The president has yet another warning for those that disagree with him on “climate change” – he ain’t got time for that!
Just what does it look like when our president loses patience with you?
In Benghazi the president lost patience with Ambassador Stevens and told our military to stand down. Stevens is dead.
At the IRS our president lost patience with the Tea Party and getting “shellacked” in the 2010 midterms. He told his henchwoman Lerner to crack down on conservatives. Conservative groups had their IRS tax exempt status applications placed on indefinite hold.
At the DOJ, our president lost patience with the AP and Fox News practicing investigative journalism. He told AG Holder to pin down those involved. Phone records were tapped, and reporters are under criminal prosecution.
Do you question climate change? Be careful: the president has no patience for that.
(The Weekly Standard) — At a fundraiser last night in Chicago, President Barack Obama signaled that he’s interested in his legacy as a president and insisted that he’s willing to work with anyone. […]
“And that means that I am willing to work with anybody — Republican, Democrat or independent — to get stuff done. And I am not going to put the pause button on for the next year and a half or two years or whatever it is, simply to position myself for the next election. If I’ve got a Republican who’s willing to work with me to rebuild our infrastructure, let’s go. If I’ve got a Republican out there who’s willing to get serious about what we need to deal with our long-term deficit challenges, I’m prepared, come on, let’s talk.”
But Obama then suggested he’d draw the line at “climate change” deniers. “If I’ve got somebody who has a different approach to dealing with climate change — I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change, but if you’ve got creative approaches, market-based approaches, tell me about them. If you think I’m doing it the wrong way, let me know. I’m happy to work with you,” said Obama.
But here is the bottom line–the media shield law, which I am prepared to support, and I know Sen. Graham supports, still leaves an unanswered question, which I have raised many times: What is a journalist today in 2013? We know it’s someone that works for Fox or AP, but does it include a blogger? Does it include someone who is tweeting? Are these people journalists and entitled to constitutional protection? We need to ask 21st century questions about a provision in our Constitution that was written over 200 years ago.
Durbin did not go on to attempt to clarify what those limits should be.
Senator Durbin’s comments point to a larger problem plaguing Congress right now: an innate desire to place limitations on protections enshrined in the Constitution.
The First Amendment provides for the exercise of a free press without defining who that press is. This omission keeps the Amendment current for today, as it precludes the need to license or otherwise intrude on the Fourth Estate with governmental requirements that would place barriers on who could investigate and uncover wrongdoing through the practice of journalism.
Standard’s should be enforced. But to behave as if a citizen blogger would somehow not be afforded protection under the Constitution, or a “Media Shield Law” (which wouldn’t be needed if those that violate the 1st Amendment were properly prosecuted) is yet another example of how little our elected officials understand the right to Free Speech and a Free Press.