The Newest Strike in Obama’s War on Journalists

Some of you may recall back in May when it was discovered that President Obama had seized the phone records of over a hundred Associated Press reporters without conferring with the AP before he did so. This was only one small example of Obama’s war on the media, of course as there have been many such incursions into the curbing of freedom of the press. This month we got yet another one.

Obama’s AP phone record heist was a big deal earlier in the year and had journalists all over the place screaming about losing their freedoms. But, because nearly every member of the press is a slobbering Obamaite, they soon forgot all about their savior’s un-American actions.

But this wasn’t the only time Obama has shown his utter contempt for Press, the very people that got him to office by giving him 100% favorable coverage for both runs for the White House.

A recent article in The Washington Post by Leonard Downie, who is currently the Weil family professor of journalism at the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism at Arizona State University, was stark in its assessment of how badly this president treats his lapdogs.

Downie noted that Obama has used the 1917 Espionage Act in cases that no president has ever invoked it. Obama is using electronic surveillance without telling reporters or their news agencies that he’s doing so and the writer lists some of the many government officials that Obama has prosecuted or made to quit their jobs over what Obama calls “espionage” or “spying.”

The WaPo piece also recounts the fears that many journalists have of this president just for doing their jobs.

Downie also reports that David E. Sanger, who has worked for the Times in Washington for twenty years, said, “This is most closed, control-freak administration I’ve ever covered.”

This month we get yet another example of how much Obama despises the oppresses the US press.

Obama had his Department of Homeland Security sweep down onto the home of Washington Times reporter Audry Hudson ostensibly because her husband, who was convicted of “resisting arrest” 30 years ago, was rumored to own a gun.

While Obama’s stormtroopers were in the house supposedly looking for an illegal gun they also took all of Hudson’s private computer files even as none of her belongings were listed on the warrant.

What authorities ended up taking with scores of files she was collecting from government whistleblowers, files that were going to form the basis for an article.

“They took my notes without my knowledge and without legal authority to do so,” Hudson reported. “The search warrant they presented said nothing about walking out of here with a single sheet of paper.”

Does anyone think it a bit precious for Obama’s stormtroopers to suddenly be interested in an “illegal gun” supposedly in the hands of a man convicted of “resisting arrest” 30 years ago just as that man’s wife was writing a story about government whistleblowers? And does any one think it was just an accident that her research and files were taken illegally by those same stormtroopers?

If you believe that it was all just happenstance, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

All this comes from the same Obama who came to office in 2008 claiming that he would have the “strictest ethics rules“–not to mention the most transparent–administration in history. We can see how far that went.

Benghazi. How far will they go…
Things I Wish I’d Written…
  • Hank_M

    These are indeed strange times. I never thought the Chicago-way would be able to exist on a national scale. I was wrong.

    And I never thought I’d see the day when the MSM would be so unbelievably biased. But it’s starting to make sense. As of September of this year, roughly 24 journalists have gone to work for the Obama administration, the latest being Time’s Rick Stengel. If any dare write or say something Obama and his people object to, they pay the price. Just ask Jonathan Alter, hell ask Bob Woodward.
    Put that together with what WTH wrote and it’s easy to see why the press has been neutered.

    Incredibly enough, the Obama presidency has become what every liberal has worried about with most Republican administrations. They’re corrupt, they’ve politicized the Justice Dept, they use the IRS against their enemies, and they’re controlling the media.

    • fustian24

      When I read of historic corruption (like the big Teapot Dome scandal) I used to find it comforting that illegalities of that scale could no longer occur.

      Boy, was I wrong.

      It is clear that if you want press oversight of government, you simply must vote in republicans.

      Fortunately liberal idiocy and technology may be cutting off the leftist horror at the roots. Idiot democrat policies have made liberal college educations unaffordable, at the same time technology has made online training practical, desirable, and cheap. When the left loses the chance to brainwash impressionable young minds, they lose.

      At the same time, the left has taken over media that are failing (Newsweek) while the right has become strong on the internet.

      I no longer underestimate the ability of average the voter to make exceptionally poor choices after Obama got elected to a second term (I thought a rabid squirrel could beat him), but there are the makings of a big philosophical swing here.

      • Brucehenry

        Yes a “preference cascade” as it were lol.

  • Commander_Chico

    I’m looking for that search warrant on Hudson’s house. I bet it’s a laughable work of fiction.

