Monthly Archives: April 2017

The Department of Veterans Affairs is dismissing the actions of an employee who has written anti-Trump tweets and is promoting her own books on Twitter as someone who is simply exercising her "freedom of speech."

The VA has also promoted the employee's books on its website, which has some conservatives grumbling that this amounts to taxpayers helping a Trump opponent sell her books.

Kayla Williams is the director of the VA's Center for Women Veterans, and she has made it clear on Twitter that she opposes Trump. Earlier this year, she told Stars and Stripes that she would be attending an anti-Trump rally with her kids, "to show them that people should stand together for what they believe in."

She also retweeted a tweet that said women should get their IUD as soon as possible, "before Trump-Pence reverse the requirement for full contraceptive coverage."

Williams' anti-Trump views haven't stopped her from promoting her two books, or from getting the VA to help her promote them.

Her VA biography notes the two books she's written, and the VA has promoted them on two other occasions: once in a May 3 release announcing her appointment, and again in a December VA blog about a podcast featuring Williams.

The December blog post was written by Tim Lawson, who has also tweeted out several anti-Trump messages. One of those just after the November election said he hasn't "felt this bad since 9/11, and I was in the Pentagon."

Williams has also used her Twitter account to promote her work, and while her Twitter handle doesn't identify her as a VA official, several of these tweets may have been sent during her work hours, which could be another violation.

In just a single week in January, for example, she tweeted several times encouraging people to see her and three other co-authors of a book about veterans at a book event. On Monday, Jan. 23, she tweeted out the invitation at 11:10 a.m., and then tweeted it out at 12:10 p.m. on Wednesday, and again on Friday at 1:10 p.m.

Just after 1 p.m. on Monday, April 10, she tweeted out that one of her books was listed as one of the 10 "must-read" books on military women.

Despite these potential problems, the VA under President Trump has ignored the issue so far. The Washington Examiner asked questions about the matter for the last several weeks without a response.

The House Veterans' Affairs Committee also ignored several requests for comment from the Washington Examiner.

Late last week, the VA dismissed the matter with a three-sentence statement indicating that officials in the agency see anti-Trump messages and the promotion of their own books as "freedom of speech."

"Like other Federal employees, VA employees have a constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech in their private lives, including during non-duty hours (e.g., lunch break)," said Randy Noller, a spokesman for the VA.

"Unless otherwise authorized, such private speech should not be held out as being approved or authorized by VA," he added. "Moreover, employees should not provide information that may restricted by law."

Noller declined to offer more specifics related to whether Williams was tweeting during work hours, or if the VA was looking into the issue to answer more specific questions. On Monday afternoon, however, the VA followed up by saying it would examine some of Williams' tweets to see if any rules were violated.

But sources close to the VA and veterans issues say the VA should immediately stop promoting her books. They also argue that Williams' plugs for her own books could run afoul of ethics rules.

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics says officials cannot use their title or position to "further the employee's own private interests" or the interests of friends, relatives or other closely affiliated people.

Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, said Williams' tweets could draw ethics complaints against her, depending on whether they were sent when she should have been working.

"If Ms. Williams is promoting her book during work hours, she might have to answer a few questions from an ethics lawyer," he said. "Government officials must be aware that there are bans on conducting certain activities while working for Uncle Sam."

Eric Hannel, former staff director for the House Veterans' Affairs subcommittee on Oversight & Investigations, told the Washington Examiner that while Williams' activities are "not uncommon," they are still a likely violation of those ethics guidelines, and federal law.

"The bottom line is it's against the law for a government employee to use her public office for private gain or for that of persons or organizations with which she is associated personally," he said.

He said at a minimum, Williams could be in trouble for wasting time on the taxpayer's dime, but could also be in violation of laws related to misuse of position, use of an official title, personal use of government property, and use of official time.

The question of Williams' anti-Trump tweets is likely something that will have to be handled politically, and conservatives have urged the White House to crack down on anti-Trump federal employees like Williams, who was appointed by President Obama and re-appointed by Trump.

