Trump Violates Constitution By Banning News Sites From The White House

 

Donald Trump, while campaigning for his second term, made the statement that you cannot have a free country without free speech. It's one of the few things he's said that is true. Our Founding Fathers knew this - it's why they included free speech and a free press in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

The problem is that Donald Trump doesn't know (or care) about real free speech. To him, free speech only includes speech that agrees with him. That is not free speech. Every dictator in the world agrees with and allows speech that agrees with them. Real free speech must also includes speech you disagree with and maybe even are offended by.

Trump made it clear he doesn't really believe in free speech a few days ago when he banned three news organizations (MS NOW, Politico, and CNN) from the White House. They were banned for printing/telling the truth about his administration. He has said he may include other news organizations in the ban (including The New York Times and The Washington Post). 

Trump's action is clearly unconstitutional, and no doubt will be overturned by the courts. But in the meantime, he is suppressing free speech and a free press - and that hurts our democracy.

Here is some of what former federal prosecutor Joyce Vance had to say about Trump's action:

By now you’ve likely seen the news: Donald Trump banned, via Truth Social post, MS NOW, CNN, and Politico from the White House. Journalists from those outlets were denied access to the White House when they came to work today, Saturday.

Almost certainly, the first thought that crosses your mind is, “That has to violate the First Amendment.” You would not be wrong.

What Trump has done is a fundamental violation of the First Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process. George Lehner, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) counsel for 18 years, assessed the same basic issue in November 2018, after the Trump administration suspended CNN Chief White House Correspondent Jim Acosta’s credentials when he pressed Trump for answers about disappearing “caravans” of migrants after the midterm elections. In its amicus brief, the WHCA argued that “the First Amendment requires a compelling government interest—not whim, prejudice, or dislike—for the President to strip a journalist of his or her ability to report from the White House.” It took a judge less than two weeks to restore Acosta’s credentials.

Tonight, Jim Acosta told me, “I think Trump is almost certain to lose this case. During his comments Friday he didn’t even cite a specific reason for banning these outlets. I can’t imagine a scenario in which a judge allows this irrational, desperate ban to become permanent.”

Trump even lost Jonathan Turley, the conservative lawyer who testified on his behalf during his first impeachment and went on Fox News to criticize both the second impeachment and criminal charges that were brought against Trump. On Friday, Turley tweeted that a ban on CNN, Politico, and MS NOW by Trump “would be an assault on long-honored principles of a free press.” He continued, “Barring disfavored media from the White House is a terrible precedent and practice. Such a move would raise serious constitutional questions.”

Authoritarian governments use press access to keep reporters in line and prevent negative coverage. Denying access threatens a reporter’s ability to do their job and, ultimately, their livelihood. Trump’s “ban” is a tactic to silence voices that report the news as it happens. No American president should ban “disfavored outlets” from the access that is essential to covering our government. Even a more modest restriction, the 2009 effort by the Obama White House to block Fox News from a round of interviews with the executive-pay czar Kenneth R. Feinberg, provoked outrage from news outlets, as it should have. The White House said Fox News was blurring the distinction between news and “anti-Obama advocacy.” CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC, who were also part of the pool doing the interview, refused to go forward unless Fox was included. The White House backed down.

So far, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post have joined ranks with MS NOW, CNN, and Politico. The WHCA has taken an uncompromising stance in support of the banned news organizations. Will more outlets support the First Amendment in this extraordinarily dangerous moment for democracy? I suspect that legitimate news organizations will; in fact, this may well be a moment that separates professional journalists from sycophantic so-called members of the press. . . .

The First Amendment includes rights beyond a free press, including free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to petition the government. The other rights are facilitated by, if not dependent upon, having a free press, as is much of the conduct of our society. Knowledge is power. And perhaps that’s what Trump hates the most. He hates being criticized; he hates that having his plans exposed publicly has drummed up opposition and kept him from doing what he wants to do whenever he wants to do it. Without a free press, Richard Nixon would have probably gotten away with Watergate. If a president wants to be an authoritarian, he’s got to do away with them. . . .

So be outraged. Be very, very outraged. Because this is nothing short of outrageous. But don’t stop there. Keep your eyes on the ball. Keep your eyes on everything Trump is trying to prevent you from thinking about and seeing. And get ready to vote in the midterm elections like your future depends on it. Because as we all know, it does.

Hegseth Locks Virtually Every Media Organization Out Of The Pentagon

Pete Hegseth was tired of being embarrassed with media stories detailing his incompetent leadership of the Defense Department, so he came up with a new policy. He demanded that all news organizations sign an agreement to report only Pentagon-approved stories, including unclassified stories. Failure to sign the agreement meant the media organization would have their press passes revoked and they would be locked out of the Pentagon.