    Once we created a Heimatsicherheitsdienst “Department of Homeland Security” – the curtain started to go down on freedom in the USA. Constitutional law professor Obama has accelerated the process,

    Today we learn the NSA is vacuuming up all the Google and Yahoo data on you, presumably including your emails. Google and Yahoo are now panicking and trying to deny any cooperation with the State Security Services.

    If Americans don’t wake up and fight this shit, maybe the rest of the world will save us by shutting out US IT businesses, which will destroy a lot of shareholder equity. Money talks, in fact it’s the only thing heard in the USA. If not, the USA will just end up being an isolated oppressive and poor country that nobody wants to visit or do business with.

    • Jwb10001

      Shut up A-Hole there’s only one way to fight this shit quit electing these people. You don’t do that by throwing your vote away on Gary Freakin Johnson. You and your friends that just love to send messages have helped screw us into the ground with this out of control disaster of a president. For you to stand up and shout that we have to wake up is laughable. And don’t give me any Romney would be worse bull shit, there’s no way to know that now, thanks to you and others like you.

      • Commander_Chico

        Hi, Mitt. Or is it Tagg or one of the bros? You seem to be really bitter about me not voting for Romney.

        I admit it’s really impossible to tell whether Romney would be worse right now, given how bad Obama has become. The problem was that is was impossible to tell at the time of the election, based on what Romney said:

        1. Was making all kinds of warmonger threats about Iran because he was massively funded by Israel-firster Sheldon Adelson. He was even goading Russia.

        2. Wanted to bring back torture as a policy.

        3. Said stupid shit about “the 47%” to a crowd of high-rollers

        4. Picked Ayn Rand cultist Ryan as his running mate, committed to ending Social Security

        Of course, because of the many many different positions Mitt had taken in the past, it was impossible to predict WTF Romney would have actually done as president. He might have been much better than Obama, but that would have required changing his positions again and being more like Governor of Massachusetts Mitt Romney and not rabble-rousing redneck Romney.

        I hope that the Republicans do better next time, nominate someone like Chris Christie or Rubio instead of a nutball like Cruz.

        • Walter_Cronanty

          That’s BS, Chico. The Rs could nominate some moderate who journalists love, say a “maverick” like John McCain or Mitt Romney for instance, and the MSM would still run stories about mythical trysts and/or dogs on a car’s roof instead of a serious story on how, when and why [and most importantly – if] a man raised and schooled in a toxic stew of anti-American leftism came to his senses and learned to love America. That seems like it would be a very newsworthy story, yet the MSM never wrote it.

          • Brucehenry

            Yet I keep hearing it, and heard it a million times in 2008.

          • Show a million such stories in the LSM Anywhere.

          • Brucehenry

            Is your googler broke? And really, “the LSM”? Hackneyed.

          • You made the assertion, show proof.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I suppose you need proof. I’m unable to supply you with any.

            Because ABC News didn’t spend April (or was it March?) of 2008 with Jeremiah Wright as the lead story nearly every night. McClatchy newspapers, including my local one, never mentioned Bill Ayers at all in 2008. FOX never once mentioned him, or the Rezko story, either. No one in the lamestream media picked up on, commented on, or made any mention of Sarah Palin’s charge that Obama “palled around with terrorists.” Late night comedians made no jokes about it. Never heard a word of it on the Daily Show or Colbert. There were no stories in Time or Newsweek or People or anywhere else about Obama and where he got his ideas.

            That’s why nobody except you geniuses ever HEARD of Wright, Ayers, Rezko, or my personal favorite, Frank Marshall Davis. No one but you guys, nosiree.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Bruce, the question is not knowledge about how Obama was raised, who he hung out with, who his friends were/are and whose church he went to. I, and others who were interested, read about Obama’s being steeped in an anti-capitalist, Amerikka hating atmosphere, as well as reading in his autobiography of him palling around with communist students/professors while in college. Everyone around him was way out in left field, except for his typical white grandmother, I suppose.
            What I never read was a serious article about what changed his mind. When, how and why did he discard all of the views/ideologies he was surrounded by, not only in his most formative years, but well into adulthood? Did his attendance at Rev. Wright’s church evidence such an epiphany? Did working closely with admitted terrorist Bill Ayers, indeed getting his political career started in his living room, evidence such an epiphany? Did his membership in The New Party evidence such a change? Aren’t you at all curious about the reason and/or process of being inculcated in far left politics and then changing into what you, and MSM consider a middle of the road American politician?

