examine strategies for connecting diverse constituencies with the white working class.)

View the original article here