That meant the media could only report Pentagon propaganda - not real stories about what was happening in the nation's largest and most expensive government department. The media rebelled, and all but one (the Trump-loving MAGA outlet One America News) refused to sign the ridiculous agreement.

On Wednesday, the media outlets turned in their press passes and removed their equipment from the Pentagon. They will continue to report all the stories about the Defense Department they want. They just won't have the normal access to sources within the building. And Hegseth can expect the embarrassing stories about his incompetence to continue.

Hegseth failed in his attempt to censor the media. Even right-wing media outlets (like Fox News and the Washington Times) refused to sign the agreement. 

Listed below are the media outlets that signed and refused to sign the agreement:

Trump Strikes Another Blow Against Free Speech In The U.S.

The statement above was made by Jimmy Kimmel on his ABC late night show. It can be debated whether it was funny or not. But Donald Trump and the MAGA right displayed just how thin-skinned they are when they heard it.

They were outraged. How dare a comedian say anything about their white Christian nationalist and patriarchy-loving martyr! While they have been whining about free speech for years now, they made it clear that the free speech was only intended for right-wingers. They don't want anyone to have the right to disagree with them (or say anything that offends them).

And the Trump administration acted to curb that speech:

I doubt that FCC Chair Carr could actually pull ABC's license, but the threat itself was a violation of the Constitution's Free Speech clause. The government cannot act to limit speech, no matter how offensive or hateful they think it is.

But that wasn't the only thing. ABC's parent company (Nexstar) has a pending merger with Tegna. And they need approval from Trump's FCC to finalize the merger. Nexstar decided that the merger was more important than defending free speech so they caved (putting Jimmy Kimmel's show on an indefinite suspension) - giving Trump one more victory in censoring the media.

It's a repeat of what happened when CBS said Stephan Colbert's show would end at the end of his contract next year. CBS's parent company also needed government approval for a merger, and rather than defend Colbert's free speech rights, they caved to the Trump administration.

Both of these corporate moves were very damaging to the ideas of free speech and a free press - both of which are necessary for the survival of any democracy.

They also point out a problem with the super-rich buying up media outlets. These people are not concerned with providing the people the truthful news they need. They are only concerned with their bottom line -- making obscene amounts of money.

Donald Trump is always seeking more power. He wants to rule as an authoritarian (like his buddy Putin). The only things that can stop that are free speech and a free press. But he is being successful in, bit-by-bit, muting the press and critical speech. Greedy people and corporations are letting him do it, and Congress is doing nothing.

This makes the 2026 midterm elections more important than ever. Trump has more than three years left in his term, and without a Congress willing to rein him in, he could finally become the tyrant he wants to be.

Has Trump Finally Found A Media Mogul (And Newspaper) He Can't Intimidate?

 

When Donald Trump was re-elected last year, many outside of his MAGA cult hoped the press in this country would do their job and report fairly and accurately on his agenda. This became even more important when his authoritarian intent became more obvious - as he ruled by executive order, taking power away from Congress and ignoring the court system.

Unfortunately, some of the biggest media empires have chosen instead to give in to Trump's intimidation by lawsuit. These corporations decided to protect their bottom line instead of protecting their right to objectively report.

ABC News was the first, settling a lawsuit from Trump for $15 million in December - before he even took the presidential oath.

Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos was next. When he bought the newspaper, he said he would be a "hands-off" owner and let the paper do its job. In March, he changed his mind and caved to Trump - curtailing the kind of editorials the paper could print.

The latest is CBS News. It's parent company, Paramount, settled a lawsuit filed against them by Trump for $15 million (and the firing of Late Night host Steven Colbert). They decided their pending merger with another media company was more important than a free press.

This has been very distressing to those of us who understand the importance of a free press to the survival of democracy. 

But all may not be lost. A newspaper has stepped up and shown it will not be intimidated by Trump. It is The Wall Street Journal (owned by right-winger Rupert Murdoch).

The paper, as is usual before breaking a news story, called Donald Trump and asked if he wanted to comment on a story they were ready to print - that he had sent Epstein a hand-drawn birthday card. Trump was furious and demanded the story not be printed. They printed it anyway.

Trump denied the story and sued the paper (and their owner) for slander for billions of dollars. But the paper stood by their story. They even printed another story about how AG Pam Bondi had told Trump in May that his name had appeared in the Epstein files a multitude of times.

Trump's lawsuit was an attempt to intimidate the newspaper and its owner. It didn't work. They evidently have the evidence to back up their stories. I think they probably would welcome the opportunity to depose Trump under oath. But I don't expect that to happen. Trump will back down because he doesn't want to have to testify about Epstein under oath.

Finally, someone is refusing to be intimidated by the bully in the White House. I'm a bit surprised it turned out to be a right-wing billionaire owning a right-wing paper that is standing up for a free press. Maybe they will give others the courage to do the same (although corporations are not known for their courage when profits are at stake).