          • Brucehenry

            Well, OK, I first read your comment as another insistent whine that the “LSM” failed to mention any of the so-called “anti-American” yada yada I usually hear here. I see now what you were saying.

            Have you read Obama’s books? (I haven’t.) Perhaps an explanation is found there.

            Why does there need to be a story? Don’t we all grow up and moderate our views, some of us even doing 180s? Most of the original neocons started out as Trotskyites, didn’t they?

            When I was 16 or 17 I thought a revolution led by the likes of Abbie Hoffman or Mark Rudd was not only going to happen, it was going to be a good thing. At 21 I voted for Fred Harris of Oklahoma in the Dem primary, one of the last of the old-time Henry Wallace Democrats. When I had to work for a living I got a little more conservative, but never gave up the ideals of my youth — just got more practical about what could be accomplished, what was really a desirable goal, and what unintended consequences could ensue if leftist policies weren’t tempered by a little market common sense.

            Part of the maturing process. I couldn’t point to any epiphany, though. My thinking didn’t suddenly change overnight — it evolved. Hasn’t yours? My guess is so did Obama’s.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Bruce – he’s the freaking President of the United States. Yes, we all change. While I had relatively conservative parents and upbringing, I got “Clean for Gene” in ’68. I was one of about 40 people in Cleveland who saw Jimmy Carter speak at the Old Stone Church when he was running in the ’76 primary. I was [to my utter and complete shame and embarrassment] a member of AFSCME.
            I changed – I know when the pivot started, and I know why. It’s a totally unremarkable story that millions of those who came of age in 60s went through. No one cares.
            Obama is 12 years my junior. He didn’t come of age in the 60s, and contrary to what he would have the general populace think, he had nothing to do with civil rights movement.
            His parents were not conservative. Unlike me, he had an “Uncle” Frank Marshall Davis. The nearest I got to a “terrorist” was attending a fundraiser for Gene in 1972 that was headlined by Peter Yarrow [I don’t count being in Chicago during the ’68 D convention, as when the chocolate pie started hitting the fan, I left].
            There is nothing typical or unremarkable about Obama’s upbringing, the political environment he grew up and remained in, or his work history. Did he change his political views, disavowing the political views of his mother, father, “Uncle”, friends, fellow students, professors, mentors, fellow political travelers, and Pastor? He’s the freaking President of the United States.
            The First Amendment was written so that the populace could be educated about matters like this. The MSM has absolutely failed to do its job. They are a disgrace.

          • Brucehenry

            So have you read his books?

            EDIT: And also, when did Reagan, a former New Deal supporter and union official, experience an epiphany?

            And also, too, The Sixties were not some magical decade in which political viewpoints were changeable while the 70s were not.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Just excepts. The idea of a 30 year old writing an autobiography is so arrogantly narcisistic, I didn’t want to read the first book, so I never got all the way through it.
            That book only covers his life until his entry into Harvard. He was still immersed in extreme left-wing ideology at that time. Thus, it wouldn’t shed light on any road to Damascus moment, if there was one.
            The second was written in 2006, after he was a Senator with presidential aspirations. No interest in reading that at all. “If you like it, you can keep it” was the title of one chapter, I believe. Not interested in an autobiographical hagiography.
            But the real question remains, why no MSM curiosity?

          • Walter_Cronanty

            As to your edit: Good grief, Bruce. Reagan changed very little. Remember, he said he didn’t leave the Democrat party, it left him. Most notably, he was an anti-Communist informant for the FBI in the late ’40s, just as he was anti-Communist as President.
            He was against nuclear weapons in the 40’s – and he reduced nuclear arms while President. He supported Ike in ’52, and every Republican presidential candidate thereafter. By the mid to late 50s, and certainly by the time he really got into politics in the 60s, he was fairly “conservative” in his views – lower taxes, smaller government, anti-communist.
            It seems his political views grew clearer, sharper and definitely more free market while in the employ of GE. He was always a believer in civil rights.
            He was never, ever what someone would call a “progressive” today – of course neither was Kennedy, but what the hey. Any change he may have had over the years was miniscule compared to what we’re led to believe Obama went through.
            The 60s were definitely more politically volatile than the 70s. Everyone was into politics. Many people became more liberal in the 60s, only to move back to right once they grew up – hell, that’s a cliche.
            Growing up, maturing, going to school, starting a political career like Obama as a far left-winger, yet now being portrayed as a moderate – all with no history or reporting on a change in views? Never saw it before. Have you?
            I mean, that great Democrat Robert Byrd had a come to Jesus moment, but that was pretty well reported on.

