Timothy Birdnow

Why now? Because we are at war and the Left wants to be able to sabotage the military actions of the Department of War (as they were doing before Hegsesth came into office) by leaking information they had no right to possess in the first place.

If the mainstream media is allowed to attend press briefings that is more than meeting the requirements of the First Amendment. Secrecy is important to national security and this judge has to know that.

But that's not what they want.

Before Hegseth it was a free-for-all in the Pentagon with reporters wandering about willy-nilly, going into any room they pleased, chatting with anyone they pleased, overhearing conversations that were privileged. It was inexcusable and Hegseth put an end to it. He also banned some reporters, reporters who were known leakers or lying about the Administration, from full access. That is hardly a violation of the First Amendment.

That Amendment says "freedom of the press...shall not be infringed". That is a world of difference from saying you have to grant intimate access. They are free to say what they wish, but there is no promise of being given information as they pleased.

This expanded view of the First Amendment hs been used by the Left for decades to erode many of our norms and this is no exception.

This judge has ruled this way now (he has ruled the Department of War violated an earlier order from him) and is now demanding full access for the media. But I wonder; does that include, say, The Aviary? Does it include the Gateway Pundit? American Spectator? Who does this blackrobed mandarin define as media? If everyone is entitled to access then there is no security in the Pentagon at all.

We desperately need to define the meaning of a right. A right does not impose an obligation on someone else; it's something you possess inherently and is something you have the right to exercise without being obstructed, but it in no way demands others to assist you. You have the right to free speech but not to have people listen to you. You have the right to write what you see and believe but you do not have the right to unfettered access to everything.

That was the argument used by Don Lemon when he invaded a church and was arrested; by virtue of his being "in the press" (he's actually just a podcaster) he believes he has the right to trespass and disrupt a church service. But he doesn't and his press credentials only protect him from government interference with his lawful activities.

Interestingly enough the Left is using this very argument against people like Nick Shirley, saying he has no right to go to government-sponsored daycares and ask questions, even though he's never said he has an unlimited right to enter. He just asks and if denied entry he leaves. But the Democrats and Left make the conservative argument when it's in their interest yet dump it when it's not - as here.

The very fact that this distinction eludes the judge in this case speaks volumes about how badly jurists are trained these days; this is, or should be, basic common sense and the Founding Fathers never intended for the First Amendment to be used to subvert our nation's defenses. But here we are because the Democrats have appointed these clowns and the Republicans did nothing to stop them.

Hide Comments | Add Comment