The United States Is 57th Out Of 180 Countries In Press Freedom

In The 2025 World Press Freedom Index (compiled by Reporters Without Borders), the United States was ranked 57th out of 180 countries rated. That two places below the 2024 ranking. 

U.S. Ranks Only 45th In New Report On Press Freedom

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2020 World Press Freedom Index. They looked at 180 different countries, and rated each according to several factors of press freedom. A low score means more press freedom and a high score means less press freedom.

Most Americans think the U.S. is a leader in press freedom. It is not. It ranks only 45th among countries. That means there are 44 countries with more overall press freedom than the United States. The chart above shows the countries with the most press freedom.

The chart below shows the countries with the least press freedom.

A Free Press Is The Best Protection For A Democracy

To his everlasting shame, Donald Trump has attacked the press as enemies of the people. He is wrong. A Democracy cannot exist without a free and unfettered press. The people must know what is happening in their government, whether good or bad, because in the final analysis they make the decisions on who will govern and how they will govern.

Yesterday, at the urging of The Boston Globe, over 200 newspapers fought back with editorials on the importance of a free press to this country. Here is what the New York Times wrote:

In 1787, the year the Constitution was adopted, Thomas Jefferson famously wrote to a friend, “Were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”

That’s how he felt before he became president, anyway. Twenty years later, after enduring the oversight of the press from inside the White House, he was less sure of its value. “Nothing can now be believed which is seen in a newspaper,” he wrote. “Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle.”

Jefferson’s discomfort was, and remains, understandable. Reporting the news in an open society is an enterprise laced with conflict. His discomfort also illustrates the need for the right he helped enshrine. As the founders believed from their own experience, a well-informed public is best equipped to root out corruption and, over the long haul, promote liberty and justice.

“Public discussion is a political duty,” the Supreme Court said in 1964. That discussion must be “uninhibited, robust, and wide-open,” and “may well include vehement, caustic and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.”

In 2018, some of the most damaging attacks are coming from government officials. Criticizing the news media — for underplaying or overplaying stories, for getting something wrong — is entirely right. News reporters and editors are human, and make mistakes. Correcting them is core to our job. But insisting that truths you don’t like are “fake news” is dangerous to the lifeblood of democracy. And calling journalists the “enemy of the people” is dangerous, period.

These attacks on the press are particularly threatening to journalists in nations with a less secure rule of law and to smaller publications in the United States, already buffeted by the industry’s economic crisis. And yet the journalists at those papers continue to do the hard work of asking questions and telling the stories that you otherwise wouldn’t hear. Consider The San Luis Obispo Tribune, which wrote about the death of a jail inmate who was restrained for 46 hours. The account forced the county to change how it treats mentally ill prisoners.

Answering a call last week from The Boston Globe, The Times is joining hundreds of newspapers, from large metro-area dailies to small local weeklies, to remind readers of the value of America’s free press. These editorials, some of which we’ve excerpted, together affirm a fundamental American institution.

If you haven’t already, please subscribe to your local papers. Praise them when you think they’ve done a good job and criticize them when you think they could do better. We’re all in this together.

And here is some of what some Texas newspapers had to say.

The Austin American Statesman:

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have long decried unfavorable press coverage as erroneous or incomplete, seeking to blunt the impact of reporting that holds those in power accountable.

President Donald Trump, however, has taken that tactic to the extreme, labeling stories he doesn’t like as “fake news” and branding journalists as “the enemy of the people” — both dangerous distortions designed to untether the administration from inconvenient facts.

Journalists play an essential role in informing voters and holding leaders accountable, a function enshrined in the Constitution as part of the checks and balances that keep our democracy healthy. We stand in solidarity today with the editorial boards of hundreds of U.S. newspapers defending the rigorous, truth-driven work by journalists and opposing Trump’s cynical efforts to dismiss that reporting as “fake news.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

In our business, we know how much words matter. We know, too, that Trump’s references to us as the “enemy of the American People” are no less dangerous because they happen to be strategic. That is what Nazis called Jews. It’s how Joseph Stalin’s critics were marked for execution.

Every reporter who has ever covered a Trump rally knows the scratch of a threat that’s conveyed during that ritual moment when he aims the attention of the crowd to reporters, many of whom no longer stand in the press pen in the back for that reason.

And as real as the threat of physical violence is, especially after the murder of our colleagues in Annapolis, Maryland, Trump’s aggressive posture toward the First Amendment worries us even more.

That’s why we’re joining with fellow journalists across the country in calling for an end to the president’s war of words against our free press.

The Dallas Morning News:

Trump is, of course, not the first U.S. president to voice his grievances with the media. Presidents from John Adams to Richard Nixon to Barack Obama often scuffled with the press corps.