          • Brucehenry

            I think I see your problem. Any political position that is not rabid jingoism in foreign policy and an embrace of laissez-faire capitalism in domestic policy is “far left” to you. That’s why you require a come-to-jesus moment in Obama’s political life.

            The fact is that most Americans know that the only entity that can and will protect them from the excesses of corporate greed is government. While most acknowledge that too much government is a bad thing, we aren’t all TwentySevenPercenters who fear government more than we are uneasy with the power of Big Business.

            Socialism and communism are indeed unpopular and always have been in America. However, most Americans wouldn’t call Eugene Debs or WEB Dubois “anti-American,” and those are the intellectual ancestors of guys like Frank Marshall Davis and Henry Wallace, and Bernie Freaking Sanders for that matter.

            So you think that the fact that no one wrote a story about Obama exactly as YOU would have written it, starting with your flawed premise that all Obama’s early influences were “anti-American” because some were anti-capitalist. is a sign that the media is “a disgrace”? Well, I suppose if I were a wingnut I’d agree.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            No one wrote the story, Bruce, period. And I suppose I would agree with that lack of journalistic curiosity if I were a moonbat Obama apologist afraid of what someone would, or wouldn’t, find if they did some serious journalism regarding our freaking President.

          • Brucehenry

            Sorry, “if I were a wingnut” was a little snarky I guess.

            Perhaps no one wrote the story because there wasn’t one. What I meant to convey in my last comment is that most people don’t start with the premise that wingnut blogs start with. All this yada yada about growing up “steeped” in this and “inculcated” in that, “mentored” by this radical and “taken under the wing” of that commie is stuff that is specialized in by those whose motives are suspect.

            Also, most American have a greater tolerance for diversity of opinion than wingnuts do. Not everyone who doesn’t march in lockstep with rabid jingoes and free-market ideologues is considered dangerous by everyday folks.

            Maybe his grandparents did have some radical friends. I bet they had some moderate and Republican friends, too. Maybe I’m wrong but I’ll wager his childhood and youth weren’t spent at the feet of Davis and Alinsky or whatever boogedymen the wingnut scaremongers of 2008 want to pretend were Obama’s primary influences.

            Maybe Obama DID espouse some more leftist views in his youth. Again, there doesn’t need to be some kind of come-to-jesus moment for him to realize that there are things he can accomplish in this country and things he cannot. That there are ways to get things accomplished and there are futile, beat-your-head-against-the-wall gestures. That there are Bill Clintons and there are Dennis Kuciniches and that one is more effective than another.

          • jim_m

            That’s right Bruce. Every time you keep on apologizing for fascist tactics from the left. You continually deny it but there simply isn’t anything that obama could do that you would say something against. You will apologize for ever step down the road to oppression and then you will say how shocked you are to live in such a totalitarian state and that you never supported any of it.

          • Commander_Chico

            I think they treated Reagan pretty well in 1980 and GW Bush in 2000, relative to Carter and Gore.

            The press are just like a bunch of middle school girls, their coverage is based on who they think is cooler. They also suck up to money and power, which come to think about it is what middle school girls would like too.

          • Walter_Cronanty

            And like middle school girls, they think the coolest candidate is the one who agrees with them. And, if they only sucked up to money, I couldn’t tell it in their coverage of Mitt Romney vs. their coverage of Obama.

          • Commander_Chico

            Ha, there was plenty of Wall Street money behind Obama.

            Why do you think no prosecutions of any natural person for the mortgage securities frauds?

          • warnertoddhuston

            Reagan was ripped to pieces by the press. He was called stupid, crazy, super authoritarian, etc. Reagan had one small period of being treated well when he was shot and for a few months after that. But otherwise the press was out to destroy him.

          • Commander_Chico

            Yeah but even the extremely liberal Boston Globe ran an editorial titled “Mush from the Wimp” referring to Carter. I saw a headline in another newspaper in 1979, “Carter Administration in Disarray.” Editorializing much?

            The MSM was also pretty tough on focusing on the relatively-minor Tehran embassy issue (remember how Nightline got started? A show called America Held Hostage. Except it wasn’t “America” held hostage, it was 52 Americans.).

          • Brucehenry

            Sez the guy who was what, 10 years old when Reagan took office?

