Obama's White House Opaque Not Transparent
Press Surprised At Censorship From Obama White House. WHY?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
You know, this would be funny if it were not so serious.
a former card carrying member of the press, I have had my share of
run-ins with those who threw every roadblock in my way when I was doing
my job gathering and delivering the news.
One -- less than
sterling -- moment was a stand-up, in your face, yelling, verbal fight
with a deputy sheriff on court house grounds. He was threatening to
arrest me for doing my job. I was begging him to go ahead and put the
cuffs on. I did, however, remind him that he was opening himself -- and
the county -- up to a millions of dollars lawsuit for violation of my
civil rights and, even more importantly, my constitutional rights as a journalist granted under the First Amendment to the Constitution.
won. (Oh, and yes, later in life I became a deputy sheriff myself.
So, I've had the advantage of seeing the issue from both sides. I still come down on the side of the First Amendment.)
is no secret that the Mainstream Media is subject to a death grip on
their throats by the liberal/Progressive/Marxist elements in governments
around the globe and especially here in America where freedom of the press is guaranteed by our constitution.
Do not be deceived, that constitutional guarantee does not mean the
Left will not make every attempt in their power to control the press and
-- if that fails -- then they will pull out all the stops to muzzle the press.
decades, nay, for centuries, the press in America has been warned
over, and over, and over again, that the political left, which they
unreservedly serve, will come after them, first thing, should they (the Left) ever gain complete control of the US government. It is the nature of the Leftist beast.
date, the US Mainstream Media has pooh-poohed all the warnings the
political Right has issued, especially those warning that the free press
will be the very first constitutional guarantee suddenly dissolved and
done away with.
Plainly put -- they don't believe us.
Even with the wall the Obama administration has built between the
administration and the public's eyes into the government, and the
workings of the government, the slavish members of the leftist
Mainstream Media in America STILL will not believe and , I daresay, when
they are led away in handcuffs, and stashed, incommunicado, in one of
those internment camps we mentioned above, they will STILL hang on to
their mantra of freedom of the press and they will not be able to accept
that they have been wrong all these decades and, even worse, the
political Right has been correct all along.
Obama’s has been the most aggressive Administration in history, not
only in going after whistleblowers, but also pursuing the reporters who
write their stories." --SOURCE: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/03/obama-press-attacks-degrade-first-amendment-name-security
The purpose of the First Amendment, the ruling from New York Times v. Sullivan says, is “to assure unfettered interchange of ideas for the bringing about of political and social changes desired by the people.” -- SOURCE: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2014/03/obama-press-attacks-degrade-first-amendment-name-security
the Mainstream Media is looking, somewhat askance, at an attempt at a
national/federal shield law in some form of development within the
democratically controlled US Senate. It was proposed by Chuck Schumer,
Democrat of New York. It is titled: the “Free Flow of Information Act.”
Consider this: "Schumer's
proposal would exempt a “covered journalist” from subpoenas and other
legal requirements to expose their confidential sources in leak
investigations and other areas." -- SOURCE: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/Exclusive-Cornyn-Rips-Schumer-s-Media-Shield-Law
Some reports leaked out of the Senate say the law would shield only "approved" or, as the article above states, "covered journalists."
The article goes on to quote John Cornyn, Republican Senator of Texas, as saying: "They
want to pick and choose which journalists are covered,” the Texan
Republican told Breitbart News. “In other words, if you’re a blogger
they might not cover you, but if you work for the New York Times they
might. Given the changes in the way we get information and the way we
consume news, that really smacks to me in essence of government
licensing who’s an official ‘journalist’ for the purposes of a shield
law and who’s not. If there is one thing I can glean from the First
Amendment, it is that government should not be in the business of
licensing the news media.” -- SOURCE: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/26/Exclusive-Cornyn-Rips-Schumer-s-Media-Shield-Law
See the problem here? So who is an approved or covered journalist? And an even more important question is ...
by approving certain journalists -- is the government creating it's own
government press corp with allegiance to the government and not to the
people? Will it result in a state controlled media?
Schumer says he already has the 60 votes he needs for passage of the
bill in the US Senate. It was not clear if any of those votes were from
The plain truth is, dear reader, when the
government begins to fool around with the constitution it is the people
who lose freedom. That includes the members of the press as both private citizens and as members of the press/media.
The First Amendment is what it is. Freedom of the press. Even
an attempt by the government to pass a federal shield law is
interference with our constitutional right and ought not be allowed --
not even considered.
J. D. Longstreet
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on
Freedom" Face Book Page!!:
(Just click on the link for more conservative
commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)
Hillary or Harvey
6 days ago