But in our modern era, no president has as publicly or fundamentally challenged the legitimacy of America’s leading news organizations as the current occupant of the Oval Office. The crucial difference is that rather than taking issue with one story or even a series of stories, the intention seems to be to undermine the credibility of the press as a whole with a large swath of the citizenry. 

 We see this as dangerous for the simple reason that by diminishing the press, those who hold high office gain a greater ability to govern without the steadying force of public scrutiny. That’s a recipe not for empowering this president, but rather for ensuring that our leaders in Washington fall out of touch with the people and decide that they know better than the people they seek to govern.

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article216751910.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article216751910.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article216751910.html#storylink=cpy

The Dallas Morning News:

U.S. Falls To 45th On List Of Countries With A Free Press

Reporters Without Borders has released its 2018 World Press Freedom Index. That index ranks each country on how free the press is in that country.

They judge each country's press on seven areas. Those areas are:

1 / Pluralism 

Measures the degree to which opinions are represented in the media.

2/ Media independence 

Measures the degree to which the media are able to function independently of sources of political, governmental, business and religious power and influence.

3/ Environment and self-censorship 

Analyses the environment in which news and information providers operate.

4/ Legislative framework 

Measures the impact of the legislative framework governing news and information activities.

5/ Transparency 

Measures the transparency of the institutions and procedures that affect the production of news and information.

6/  Infrastructure 

Measures the quality of the infrastructure that supports the production of news and information.

A seventh indicator based on data gathered about abuses and acts of violence against journalists and media during the period evaluated is also factored into the calculation.

7/ Abuses 

Measures the level of abuses and violence.

The lower a country's score is, the freer the press in that country is. Here's what the numbers mean:

0 - 15 = Good
15.01 - 25 = Fairly Good
25.01 - 35 = Problematic
35.01 - 55 = Bad
55.01 - 100 = Very Bad

Only 17 countries scored in the good range.

The United States has always prided itself on having a free press, and I think most Americans would assume the United States is one of those 17 countries rated as "good". It is not! The United States has slipped all the way down to 45th place, with a rating of 23.73. That puts it in the "fairly good" category -- and in danger of slipping into the "problematic" category.

This should bother all Americans. A democracy must have a vibrant free press to exist. If the press is not free, then a democracy will slip into a tyrannical form of government.

Why is the United States rated so low? That should be obvious. A big reason is the constant attacks on the press by Donald Trump and too many of his Republican cohorts in Congress. They are waging war on our press in an attempt to cover up the incompetence and possible criminality of Trump. They label the press as lying and printing "fake news", and too many Americans accept those accusations as fact. It is doing serious damage to freedom of the press in this country.

This must stop. When government attacks the press, they attack our democracy.

Donald Trump Has Displayed His Cowardice To The Nation

We know that Donald Trump skipped the White House Correspondents' Dinner for the second year in a row. He knew that the main focus of all the jokes would be him and his administration, and he simply cannot stand to be criticized in any manner. After skipping the dinner, whined in numerous tweets about how unfair the jokes were to him and his aides.

But the jokes were no better or worse than in any past correspondents' dinner -- and in the past, the presidents have all attended, took the barbs good-naturedly, and returned some. It was not person, but fun. The only exception was the one year Reagan missed the dinner. But he had a great excuse, since he was in the hospital recovering from gunshot wounds.

The sad fact is that Donald Trump is a coward. But it's not just jokes that he's afraid of. He's absolutely terrified of tough questions from journalists. Note the chart above. It shows the number of official solo press conferences held by each president in the first two years of their presidency.

Not every president enjoys those solo press conferences. For instance, George W. Bush had only 7 in the first two years, while his father had the most at 56 in the first two years. But all have recognized that the public deserves to know what's happening, and the best way to accomplish that is to meet with the press and answer their questions.

The exception among presidents is Donald Trump. Trump has only held 1 solo press conference. He evidently didn't like that experience, because he has not held a second. Instead, he tweets out lies using Twitter. The press can't ask him hard questions when he does that. And when they point out his Twitter mistakes and lies, he sends out Sarah Huckabee Sanders to repeat his lies and/or make excuses for them. She takes the heat from the press because her boss is too cowardly to do it.

The only time the press has any access to Trump is when he has a joint press conference with visiting dignitaries, and then the period for questions is very limited (and many times Trump won't answer questions not related to his visitor and what they discussed).

Donald Trump is a COWARD.

Now we learn that the special prosecutor has submitted a list of about 50 questions they would like for Trump to answer. His lawyers wrangled those questions of the the special prosecutor, and are still trying to negotiate letting him answer them in writing instead of appearing in person to be questioned.

That's quite different than his 2016 presidential opponent. She appeared before Congress and was questioned for 11 grueling hours. She never took the Fifth, she never hid behind her lawyers, she never lied, and she never demanded the questions be submitted in advance so she could prepare answers. Trump is far different. While Clinton showed honesty and courage, Trump shows cowardice.

