Government Controlling and Banning News Organizations

[JonC]

Obama tried to ban Fox. His reasoning was that coverage was a privilege, not a right. Other outlets supported Fox and it was not banned. Biden just tightened the standards Trump had made.

Look at Obama's claim about press coverage being a privilege, not a right.

While freedom of the press is a right, I get that coverage in the WH cannot be universally extended.

BUT Obama was trying (it did not fly) and Trump is trying (I doubt it will fly) to ban coverage for political reasons (ban biased reporters who would spin stories to oppose the President). Fox and CNN spin stories to support their opposing agendas.


Obama and Trump were both wrong. But in a way, they may not have been as we are not really talking about journalism.

We do not have journalism anymore. We have not for years. We have media puppets. Journalism is dead.

 

[Mikoo]

I know what you wrote - and I know the times that presidents have had run-ins with the press - but as AI overlook stated and I did do research the press was never banned by the two presidents you specifically named - which was what the POST was about. SO MAYBE YOU NEED TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH.

The info is out there. Going after whistleblowers, trying and banning Fox news and others. SO MAYBE YOU NEED TO DO SOME MORE RESEARCH.

 

[KenH]

I would critique that you are perhaps more right leaning than I.

To be clear, as a libertarian, I am neither left nor right. As two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Harry Browne, put it:

"We should never define libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals and conservatives - nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times."

 

[th1bill]

To be clear, as a libertarian, I am neither left nor right. As two-time Libertarian Party presidential candidate, Harry Browne, put it:

"We should never define libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals and conservatives - nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times."

You are not required to like my opinion but as things are mutual respect creates intelligent discourse.

 

[Ben1445]

Concerning myself, what you posted is not true. If President Trump would adopt a libertarian philosophy of government and embrace the limited, constitutional government that the Founders of this country set up on September 17, 1787(as I do), and support free market economics(as I do), and support individual liberty(as I do), and support a non-interventionist foreign policy(as I do), then I would say something good about President Trump.

I noticed that your non-interventionist point lacks historical dating. And rightly so. It didn’t take long for a nation to become active in the globe when it was threatened across the seas. The Marines do sing “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”

There is a point where non-interventionist does not take into account that other nations have intervened and are stepping on our toes. If you like your toes stepped on, economically speaking, you may call yourself an isolationist of sorts.
But you can’t actually live on the earth and not do anything. The best offense is a strong defense. There are several more cliche statements that could apply. You know them.

 

[KenH]

I noticed that your non-interventionist point lacks historical dating. And rightly so. It didn’t take long for a nation to become active in the globe when it was threatened across the seas. The Marines do sing “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”

There is a point where non-interventionist does not take into account that other nations have intervened and are stepping on our toes. If you like your toes stepped on, economically speaking, you may call yourself an isolationist of sorts.
But you can’t actually live on the earth and not do anything. The best offense is a strong defense. There are several more cliche statements that could apply. You know them.

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence, has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

- excerpt from U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, speech before the U.S. House of Representatives

 

[Ben1445]

"Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence, has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will recommend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign Independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brow would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of Freedom and Independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an Imperial Diadem, flashing in false and tarnished lustre the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."

- excerpt from U.S. Secretary of State John Quincy Adams’ July 4, 1821, speech before the U.S. House of Representatives

Which is exactly why we are not putting up with pirates in the Strait of Hormuz. Not because we are colonizing, but because we are…

the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.

And we had already been in Tripoli by that point.

But I think you read out of that what you want to hear and not what he said.

 

[KenH]

Which is exactly why we are not putting up with pirates in the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait of Hormuz was operating normally before President Trump made the mistake of starting his ill-conceived war with Iran. It was an unforced error on his part, just as starting the war with Iraq was an unforced error on President George W. Bush's part.

A well-wisher means to wish someone well, not to be involved. If I wish a football player well in his upcoming game, I do not also put on a uniform and pads and participate in the game.

But I think you read out of that what you want to hear and not what he said.

I disagree with your statement. Look, Ben, you and I have vastly different philosophies of government as to what the size, reach, and scope of the United States national government should be based on the U.S. Constitution. I also understand that the U.S. Constitution has largely failed in restraining the United States national government. Personally, I would have preferred staying with the Articles of Confederation of 1781 and making the slight adjustments that were the original purpose of what became the Constitutional Convention. I think it was one of the biggest bait-and-switch jobs in world history to go from assembling to make some adjustments to one national document and instead dumping it and creating a whole new national document.

And I'll provide another quote that I agree with:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Lysander Spooner

 

[Armchair Apologist]

If someone is intentionally misstating what you are saying and maliciously slandering your character, would you allow them in your living room so you may do so?

The press can do whatever they want but the President is under no obligation whatsoever to allow them to do so in his house!

Perhaps when the news agencies go back to reporting the facts rather than their editorial comments...

