I am writing this blog entry based on news articles that have recently been in newspapers about the FCC putting government agents in newsrooms. My first thought as always as I read these articles was how could anyone who has read the constitution believe this is a good idea? Is it possible that the current administration not unlike the last does not know of the existence of the constitution and its amendments? When Michelle Obama is calling the children of this country knuckleheads, I wonder if she has looked at her husband lately?
So let’s begin with the idea that I as the write believe in natural law and I am not a positivist, which simply means that I believe we get our rights from our creator whoever that may be and more importantly not the government and certainly not from the President. Having said that our founding fathers who were also believers in natural law wrote the first amendment as follows:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I will begin with the idea of freedom of religion. Read the first line and it is painfully aware that we as a country have lost control of how we treat our citizens. Congress cannot make a law that respects a establishment of religion, so far so good. The United States does not have a state religion and should never have one, nor are seats of government reserved for any member of any religion specifically to represent the religion. …Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, it is right here that our nation has gone off the rails. We each have the freedom to believe what we want and share that idea but we do not have the right to dismiss anyone for their beliefs. Interestingly enough our schools dismiss our family’s beliefs all the time when they tell our children they cannot read the bible, particularly in public. Also when the government strikes down signs or ornamentation that represents a particular group’s belief and yet our current and many past administrations have decided that freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion. This statement does not work when placed against the stated amendment: prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I might add that George Orwell would be proud of our nation’s current understanding of our own constitution.
Ok let’s move on to the next line: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press. Last Week the FCC announced that they would put a government Agent into every newsroom. Phyllis Schlafly from the Moral Liberal called this Obama’s war on the 1st Amendment.
“When Barack Obama said he planned to “fundamentally transform” the United States, he wasn’t referring only to spreading the wealth around or even to conforming our foreign-trade regulations to the dictates of globalist busybodies. He is also working openly and covertly, through administrative regulations and supremacist judges’ decisions, to change us into a sanitized secular nation” (Schlafly, 2014).
Now this is a liberal web site, one in which I agree with, that has called Obama out for his poor decisions pertaining to the 1st Amendment. What better way to control a society then to control the media that reports to it and the education their children receive. I bring up the education as a stepping stone to further debates as Common Core continues to show that the education offered by the government is sub standard. Yet how would the government control the media, a good start would be placing agents in the newsrooms and gather information on how information is gathered, stories are chosen and then direct those choices. Fox News stated this “ An Obama administration plan that would get researchers into newsrooms across the country is sparking concern among congressional Republicans and conservative groups.
The purpose of the proposed Federal Communications Commission study is to “identify and understand the critical information needs of the American public, with special emphasis on vulnerable-disadvantaged populations,” according to the agency.
However, one agency commissioner, Ajit Pai, said in a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece Wednesday that the May 2013 proposal would allow researchers to “grill reporters, editors and station owners about how they decide which stories to run.”
He also said he feared the study might stifle the freedom of the press” ("Fox News", 2014).
How can agents of a government agency in the news room who have authority over the news agencies license not infringe the 1st amendment right of free speech and freedom of press? Another question we as citizens need to ask that is asked all too seldom, as we hand our civil liberties away, is what next? Is the government going to control what news the public sees and hears? if so hello Mr. Goebbels. When are we as voters going to understand the very rights we have, given to us by God, cannot be taken away by the government, even if they think it will help them in any goal? Every citizen liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican be aware there is a third party in this country. It is called progressive and it is hiding within the halls of the existing party. Progressive is another way of saying big government and few civil liberties or socialist. Many republicans say they are conservative but then vote for the end of civil rights as many democrats do, a perfect example of this was the Patriot Act, an act in which have not fully understood the ramifications to us as citizens yet. They are not republican or democrat they are progressive and they are working against our way of life. Please understand you may like the party name or the words of the man but if both are lies your end product will be nothing more than a deception in kind.
A final warning, progressives use the idea of helping our neighbors to get us as citizens to believe our rights are not important. We as a society can help our neighbors if we choose to, but in no way is that the government’s duty.
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” ("The Presidential Oath Of Office", 2014).
At what point do we figure out that this current administration has forgotten the words to the oath of office President Obama has taken twice? Is placing agents in newsrooms “to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States” ("The Presidential Oath of Office", 2014). Or is this more akin to Goebbels propaganda machine of the 1930’s and 40’s?
Schlafly, P. (2014). The Moral Liberal. Retrieved from http://www.themoralliberal.com/2014/02/19/obamas-war-on-the-first-amendment/
Fox News. (2014). Retrieved from http://http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/02/20/fcc-official-others-warn-agency-study-would-squash-news-media-1st-amendment/
The Presidential Oath of Office. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878064.html
The Presidential Oath of Office. (2014). Retrieved from http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0878064.html