Whichever side of the political spectrum we are on, we have had presidents that we disagree with. But we have now, for the first time, a coward living in our White House.

The Trump Administration Threatens To Use Justice Department To Suppress Our Free Press

Our Founding Fathers knew that the representative democracy they created could not be sustained unless the people knew the truth, and they understood that could only be accomplished with a free and unfettered press. They thought this was so important that they included it in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Trump administration doesn't agree. Trump has repeatedly attacked the press through lies and propaganda. He thinks the press should only report what he wants them to report. Now the Trump administration is going further, as Attorney General Sessions is threatening to use the power of the Justice Department to suppress our free press. This is a dark time for truth and democracy.

This is what Dan Rather had to say about this new threat:

With all due respect, Mr. President and Attorney General Sessions, it appears you can't handle the truth. 

I understand that the press has been a mighty check on the lies, inconsistencies, and cynical ploys that have been coming out of this White House. I understand that it has led to public outcry and a wide ranging criminal investigation by a Special Counsel. I understand that much of this reporting has been based on leaks and unnamed sources, from inside the Administration and from especially the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The exercise of a free and independent press has been the exact bulwark against a government in need of accountability - just as our Founding Fathers envisioned. I shudder to think where we would be without it today. 

So the news that the Justice Department is devoting significant resources to tracking down leaks and changing the rules to target the press is a chilling development. There are certainly times when an issue of great national security should not be shared with the public. And most of the journalism organizations I have known or been a part of take that responsibility very seriously. There are some cases where prosecuting leakers may - may - be warranted. But that is not what is going on here. The goal is very clear. The President has complained bitterly of leaks because he doesn't want to be questioned, even when he has been caught in lie after lie. 

“We respect the important role that the press plays and will give them respect, but it is not unlimited,” Mr. Sessions said. “They cannot place lives at risk with impunity.” That is true. So the question is, what lives have been put at risk with all this reporting? And with impunity? Please save us the disingenuousness. 

The free press is performing exactly as it needs to. And the proof of that is how seriously those who wish their actions remain undetectable consider the press to be their enemy. 

Most reporters I have known take a naked threat such as this as further inspiration to dig even harder to expose the truth. News, as I have said, is what the powerful want to keep hidden.

Two-Thirds Of Public Disapproves Of Trump's Tweeting

Donald Trump claims his use of Twitter lets him communicate with the American people. That's rather disingenuous. Other presidents have communicated just fine with the people without excessive tweeting (or any tweeting at all). They did it by holding regular news conferences, where they said what they wanted to say and then answered questions from the press about what they had said.

The truth is that Trump's use of Twitter is not an effort to communicate -- it's an effort to hide from the press so he doesn't have to answer the hard questions (about his failing administration and the mountain of lies and half-truths he tells). Tweets can't be questioned, and Trump is afraid to face the press and answer their questions.

Trump may think he's pulling a fast one by ducking the press and putting his views out through tweets, but the American public doesn't like it -- and it's not winning him any new friends. A full 2/3's of the public now say they disapprove of Trump's use of Twitter (while less than 1/4 approve).

These charts were made from information in a recent ABC News / Washington Post Poll -- done between July 10th and 13th of a random national;l sample of 1,001 adults, with a 3.5 point margin of error.

Trump's Attacks On The Media Endangers Our Democracy

(Image of the First Amendment is from the website of Michael Owens.)

Our Founding Fathers understood the value of a free and independent press. They thought it was necessary to the continuation of our representative democracy -- so necessary that it was prominently placed in the First Amendment of our Constitution.

And to our good fortune, our modern presidents have understood this. They may have disagreed with some things the press reported, but they never attacked the press as an institution, or made personal attacks and threats against individual journalists.

Donald Trump is different. He started his attacks on the press during his campaign, and those attacks have only increased since he took office -- both against the media in general and against individual journalists. Trump has sought to destroy the reputation of the press in the eyes of the American people, calling their stories about him "fake news" -- and sadly, too many in his cult of personality are accepting that as truth.

Trump doesn't understand that if the public's faith in the independence and fairness of the press is undermined then our democracy is also undermined. How can a democracy survive if the people don't know what their government is doing (or how government actions will affect them)?

I am left to wonder if Trump even cares about the survival of our democracy. Does his narcissistic personality demand a cowered press? Does he want the ability of a king or dictator to do whatever he wants -- without a free press to report it? That's what it looks like. It seems that he is more concerned with his own narcissistic needs than he is with preserving and defending our democratic way of life.

Trump's attacks on the media are not amusing or inconsequential. They are dangerous -- and they should be treated that way. The survival of our democracy demands it.

Public Doesn't Like Trump's Treatment Of The Media

The narcissist in the White House can't stand criticism, either of himself or his policies -- especially when reported by the media. And he has struck out at the media to punish them for reporting stories that do not show him in a positive light.