 

[KenH]

his house

The White House is not owned by the president of the United States. It is owned by the national government of the United States.

To paraphrase my favorite scene from the movie, "Cromwell", "The president is not the United States and the United States is not the president!"

 

[Armchair Apologist]

The White House is not owned by the president of the United States. It is owned by the national government of the United States.

To paraphrase my favorite scene from the movie, "Cromwell", "The president is not the United States and the United States is not the president!"

He is still the President and (more importantly) a human being who deserves to speak his mind without being taken out of context and misrepresented. If I were holding a press conference for whatever reason, I don't think I would want anyone in attendance who would likely twist my words around either! If you are intent on slandering or putting a "spin" on what I am saying in order to make me look like a racist or an idiot, you can do so from secondary sources. I will not enable you by inviting you into "my house!"

No, the White House is not owned by the President but the president is occupying the White House and it is very much HIS domain! I think people ought to respect this and count it a privilege to be sitting in the press room.

 

[Ben1445]

I disagree with your statement. Look, Ben, you and I have vastly different philosophies of government as to what the size, reach, and scope of the United States national government should be based on the U.S. Constitution.

You think so but you listen to what I say about what is going on and have a different perspective. You assume that since we don’t have the same perspective (which you may not even realize) that we have fundamental disagreements. There are quite a few things that we agree on and where we disagree mostly is how to act and respond to what is based on what we believe is right.

I also understand that the U.S. Constitution has largely failed in restraining the United States national government.

That is not hard to see.

Personally, I would have preferred staying with the Articles of Confederation of 1781 and making the slight adjustments that were the original purpose of what became the Constitutional Convention.

You must pardon me while you reminisce about the good old days. I am a youngster compared to you. I don’t remember those days.

I think it was one of the biggest bait-and-switch jobs in world history to go from assembling to make some adjustments to one national document and instead dumping it and creating a whole new national document.

Again, I wasn’t promised anything by the delegation because I wasn’t born yet. So I don’t view myself as having been the victim of a bait-and-switch.

And I'll provide another quote that I agree with:

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it." - Lysander Spooner

Another problem with quotes is that they may often be taken from context and applied elsewhere.

An example I could make up would be that Eisenhower told his generals not to defend themselves.

"Don't defend yourself."
Letter, DDE to Omar Bradley, 10/26/1949 [DDE's Pre-Presidential Papers, Box 13]

Context goes a long way. I could present this as a military tactic quote but a full quote from the source gives a better understanding.

"Don't defend yourself. Don't explain. Don't worry."
Letter, DDE to Omar Bradley, 10/26/1949 [DDE's Pre-Presidential Papers, Box 13]

But this is still not the entire letter and there is a lot of context missing without it.

Thank you for the quotes. They are wonderful snippets of history. I don’t find complete context in them all. I hear what you want them to say. I see that they could say something different. At that point they mean nothing.

But I know from what you say about me that you don’t have any idea what my political views are.

 

[KenH]

You must pardon me while you reminisce about the good old days. I am a youngster compared to you. I don’t remember those days.

 

[KenH]

But I know from what you say about me that you don’t have any idea what my political views are.

Here is a very nice summary of my political views from a book that helped to shape them, along with Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative and Robert Ringer's Restoring the American Dream:

"The state therefore has two natural functions, functions essential to the existence of any peaceful, ordered society: to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assault, and to judge in conflicts of right with right. It has a further third function, which is another aspect of the first, that is, to protect its citizens from assault by foreign powers. These three functions are expressed by three powers: the police power, which protects the citizen against domestic violence; the military power, which protects the citizen against violence from abroad; and the courts of law, which judge between rights and rights, as well as sharing with the police power the protection of the citizen against domestic violence.
…
But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions."

- Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, published in 1962

 

[Ben1445]

Here is a very nice summary of my political views from a book that helped to shape them, along with Barry Goldwater's The Conscience of a Conservative and Robert Ringer's Restoring the American Dream:

"The state therefore has two natural functions, functions essential to the existence of any peaceful, ordered society: to protect the rights of citizens against violent or fraudulent assault, and to judge in conflicts of right with right. It has a further third function, which is another aspect of the first, that is, to protect its citizens from assault by foreign powers. These three functions are expressed by three powers: the police power, which protects the citizen against domestic violence; the military power, which protects the citizen against violence from abroad; and the courts of law, which judge between rights and rights, as well as sharing with the police power the protection of the citizen against domestic violence.
…
But since this institution must possess a monopoly of legal physical force, to give to it in addition any further power is fraught with danger; that monopoly gives to the state so much power that its natural functions should be its maximum functions."

- Frank S. Meyer, In Defense of Freedom: A Conservative Credo, published in 1962

So put that in perspective. Who should have the responsibility to build and maintain roads?
I don’t see where that fits into the three powers.
You have a local executive, an international executive, and a judicial authority. How do you decide fairly what is right judicially without a legislative body? Every judge would be a king without one.