No, it is not illegal.

You are more than welcome to write any e-mail you would like, send it to whomever you wish and they in turn are welcome to send it to whomever THEY wish.

If they wish to send it to the Whitehouse, then so be it. I would think it would be nice to be able to send your ideas to the president's staff and have them addressed (not that I think that will happen).

It isn't the "reporting" that is a problem. What would be a problem is what the government will do with the information. Will they flag all the e-mail addresses in the chain of recipients to be monitored? Doubt it. It is what the government does with the information that would make it illegal/unconstitutional or not. And neither you nor I will ever know what they will do, so it is a moot point.

I visited the link Raider, it is about healthcare.

So people are supposed to believe a new health care will be better than the old health care..That seems to be the issue. I'm not sure replacing our current system with a Government run system will be a great idea. Big price tag for everyone.jmo

can you eloborate on what you mean by "propose" as your meaning is not entirely clear. but the intent behind the blog posting on whitehouse.gov ( i.e. the president's (yes, that president) webpage) was to invoke its supporters to forward it the emails they recieve regarding opposition to it's next (and still pending, nay, in jeopardy) private industry sector take-over..

People should take responsibility for the bogus bs information that is sent via email etc. Period. I see nothing wrong with flagging such emails. You can't defend yourself against things you are no aware of.

Ol' Barry's not at the kiddie table anymore. He needs to know you can't pull this kind of "enemies list" strong-arm, south side of Chicago type of Politics.. this is the big leagues and if he's gonna play the big kids' game, he's gotta play by the rules.

Those Rules are listed here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html

here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

and here:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

There has never been a law agains the government monitoring that which is made public willingly ie sending out on a public internet.

I should have sent him a few of the ones I received back when the election was going on, whew, they were so full of lies and defamation there might have been a case.

''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.''


How the heck does one get that the government is keeping a list from the above? It's not asking for email addresses. If you get an questionable email your service provider requires that you send the whole email not just the text.


This is true paranoia. If people are sending a virus to people via email, would you sit on your butt and do nothing about it? No, you would report it to the proper people so they can deal with it properly.

People should not have the right to send out bogus information, that causes some of the kinds of behavior we are seeing lately..

People might want to take responsibility for their interpretations too.

Well, a virus is not exactly the same as an opinion.

A virus will cause destruction of personal property, hinder services or allow theft. These emails are doing none of that. They are people's opinions and ideas. They should be disseminated to be judged on their own merits. I feel a creepy tingle along my spine whenever someone suggests that the government should protect me from thinking.

Had the government declared that all internet service providers deliver "questionable" e-mails that contain specific phrases to the whitehouse, then I think there might be a problem. But when you send an e-mail, you power to control where that information goes ends when you hit "send".

What I am saying is that if people are sending bogus information about this bill, how is the administration suppose to defend itself about information it knows nothing about. If I drew up this bill and I was sent and email distorting that bill I would be furious. Of course I would want to know what I am up against so that I can counter the bull.

Sure I wish that people had more commons sense and would not take fishy/bs and resend to all thier friends to further distort the bill in the minds of others, but this bill is up against ignorance on a mass scale. And we can already see how people are behaving. Should we just ignore the bs in emails? Well I for one do, but then I am not the type to go off half insane to a town hall to act like a loon either. Look how many folks believed that they might be killed off by the Obama plan? How sane is that?


To me bogus information can cause more than just distruction of property in the wrong hands, and frankly seeing some of the ugly exchanges in these town halls reminds me of how ugly people can get with such information.

By the way my government doesn't have to protect 'ME' from thinking because I don't take information and make automatic assumptions then run out of the house and act on it as if it were true. If I have questions I will ask in a civil manner and expect to be heard in the same way, but that is not what we are seeing so far at town halls.

So, it seems that you do not trust the "average" citizen to be able to make decisions based on enlightened self-interest. You can relax. We are protected by a representative government. Those we have elected care not for their own power nor hunger for prestige. They all have our best interest at heart and will stop at nothing short of creating a paradise on Earth.*OW!*

Sorry, bit my tongue... that is the danger of speaking with tongue-in-cheek.