He has taken to Twitter to call the press "enemies of the people" (as many dictators have done in the past) -- and he has even banned some media from presidential events and press conferences.

But his treatment of the press is not appreciated by the general public. They think his actions are inappropriate. About 65% say he should not criticize the press on Twitter (while only 35% think that is appropriate). And 63% say he should not exclude members of the press from presidential events and press conferences (while only 37% think he should do that).

Trump may be keeping his base of trumpistas happy with these actions, but he is not winning any new friends among the general public.

The charts above were made from information in a new Economist / YouGov Poll -- done between February 25th and March 1st of a random national sample of 1,500 adults (including 1,251 registered voters), with a 3.1 point margin of error.

Brzezinski Is Wrong - Satire Is Vital For A Democracy

I have often disagreed with Zbigniew Brzezinski (pictured), even though he served in a Democratic administration. But I have to say, his latest remarks (made on the MSNBC show Morning Joe) are not just conservative -- they are anti-democratic. Here is what he said:

"We have to take a look more closely at the nature of the so-called satire."


"I've not seen what I'm about to say, but I've been told by some people that some of the cartoons were absolutely appalling and directed at the prophet himself. Now, is that really humor or is that an insult designed to provoke?"


Brzezinski could not be more wrong. Satire is not just humor, but is intended to provoke people into thinking -- and even though it is often necessarily insulting and offensive, it is a vital component of free speech.

The men who wrote our Constitution understood the necessity of guaranteeing free speech to all Americans. They understood that no democracy could survive without the free flow of ideas, and that free flow of ideas could not happen without the guarantee of free speech. The First Amendment guarantee of free speech was not written to protect inoffensive speech. Inoffensive speech needs no protection. It was included to protect speech that some (or even many) might think is offensive (or insulting).

If you do not protect and allow offensive speech, then you do not have free speech. And if you don't truly have free speech, then you don't have a democracy. Instead, you have some kind of controlled oligarchy (or police state) where only government-approved speech is allowed.

Brzezinski has fallen into an old trap -- that we must limit speech so we can be safe. But that only trades our democracy for a false sense of safety and security. There are also violence and terrorist acts in countries that limit speech (even giant countries like China). Limiting speech does not insure safety -- it just kills democracy.

Satire is always offensive to some and insulting to many, but it makes people think -- and thinking is a very valuable commodity in any democracy.

U.S. Ranks 14th In Press Freedom

The Gallup Poll does surveys in 132 countries. Between 2010 and 2013, they surveyed around 1,000 adults in each of those countries about whether they thought their country had a "free press". It may disappoint American exceptionalists, but the United States didn't finish first in that survey. It was 14th, as only about 85% of U.S. citizens said we have a free press.

Frankly, I'm surprised we finished that high. I will admit that the United States doesn't have the government restrictions that plague many other countries. But that's because the same entity that controls our government, also controls our press -- a few giant corporations. Most of the press in the United States (the TV channels and newspapers) are owned by just a few giant corporations, which means Americans that get all their news from the major media only get one side of the story (the corporate side) -- especially when it comes to politics, economics, and the economy.

Isn't a press controlled by the corporations just as bad a one controlled by the government? Can either truly be called a "free press"?

U.S. Media Is Not Reporting The Truth About Venezuela

I have been amazed recently at the reporting on Venezuela by the American press. Instead of getting the story right, and reporting the truth about what is happening in that country, both broadcast and print media is doing nothing more than repeating government propaganda. And sadly, the Obama administration is no better than the Bush administration was when it comes to spreading lies about Venezuela.

The press should be digging deeper, but they have shown by this shallow support of anti-Venezuela propaganda that they no longer seem to be interested in real reporting. The corporate-controlled media is more interested these days in profit, so they report fluff pieces and political press releases -- because real reporting costs money, and could cut into the corporate profits. This is dangerous because a democracy like ours requires a well-informed public, and that can only be accomplished by a media willing to dig deep and report the truth.

Two members of the Green Party Shadow Cabinet, Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, have written an excellent article on Venezuela and the failure of the American press for Truth-Out.org. It's a great article and I recommend reading all of it. Here is some of it:

Americans might be fooled by mass media misinformation, but Venezuelans know what is really happening in their country.

The misinformation in most of the media about the protests in Venezuela is astounding. Often the opposite of reality is repeated as if it were true. Americans who rely on the corporate mass media, politicians and corrupted nonprofits might fall for these tales, but Venezuelans know what is really happening.

Venezuelans have gone through 14 years of abuse and lies, including a coup attempt. They know what is really occurring in their economy and political system and are aware that their government is in a battle with the power of money both internally as well as with the US empire. In every election since 2002, Venezuelans have shown that their deep political education, participatory democracy and experience will overcome the falsehoods of the opposition. The violent actions of the opposition and intentional undermining of the economy are signs of an oligarch class that has lost power and is desperate. It must work outside of democracy to try to retake control of the government. . .

