Democrats Try to Make Military Press Conferences Illegal
By Warner Todd Huston Posted in Congress — Comments (16) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted by Dan McLaughlin
Congressional Democrats announced early in May that they wanted to make "military propaganda" illegal. To achieve this goal they passed new legislation that strengthened previous legislation that is supposed to ban the Pentagon from indulging in "propaganda" for the military.
This bill is supposed to stop the military from sending "any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly."
In other words, the military is not allowed to talk to the American people or Congress for fear of disseminating "propaganda."
The only way to fulfill this idiotic policy is to stop anyone in the military from ever speaking in public because, when you get right down to it, nearly any communication from the Pentagon, or any command staff in theater, will have the effect of "influencing" those who hear it. That is the nature of human communication, after all.
Read On...
Of course this is a silly concept that the Democrat Party has come up with. Every single thing that man conceives of must be "sold" to everyone else to get implemented. The idea is born in the minds of one or a few and then those disciples of the idea go forth and begin a campaign to convince those who can put that idea into place that the idea is worthy of support. In essence, that is propaganda in its simplest form. The happy face is put on, the hands are shaken, and the plan is laid out for discussion. This is called being human! It's how we all get things done.
Besides, what level of information becomes propaganda and what just "information"? To a rabid, anti-military nut any words from the Pentagon is "propaganda." To the highest booster, none are. Who is to determine when what is being said becomes "propaganda"?
My guess is no one in the Democrat caucus is smart enough to know.
But, let's look at the real reason this simple-minded policy was created. The real reason the Democrats want such a policy in place is to silence the military entirely. Democrats aren't interested in keeping the tender ears of the people from being assaulted with "propaganda." No, they want to be able to shut the military off from being able to appear before the American people to defend themselves against Democrat attacks. THAT is the true goal.
If the Democrat Party can keep the Pentagon in the can, then Congress and the Democrat Party will be the conduit of information between the military and the people. And the Democrat Party finds an enemy in the American military. So, what better way to further their own propaganda then by making sure the enemy's will never be heard.
Stalin would be proud of Congressional democrats.
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
Exactly. Unless it came from the Democratic Congress, NO military is allowed to speak! At least that is how it would be if they had their druthers.
Only Democrat propaganda allowed.
----------
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors.
When Congress moves to block speech, any speech of our citizens, it is certain we have reached a point of tyranny and despotism unequalled in our history. It is therefore imperative that our great nation stands against these purveyors of extra-Constitutional practices who steal our freedom before our eyes each day.
Ask yourself are these the peoples representatives? Rhetorically and intellectually the answer can only be a resounding no. This party, so called Democrats, are characterized by their iniquitous treatment of our freedom and disregard for our Constitution. As they acquisitively take away your liberty will you stand by them and vote their minions into office? That is counterproductive to the successful continuation of our Republic.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
I fully and wholly understand the desire to remove corruption and monetary enticements from our election cycles. But BCRA is probably one if the worst pieces of anti-First Amendment legislation ever crafted. In this regard, I stand by Mitch McConnell, et al.
The SCOTUS WRTL decision is just the beginning of correcting this injustice. However, Mr McCain's stand against WRTL is one of the most serious pauses I have against him as a candidate. Why would he ask the court to judicially legislate a solution which abrogates our Constitution and defies the separation of powers? What views and proclivities would Mr McCain truly view as essential to a SCOTUS appointment? Are there semantics involved with his contention of Constitutional fealty? In this regard I worry for our future based on speech made during an election cycle.
Nonetheless, if we see a Democrat POTUS and new members of the court aligned with Ginsburg we shall have no continuation of justice. It will, without question, be the coupe de grace for freedom.
"Nec Aspera Terrent"
bene ambula et redambula
Contributor to The Minority Report
This is coming from the party whose members shrieked about the infringement of 1st Amendment rights when 'Free Speech Zones' were set up outside the 2004 RNC for them to orderly protest the President.
So basically the dems are telling the people with guns that they can't speak....hello!!! Are these really the people you want to be pissin' off?.....lol....But our soldiers are professionals so they probably won't resort to that....but I would, I am no longer in the Army...heh.
