The New York Times, which has long been an anti-American newspaper, has now somehow found in the First Amendment a right by CNN reporter Jim Acosta to behave in the manner he did last week, by pushing aside a White House aide who was a woman as she tried to grab the mic and pass it to another reporter wanting to ask a question.
The state-controlled news outlet that pushed such “righteous” people on us as Bill and Hillary Clinton and other sexual deviants, as well as promote the #MeToo movement, decided to fire off defending Jim Acosta and his obvious attempt to stonewall a press conference and to shove the arm back of a female White House aide who merely tried to do her job.
First, consider what took place.
After taking up time up with multiple questions to President Donald Trump and being belligerent in his attacks on the president about his statements regarding the migrant caravan making their way towards our southern border, the female aide simply moved in to try and take the mic and pass it to another reporter, but Acosta clearly pushed her arm back.
All of this, and I’m sure more, led to his White House press pass being revoked.
We stand by our decision to revoke this individual’s hard pass. We will not tolerate the inappropriate behavior clearly documented in this video. pic.twitter.com/T8X1Ng912y
— Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) November 8, 2018
CNN's Jim Acosta told CNN's Anderson Cooper that he *never* touched the female White House aide that tried to take the mic away from him.
CNN showed the clip but edited out the part where he clearly touched her.
Cooper offered no pushback on Acosta's blatant lie. pic.twitter.com/65rP9xWWyI
— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) November 8, 2018
That brings up to the New York Times.
NYT White House reporter Julie Davis decided to try and bring the Constitution into this, but apparently doesn’t understand a thing about it or what she wrote.
@Acosta‘s behavior here, like it or not, does not disqualify him from the First Amendment-protected freedom to ask questions. Otherwise, how are we different from a place that has no freedom of the press at all?” Davis wrote.
Disturbing thread. @Acosta's behavior here, like it or not, does not disqualify him from the First Amendment-protected freedom to ask questions. Otherwise, how are we different from a place that has no freedom of the press at all? https://t.co/bXLJjMnaZ6
— Julie Davis (@juliehdavis) November 8, 2018
Julie? Acosta is still reporting. He’s just reporting lies and deception, as shown above. He actually doesn’t have a right to do that. Nor does he have a right to be in the White House Press room when the president is speaking any more than I do. That is a privilege, not a right. After all, you have to apply for that.
His behavior, however, does disqualify him from having a White House press pass. That’s where you missed it.
By the way, during his campaign, Trump pulled reporters’ press access, including those from The New York Times, Washington Post, BuzzFeed and POLITICO.
There is no right of the press to speak to a candidate or the president in the White House. They do have the right to report the truth though, and Acosta still has that right. He just isn’t using it. He’s a tool of the corporate-controlled media.
Commentator Daniel Greenfield has a great response to Ms. Davis. He wrote:
Yes, how we are different than North Korea?
If Jim Acosta loses his hard pass, we might as well be Turkey and lock up hundreds of journalists. It’s exactly the same thing.
The First Amendment is a protection, not an entitlement. It’s been misinterpreted that way leading to bizarre results. But it is certainly not a blank check for disruptive behavior and for touching a female intern.
There is no First Amendment right to disrupt press conferences or fight over a microphone with a female intern.
It’s not there.
The media thinks that any limit on the outer limits of its obnoxiousness makes us no different than Communist China. Meanwhile, it defends actual totalitarian states.
That’s exactly right. Useful idiots like Ms. Davis should probably spend more time actually knowing what the First Amendment protects and why it was written and less time engaging in the propaganda of a globalist paper.