Below are responses to four falsehoods followed by one truth you will not hear in the US media.

Falsehood 1: The Maduro Government Is a Dictatorship.

Venezuela is one of the most democratic nations on Earth. Here are some facts about democracy in Venezuela:

"Regarding the supposed 'democratic deficit of the Venezuelan regime,' the facts speak for themselves. Since 1998 there have been four national plebiscites, four presidential elections, and eleven parliamentary, regional, and municipal elections. Venezuela is the Latin American country with the highest number of elections and it also has an automatic electoral system (much more modern than Chile's), described by Jimmy Carter, who has observed 92 elections in all continents, as 'the best system in the world.' "

The real "democratic deficit" has been shown by the United States and the opposition. In particular, Secretary of State John Kerry has flown his anti-democracy flag repeatedly when it comes to Venezuela. As Mark Weisbrot recently wrote "when Maduro was elected president and opposition presidential candidate Henrique Capriles claimed that the election was stolen, Kerry refused to recognize the election results. Kerry's aggressive, anti-democratic posture brought such a strong rebuke from South American governments that he was forced to reverse course and tacitly recognize the Maduro government. (For those who did not follow these events, there was no doubt about the election results.)"

In December 2013, the Maduro government showed even greater strength in municipal elections. It won 58 percent of the country's municipalities. Maduro and his allies gained more than 49 percent of the total vote share, versus 43 percent for the opposition. This means that the right-wing opposition coalition had now lost four national elections in the past 14 months then lost the most recent municipal elections. . .

Falsehood 2: Maduro and Chavez Have Destroyed the Economy. Markets Do Not Have Essentials and Inflation Is Out of Control

It is important to understand that the oligarchs, in league with the United States, have been at war with the Chavez-Maduro governments since Chavez was first elected in 1999. One of the consistent strategies they have used has been to undermine the economy. This is a common strategy used by the United States in efforts to foment regime change throughout the world, as it has been doing since the 1950s.

In fact, documents released by attorney and journalist Eva Golinger in November 2013 show a plan by the United States, Colombia and the oligarchs in Venezuela to undermine the economy to remove Maduro. The document, "Strategic Venezuelan Plan," was prepared by people from Colombia, the United States and the oligarchs in Venezuela. According to Golinger, the plan was developed during a meeting with leaders of the Venezuelan opposition; J.J. Rendon, an expert in psychological operations; and Mark Feierstein, director of the US Agency for International Development for Latin America.

The plan includes a variety of steps to undermine the Venezuelan economy. They put forward strategies "to maintain and increase the sabotages that affect public services, particularly the electrical system that will enable responsibility to be placed on the government for supposed inefficiencies and negligence."

Regarding the scarcity of goods, Golinger writes:

"Throughout the year, Venezuela has experienced problems with the supply of basic products, such as toilet paper, sugar, milk, oil, butter, flour and other food staples. Venezuelan authorities have confiscated tons of these products illegally held inside warehouses belonging to opposition businesses. They have also captured large quantities of these items on the border with Colombia, where they are sold as contraband."

Maria Paez Victor confirms this writing:

"A double blow of outrageous overpricing of goods plus artificial food scarcity started just as people were beginning their Christmas shopping. Wealthy merchants proceeded to hoard essential goods: corn flour, sugar, salt, cooking oil, toilet paper, etc. placing them in hidden warehouses or spirited off to Colombia through a well-planned smuggling operation. The military discovered an illegal bridge built for motorcycles that carried the smuggled goods. Thousands of bags of foodstuffs were discovered simply left rotting on Colombian byways: this was not smuggling for economic reasons, but for political reasons."

The purpose of the shortages is to create chaos, social unrest and lack of confidence in the government. In the leaked "Strategic Venezuela Plan," it describes their goal as "generating emotion with short messages that reach the largest quantity of people and emphasize social problems, provoking social discontent. Increase problems with supply of basic consumer products.". . .

Falsehood 3: The Maduro Government Controls All of the Media, so the Opposition Has No Freedom of Speech

Another argument that is being constantly repeated is the supposed lack of freedom of expression and freedom of the press in Venezuela. Once again the numbers speak for themselves:

"80% of the media is private. The three national newspapers (El Universal, El Nacional and Ultimos Noticias) are opposed to the government, especially the first two, and they bring together 90% of the readership. Of the four television channels with national coverage, three of them (Venevision, Globovision, and Televen) are opposition, and likewise bring together 90% of the audience, according to information provided by the company AGB."

