It’s no secret to America’s law-abiding gun owners that many in the anti-gun movement are huge hypocrites. And nowhere is it more obvious than in much of the so-called “mainstream” media.
So it should be little surprise to A1F Daily readers that media are crying foul over a new rule that will make those wanting to cover the Democrat and Republican conventions undergo a background check by the Secret Service.
According to a Politico article, the issue stems from Presidential Policy Directive 22, an Obama administration decision that apparently gives the Secret Service the task of “access control” to the political conventions. Another report from USA Today indicated that Obama has issued 19 such “policy directives” (PPDs) without disclosing them to the public.
Of course, gun owners have been fighting this battle for years. The media’s calls for increased scrutiny of gun owners recently reached fever pitch in a New York Times editorial—on the front page, no less—decrying defeat of legislation mandating use of FBI’s terrorist watch list, which has no established public criteria, to prohibit gun purchases.
Journalists cited by the Daily Beast fault the “inscrutable security screening process for which there are no plainly established criteria, and from which there is no appeal.”
Recently the Beast spoke with Newark Star-Ledger’s Jonathan D. Salant, who said, “I personally think it’s the government deciding who can and can’t be a journalist, and I don’t think the First Amendment allows that.”
As you probably guessed, Salant and others apparently think standards should be different for the First Amendment and the Second Amendment—a hypocritical stance if there ever was one. Salant’s recent articles have promoted gun control via the no-fly list—without mentioning the constitutional violations this would entail—and extolled requiring private sellers to register as dealers to force them to conduct more background checks.
For honest Americans who treasure freedom, it’s hard to fathom such blatant hypocrisy. NRA-ILA recently summed it up best in a feature on its website: “The same media that has failed to stick up for the rights of others who occupy different social and political circles—indeed, that has actively collaborated with the government to degrade the rights of those others—is now getting a taste of its own medicine. They chose kissing up to the Establishment over their professional roles as watchdogs. Now they’re the watched, and they don’t like it.”