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
Before the black helicopters come for me I should state that I was being a little sarcastic there...but only a little ;^)
"Land of the Free and Home of da Whopper" Peter Griffin...Family Guy
conform and celebrate diversity....or else!!!
But if they want to talk about it, they had best reconsider.
And if the Pentagon, which leads the soldiers who fight and bleed and die for our freedom wants to communicate about their mission, they cannot.
So we now see exactly where the democrat idea of the 'fairness doctrine' is really headed.
And these democrats are still pretending to be freedom loving, patriotic Americans?
yeah right.
There is patriotism to question ?
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Did they remeber to add the clause where MSNBC gets to be the first to air any reports and the first to comment on them? Cause if they did it wouldn't shock me one bit.
For the government group who has more press conferences and congressional patting themselves on the back sessions they sure want to block everyone else's speech.
Voting for the Sexy(Pres) - Sexy(VP) Dream Ticket
Jindal/Palin 2012
I wrote a few letters to the editor from Korea and Iraq when I was in those exotic and lovely locales... both complimentary of our missions in each respective location. Demonstrating that we, the US military, could do incredible things and were made of incredible people. I did this because of the pure horse crap I saw spewing from the pie hole of the media. I got tired of being lambasted as a "terrorist" (Kerry) or a "loser" (Reid) and seeing radicals demonize our efforts as futile and illegal.
Now, our Listless Congress whats to restrict the very innocent Pentagon press briefings? How in the hell would the Gulf War of ever been heard about? That was ALL press briefings. The Bosnian and Kosovo police missions were also largely briefed to the public via the Pentagon because Clinton couldn't effectively and realistically do it, neither could Dee Dee Meyers. Maybe Hillary Clinton would have actually of been involved in sniper fire if had been the Clinton White House doing the daily press briefings.
Now, what will Obama's press briefings look like if the Dems have their way?
lets look at December 25, 2009
"I had hoped to have our troops out of Iraq by this day... but a change has come up and I'm moving them to Afghanistan and Pakistan. This we believe will hopefully change the terrorists and insurgent's minds that we're uh.. uh... I can't continue, the teleprompter lost power. See my website!"
Lord Save US
Strength & Honor: forcibly securing America's freedom as a vassal of Her foreign policy
From Mr. Defazio in the House debate:
For purposes of this section, the term "propaganda" means any form of communication in support of national objectives designed to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of the people of the United States in order to benefit the sponsor, either directly or indirectly.
Well, that definition is so broad, it could even exclude military recruiting. Aren't military recruiters trying to present the military in a favorable light? And benefit the military by signing up more recruits?
How about the Air Force Thunderbirds flight demonstrations? Why do the Thunderbirds do flight demonstrations for the public? It's good public relations to show off the Air Force.
I don't understand how Mr. Hodes and DeFazio distinguish "propaganda to benefit the sponsor" from good public relations. The military is funded by the taxpayers. Shouldn't the military be able to care how they are perceived?
Should radical leftist organizations like "Veterans for Peace" and "Vietnam Veterans Against the War" be able to win every debate by default?
You are exactly right.
What IS "propaganda in the Democrat's eyes?
Obviously ANYTHING the military says is to be called "propaganda."
----------
Be sure and Visit my Home blog Publius' Forum. It's what's happening NOW!
It,s a simple question...
Why do you lib's hate my country?
"Elections.. nowadays.. seem more to resemble fencing operations, than the selection of qualified leadership."
William Russell's campaign a check, even though he is hundreds of miles from my district. (LTC USA retired)
Any thing we can do to put hyper hypocrite Jack Murtha out of work is worthwhile.
I'm sure he is right in there pitching this military censorship with th rest of the Moscowvites.
Regards
So they love seeing all the blogs, MySpace, and YouTube videos of service members who don't support the war (many who haven't gone or have never been engaged by the enemy) but they don't like the Pentagon pushing information that they demand to the American people. They'd rather use their "truth filters" and censor common sense coming from the men and women who volunteer to serve the Republic. No more imbeds either I would imagine? No more Michael Yon?
Strength & Honor: forcibly securing America's freedom as a vassal of Her foreign policy