So far, the White House has made it clear it wants all officials to support Trump. But in its most recent statement to the Washington Examiner, the White House said only that officials "should" back the president, not that they "must."

"Throughout his campaign, President Trump consistently reiterated his commitment to taking care of our veterans and reforming and modernizing the VA," a White House spokesman told the Washington Examiner in February. "Employees of the Trump administration should support President Trump and his agenda to improve the lives of all Americans."

Continued here:
VA defends employee's anti-Trump tweets, book plugs as 'freedom of speech' - Washington Examiner

What could have caused this rip in the space-time continuum? The so-called birthplace of the free speech movement, the University of California at Berkeley, has once again engaged in liberal censorship, this time of Ann Coulter, using the fear of violence as cover to suppress a voice it did not like.

Conservative columnist Ann Coulter was invited to speak at UC Berkeley by the Berkeley College Republicans. Given recent violence against conservative speakers in Berkeley, the college cancelled the speech. Coulter, to her credit, offered suggestions as to how to better deal with any problems -- to expel any students engaging in violence or trying to stop the speech from happening. That solution apparently was not good enough for UC Berkeley, which instead decided to reschedule the talk, but on a date when there would be no students on campus.

While all this was going on, where was the traditionally-free-speech-friendly moderate Left? The prevailing view was, "If you didn't say offensive things, you wouldn't be attacked." Shame on the Left for tacitly condoning this culture of violent suppression of views it disagrees with.

And praise to Maher and Sanders for standing up against it. I question whether Coulter would do the same for them, but that is not the yardstick by which we measure our commitment to freedom of speech. Standing up for the rights of those who would not do it for us demonstrates your commitment to liberty. We don't need a First Amendment for speech that neither challenges, nor offends. We need it as a good in itself. And, sometimes that very challenging and offensive speech fosters growth.

I am grateful that nobody tried to shut him down. Had they done so, I would like to believe that I would have done whatever I could to let the man speak. The kind of people who supported him that day would not likely do the same for Charles Murray or Milo Yiannopolous or Ann Coulter. I am certain that anyone cheering Jeffries that day would have joined in the violence in Berkeley -- smug in the belief that their ideas were "right" and their opponents were "wrong," thus justifying the violence.

When anyone tries to shut down speech with violence, all decent Americans should band together against the violence, regardless of their political "tribe." Does Berkeley stand for freedom of expression, or is it so captivated by its infectious one-party rule that it cannot possibly stand up for expression that challenges its liberal sensibilities?

Coulter has a right to her views. Just as important, we all have a right to hear her speak.

Those who disagree have a right to oppose her, but to use violence cuts against the principles that our entire Constitution rests upon. The First Amendment stands for principles like those articulated in the case, New York Times v. Sullivan: "Debate on public issues ... [should be] ... uninhibited, robust, and wide open."

You may think Coulter's speech is offensive. I certainly do. I think she is a mental midget and an intellectual snake oil salesman. I do wish she would shut up, dry up, and blow away. But even so, I am outraged that her political discussion must go through an on-again, off-again process because either violent thugs control the streets or effete and weak university presidents and the City of Berkeley lack the spine to defend the First Amendment.

Violent trash should never stop Ann Coulter (or anyone else) from speaking. Let her ideas flow forth into the stalls in the marketplace and let the market reject (or embrace) her. My ideas can stand in opposition to hers. And a bunch of cowardly children playing revolutionary dress-up with bandanas over their faces should not be permitted to destroy freedom of expression. Despite my politics somewhat aligning with them, I consider them to be my enemy -- not Ann Coulter.

In these times, when political violence is becoming the norm, it is your responsibility to stand up for freedom of expression, even expression you dislike. Stand against the violence, even when your tribe does it. Stand for freedom of expression, even when you abhor the words and ideas.

If you don't stand up for Coulter's liberty today, someone will come for yours tomorrow. And, more importantly, the Enlightenment will die a violent and pathetic death.

Read more here:
Dear Berkeley: Even Ann Coulter deserves free speech - CNN