"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

"Every man has a commission to admonish, exhort, convince another
of error." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776.

"I am... against all violations of the Constitution to silence by
force and not by reason the complaints or criticisms, just or
unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their agents."
--Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799.

=== And perhaps the one that speaks the most to this particular discussion ===

"If [a] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its
reasoning, refute it. But for God's sake, let us freely hear both
sides if we choose." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

Considering how powerful the propaganda machine is here in this country it is a wise person or politician to check the information exchanged to find out the falseness of the information.

This is in no way a violation of rights to want to see them.

Sounds to me like they already know the "falseness of the information".

But if you re-check my previous posts, I agree that there is nothing wrong with people sending the White house e-mails.

I was just reiterating.

I actually think it is a good idea. I have received some really messed up emails before that were really uncalled for.

This is basically once again the government making those who oppose them into the enemy, because we dare to think for ourselves as opposed to just blindly accepting what they say as truth. It has little to do with any views on either side of this matter, and much to do with discrediting one side over the other.

There's nothing new under the sun folks, this is not the first time nor the last that this type of discrediting will happen.

Those that do not know history.......

Emailing the White House is one thing, about your opinion or whatever. Even taking it upon yourself to send in what you think is bogus information and reporting it as such might even be ok. But for the Executive Branch proactively to ask its supporters to snitch on their fellow citizens, while it might sound fun and ok to you, is just plain wrong and it stinks of Stalinist Russia where people had to be careful what they said and around whom they said it for fear of being turned in to the secret police. It's intimidation no matter which way you cut it and there's no place for it here..

Face it. Part of Free Speech (and the protection thereof) comes at the price of having to tolerate speech you don't like and, yes, Virginia, even nasty lies and rumors (as un called-for as they may be). The first amendment protects your right to speak and be heard; not your delicate sensibilities.

If the White House wants to keep up with what information is being, they'lll have to do it themselves the old fashoined way, by reading newspapers, by listening to the radio, by scouring the deeper, more nefarious corners of the internet (eg youtube and drudgereport) and stop looking down at the top of Keith Olberman's head as he does the nightly slobber and polish on Barry's knob ..

You did not get what I was saying. I said no such thing. I no more believe that all in the government are out to protect us than all in society are. That not all in society are informed than all in government are informed. I see no reason why we should not send and email that seems to contradict the plan to those that created it, so they know the contradictions out there and how to better inform the people. If one chooses to see it as some sort of control issue, they have that right, but I can not fathom how one could get that from this simple language.

If you can watch these crowds at town hall meetings and think these people are in control of themselves, that amazes me. I understand being angry, I do not understand making a fool of one self and expecting others to consider their views.

"It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814.

If that is the case then it would go for the people in government as well. Are we not questioning if government is rational. It appears Thomas Jefferson didn't know it all either. We have a right to question and we should, but there is a right way to do it and the wrong way which accomplishes nothing.

I am ignorant of some things, no one can know everything there is to know. I expect that if I am spewing something that sounds like crap and could very well be crap that someone would question it. After all that is what all this fuss is about, people questioning, but not questioning in a reasonable responsible civil manner.

That is your choice to see it the way you want. what do you think town halls are for? They are trying to explain the false comments made by people that don't really have a clue. It's about Discussion. If thinking for one self means you act like a fool and don't allow others to listen and ask questions...ugh

This is about getting information, and so far the shouters have manage to shut down the conversation. I call them irresponsible and rude.

Snitch, for heaven sakes? They didn't say turn your friends and family in if they disagree with the plan. Intimidation is when you shout down everyone in the room, when you carry nazi symbols etc.

I see these unruly folks and I just shake my head. No one is listening because they can't freaking hear what is being said. Free speech is being free to speak your mind, not free to disrupt and intimidate so that people can't speak their minds. One group can not keep up with millions of pieces of information, I see nothing wrong with sending in information that appears to be a distortion of the facts.

I won't even respond to that last bit or crudeness.

The biggest problem with emails is that a forwarded email will contain the email and possibly the names of every person who forwarded it along the line. Those addresses and names can easily be compiled into a list of suspected opponents.