Mark Weisbrot did an analysis of Venezuelan television coverage to test whether statements by the The New York Times (and others like it) are accurate. The Times begins its news report on Friday from Venezuela with "The only television station that regularly broadcast voices critical of the government was sold last year and the new owners have softened its news coverage." Weisbrot found the statement to be completely false. He provided links to major private TV coverage of recent events that were all supportive of the opposition and critical of the government. The interviews included all of the leaders of the opposition. . .

Falsehood 4: The Maduro Government Is Reacting With Violence Against Nonviolent Protesters

As part of the plan described in the leaked "Strategic Venezuelan Plan" the opposition seeks to: "Create situations of crisis in the streets that will facilitate US intervention, as well as NATO forces, with the support of the Colombian government. Whenever possible, the violence should result in deaths or injuries." What is being seen on the streets of Venezuela is consistent with that strategy.

After the last presidential election, won narrowly by Maduro, Eva Golinger reports that his opponent called for violence: "Capriles refused to accept the results and called his supporters to take to the streets in protest, to 'get all their rage out.' During the two days after the elections, 11 government supporters were killed by Capriles' followers."

Professor Steve Ellner of the Universidad de Oriente in Puerto La Cruz, Venezuela, argues that the cause of the violence is the opposition, not the government. He points out the opposition has been caught killing Venezuelans in the past, describing the juxtaposing of images during the 2002 coup against Chavez. The opposition tried to make it look like Chavez was killing Venezuelans, and the US media, including CNN, reported these false images. Later, the full images showed it was actually the opposition murdering Venezuelans.

Ellner points to violence used by the opposition in the current upheaval - including attacking grocery stores, banks, buses and government buildings. Other commentators also have described specific incidents of violence by the opposition, including killing people. Maduro ordered the arrest of a retired general who tweeted how to use wire to decapitate people (in fact people have been killed and injured by such tactics) on motorcycles and how to attack armored vehicles with Molotov cocktails. Others in the opposition have tweeted about how to use blockades and to pour oil to cause vehicles to crash and catch on fire. . .

Truth: The United States Has Been Supporting the Overthrow of the Venezuelan Government Since Chavez Was Elected

Bhatt: "WikiLeaks actually produced a document, a 2006 cable, which ... was signed by the US ambassador and described a number of positions, which included 'Penetrating Chavez' Political Base,' 'Dividing Chavismo,' protecting US vital interests and 'Isolating Chavez Internationally.' " US diplomatic cables demonstrate that the United States has been using tactics to try to undermine Chavez-Maduro for a long time.

Golinger reports that the United States has been a consistent funder of the opposition in Venezuela. She writes:

"Over the ten year period, from 2000-2010, US agencies, including the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and its Office for Transition Initiatives (OTI), set up in Caracas in 2002, channeled more than $100 million ... to opposition groups in Venezuela. The overall objective was regime change."

During this time Chavez-Maduro has gotten stronger in Venezuelan elections, and the opposition has failed to make progress. Golinger reports that the United States has more recently focused on building a youth-protest movement in Venezuela, writing:

"Over one third of US funding, nearly $15 million annually by 2007, was directed towards youth and student groups, including training in the use of social networks to mobilize political activism. Student leaders were sent to the US for workshops and conferences on Internet activism and media networking. They were formed in tactics to promote regime change via street riots and strategic use of media to portray the government as repressive"

Leopoldo Lopez has taken on a leadership role in the current protests. He recently was arrested for inciting violence and calling for the removal of Maduro. Lopez has a long history with the United States and comes from one of the wealthiest families in Venezuela. Lopez was involved in the US-backed 2002 coup and received start-up money from the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and its offshoots, the International Republican Institute (IRI) and the National Democratic Institute (NDI).

But Lopez's ties to the United States go back to his time as an undergraduate at Kenyon College in Ohio. Kenyon is known as a training ground for CIA assets; it even has a CIA scholarship program. Kenyon has CIA-friendly professors, and the Kenyon Review was even funded by the CIA. Lopez spent five years at Kenyon and went on to get a master's degree at the JFK School for Government at Harvard. With this history, it not surprising to see him involved in the 2002 coup and in the leadership of the current unrest, while the United States is funding his political party and opposition organizing.

The other major leader of the opposition is Marína Corina Machado, the president of SUMATE, another opposition party. SUMATE also received an NED grant from the United States of tens of thousands of dollars after the 2002 coup.

Wikileaks exposed the connection between the United States and opposition forces in trying to undermine the government. The documents came from the Stratfor leaks, quoting the CEO of Stratfor saying the US government is maneuvering to remove Chavez and how the State Department provides information to what he calls "a clueless US media." . . .

The United States knows that Venezuela is the key to regaining control of Latin America, which has broken from US domination. Venezuela is also a leader in challenging the economic policies of the United States that empower private corporations and weaken the power of government to provide services to meet the needs of the people. Putting in place a US-friendly government is a top priority for the United States in Latin America. Americans need to be very skeptical about what they hear about Venezuela.