21 Comments
User's avatar
StanleyTwoBrix's avatar

And who says bipartisanship is dead?

norstadt's avatar

Does that amendment include new funding or it uses existing capabilities?

J. Matthews's avatar

Thanks for pointing out the flaws in the Cruz-Klobuchar bill that the average person wouldn't consider.

Evans W's avatar

Imagine that! A government organization imposing censorship policies over the personnel that they employ. A real shocker!

Running Burning Man's avatar

Privacy for me, but not for thee.

Dave F's avatar

First of all--thank you for always being relentless in the pursuit of the complicated truth. Never ceases to amaze that government always takes the approach that they are entitled to the complete opposite of what the rest of us are supposed to live by-- for decades now--government buildings FORBID firearms from the premises. Must be nice to continually believe so thoroughly in YOUR OWN rights while never missing an opportunity to CRUSH the rest of US. Again Mr Fang-- the quality of your BS meter is impressive

Many thanks again

Kurt's avatar

Incredible!

They must be stopped

Mark's avatar

I can see the MRFF case both ways. If the organization is very aggressive about minor things like having a bible, or various bibles, available on a military base for soldiers to read, it can raise an aggressive response such as this bill.

Brandy's avatar

If these lawmakers feel they deserve that privacy, I would challenge them to include those same protections to citizens. Of course, that's just insanity!

Boris Petrov's avatar

Thank you -- outstanding!

US military, especially air-force, is not “Christian Army”

Kaari Davies's avatar

A government that hates free speech can develop a relationship with Weinstein and let him carry out the government’s censorship...sort of smells like the foul relationship between the FBI and non-government organizations, Facebook and Twitter to censor Americans on the internet.

Kaari Davies's avatar

Lee, I subscribe to your page because I like a variety of opinions. I think you are being willfully ignorant of Weinstein’s goals which is obviously to remove Christianity from the military. Even his organization’s name is a joke “Military Religious Freedom”, really? So that explains why he worked to remove a Bible from a military facility. Saying you are for freedom of speech and then doing the exact opposite is the worst form of censorship.

Lee Fang's avatar

I appreciate the comment and your perspective. The military is free to ignore his advocacy. I’m sympathetic to the argument that service members can contact any nonviolent organization they choose, even if they might be disagreeable.

Tom Hudson's avatar

The Klobuchar Cruz amendment should have been the focus of this article. As an agnostic, I could care less about the MRFF considering that there are far greater issues related to the military.

Sybil's avatar

Thank you! Superior reporting on our increasing corruption.

Sharon F.'s avatar

One criticism.. I don’t think he “dispelled” the arguments..he said they were wrong..perhaps “countered” is a better word. In my issue area journalists simply present counterarguments, unless they dive into specific claims.

bestuvall's avatar

if you can't pluck the chicken one way. there is always another..

Steve's avatar

Another mind blowing WTF revelation of how deeply ingrained this (unconstitutional) corruption has become within our government. Great work, Lee!