Sunday, October 7, 2018

Discourse: 1st amendment under attack by the political party the media supports.

Discourse: October 7th, 2018: Newport News VA, Daily Press “Where the Newspaper Stands”

“It was a victory because it strengthens a principle that we hold sacred in any democracy- that the public’s work should be done before the public’s eye.” On the surface, this seems to be a legitimate and thoughtful ideology. Let’s dig deeper to reveal fallacies in this opinion.

National security – Staff leakers have routinely leaked classified information to the media, in the Trump administration. The media, in turn, is all too glad to print anonymous unauthorized leaks. Some might say, like The Daily Press “public work should be done in the public eye”. I disagree, unauthorized leaks to the press undermine the duly elected President of the United States and can put operatives in the field into harm’s way. It is a noble idea to be transparent, but another to use the idea of transparency to viciously attack a political opponent. This is what the Daily Press et al does every day. The media has no shame in putting people’s lives at risk.

The Democrats have put people’s lives at risk for political gain. Dr. Ford, is an example of leaked information, of unsubstantiated allegations from 36 years ago, against a political opponent. The media was all too glad to run with unfounded allegations, leaked to the media without, regard to ruining the lives of others. This was done in the name of supporting one political party over another, but not in the name of transparency. I think one can say truthfully, the media no longer investigate for the truth but, willing to report unsubstantiated claims, whether true or not.

According to the Investor Business Daily 2016 – “The Democrats have attacked the 1st, 2nd and 5th amendment. Incredibly, the Democrats' disdain for the Bill of Rights includes even the 1st Amendment's protection of free speech. Party leaders have in the recent past, openly pushed to limit free speech rights when it conflicts with their own viewpoints.

In a speech at an Iowa community college, for example, Hillary Clinton: "We need to fix our dysfunctional political system and get unaccountable money out of it once and for all, even if that takes a constitutional amendment. I threw up in my mouth a little when, I read that Hillary Clinton wanted to get money out of politics, a lie if I ever heard one. "Left unsaid is that the only way to do what she suggests, to put restrictions on the 1st Amendment? A few years ago, 54 Senate Democrats voted for a new constitutional amendment that would do just that.

In California, Democrats pushed a state bill that would have criminalized speech that questions the "consensus" on climate change. Attorney General Loretta Lynch told the Senate Judiciary Committee, she has discussed with her colleagues the possibility of pursuing civil actions against "climate change deniers."

Democrats have long expressed frustration, if not outright contempt, for the Constitution whenever it hinders their ability to enact some new government program. President Obama had repeatedly complained about the "messy" process the Constitution's co-equal branches created and has several times acted as though the Constitution's limits on the president's authority simply don't apply to him.

The fact that a major U.S. political party -- which still considers itself mainstream -- is now willing to specifically target amendments designed to protect Americans from tyrannical government control is alarming, to say the least. “

In closing: The first amendment, an amendment the Daily Press holds so dear, is under attack by the very political party they support. Oh, and one more thing, we are not a Democracy Daily Press, we are a Republic. How many times do we have to correct you?

No comments:

Post a Comment

The civil rights movement and letting go of the past.

I wrote this after reading Mr. Filco's commentary on letting go of the past in the Williamsburg Gazette. Septemeber 2022.  "Why Isn...