          • jim_m

            I was a teenager and remember it very much the same way as Warner. I recall the glee that my lefty parents had when he was nearly assassinated (such is the left that it glories in the misfortune of others)

          • Brucehenry

            Well I was 26 and took no joy in an assassination attempt on a duly elected president. Sorry your parents were assholes, apparently, at that time.

            I even rooted for Reagan’s recovery and was amused and made proud by his coolness after being wounded.

            You tell too many details of your personal past, Jim. A less scrupulous commenter than I could have quite a field day with the details you’ve revealed just the last day or two.

          • jim_m

            It’s not like I’m Paul Hoosen.

          • Brucehenry

            True dat

          • Walter_Cronanty

            Does that mean you’re not going to offer me a free, personal lap dance?

          • jim_m

            sorry to disappoint.

          • Another boomer who grew old without ever growing wise, I see…

          • I voted for Reagan in 1980 and also remember press hostility as mentioned by Warner and Jim.

          • Retired military

            Oooohhh had to go all the way to the ice free North pole to pull gore out of your ass didn’t you.

          • Is that where algore has been all this time?

        • Retired military

          And Chico goes with Option B.
          Obama is bad but (insert name here) is so much worse.

        • Jwb10001

          I’m not bitter I just don’t know how you have balls to criticize Obama after enabling his re election. You act like it’s someone else’s fault we’re stuck with this shit. It’s your fault and others like you that have decided it’s better to disengage by voting for a complete loser that has no chance of doing anything to improve the situation.

          • Commander_Chico

            I didn’t enable his election, I didn’t vote for him.

            As long as they keep nominating fools, kiss-asses and slaves to the Oligarchy in both parties, I’m going to continue not voting for them.

            The grim prospect of a choice between Hillary and Cruz means I probably will be voting for Gary Johnson or someone else in 2016.

          • Retired military

            Ah Yes. Chico Answer Option A

            The Oligaphy.

            ” I didn’t vote for him.”

            BAHAHAHHAHAHAHA tell us another one. HAHAHAHHA

          • Commander_Chico
          • Jwb10001

            Of course you did. Are you stupid?

          • Retired military

            Oh Chico will criticize Obama. Right before he talks about just how bad (insert name here) would have been or was much worse.

          • Jwb10001

            Right, I don’t know how Chico expects this crap to change it sure as hell ain’t happening with the entrenched republicans and the democrats. I bet he also blames Ralph Nadar for giving us 8 years of his most hated George Bush, but he has nothing to do with enabling Obama’s reelection.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    Too bad all journalists haven’t received the same attention. The MSM has steadfastly refused to do its job since it shifted its priority from reporting the news to “changing the world.” Candy Crowley personifies the the modern press.
    Now we have a tyrant as President who spits on our law – and some of it lands on the press. But the MSM thinks it’s just a splash from the warm bath he’s drawing for them.

  • Retired military

    Off topic but it is Halloween

  • Walter_Cronanty

    This fiasco of an ObamaCare rollout is forcing some journalists to do their jobs. CNN had this story:
    “White House officials have pressured insurance industry executives to keep quiet amid mounting criticism over Obamacare’s rollout, insurance industry sources told CNN….
    But Bob Laszewski, who heads a consulting firm for big insurance companies, did talk on the record.
    “The White House is exerting massive pressure on the industry, including the trade associations, to keep quiet,” he said.”
    And then there’s the story in Forbes where it is reported that the Administration knew in 2010 that up to 93,000,000 Americans would not be able to keep their insurance coverage, even if they “liked it.”
    And there is the recent MSNBC [MSNBC? Yes, MSNBC] that 248, count ’em, 248, people actually enrolled in ObamaCare during its first 3 days.
    Of course, this is what was expected by those who gave ObamaCare more than a cursory thought. So, as usual, the MSM reports on the debacle it helped create.

  • Commander_Chico

    Check out this website:

    One horror after another.

  • Walter_Cronanty

    The more the press whines, the less sympathy I have. Only 2 photos allowed of Obama while in the White House, and those were taken during his first administration – all others were taken by “official” administration photographers and fed to AP.

    “Editors of The Associated Press condemned the White House’s refusal to give photojournalists real access to President Obama, who prefers to circulate press release-style pictures taken by his own paid photographers.

    These official photographs are little more than propaganda, according to AP director of photography Santiago Lyon.”
    They’ve known the lie about “the most transparent administration evah!” for years, yet complain only after they overwhelmingly helped him to be reelected. The MSM is beneath contempt.