Pres. Chump Signs Freedom Of Press Act, Declines To Talk To Press

Most transparent administration evah!

President Obama welcomed Daniel Pearl’s family to the Oval Office today for the signing of the Freedom of Press Act named in honor of the Wall Street Journal reporter who was killed by terrorists in 2002.

The law requires the State Department to list countries that threaten press freedoms and permit violence against journalists. It “puts us clearly on the side of journalistic freedom,” Obama said.

Which led to reporters present asking questions, and, away we go!!!!!!!!!

“You are free to ask them,” Obama said. “I’m not doing a press conference today.”

Why should today be any different from any other day, eh?

I do have to ask: are those in the press not smart enough to realize that going to countries like, say, Iran and Venezuela, is kinda dangerous? They need a law for this?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

10 Responses to “Pres. Chump Signs Freedom Of Press Act, Declines To Talk To Press”

  1. The Watcher says:

    And I thought Pilate had the best act for self-absolution for deaths. This law is nothing more than an administrative CYA – ‘Look, we warned you, you decided to go anyway, it’s your a**.’

  2. Couldn’t agree more.

    And it is more Nanny Stateism. It’s like Mom saying “don’t play with matches or put your tongue in the socket,” just on a grander scale.

  3. captainfish says:

    what do you want to bet that he actually thinks he is providing freedoms to the press to do their jobs? That is he is actually protecting journalists?

    Does he, and those idiots who voted to pass this bill to him, think that the MSM HQs don’t know which place is dangerous to cover and which are not?

    Why do we need a law in order to create a database of which place is dangerous?

    More liberal mind-freak.

  4. John says:

    Remember the good old days when Bush would just let reporters go and get their heads cut off. Those were fun times.

  5. Otter says:

    I vote to send johnnie up there to the next hot spot, let him do some reporting.

  6. Trish says:

    John, what is wrong with you? Bush did it again? RU kidding me? If your reference is to Daniel Pearl, you are a bigger jerk than I’d previously been giving you credit for. Geez, buy a new instrument, your whiny violin is getting old.

    If Bush HAD enacted THIS particular act, the liberals (with you leading the charge I’m sure) would have gone ballistic. And accused him of crimes against freedom of speech…oh wait, that’s going to be Obama’s next crusade!!! And you liberals will cheerfuly go along with him as the dutiful obots you are.

  7. captainfish says:

    Bush did it? So… former pres bush SENT Daniel Pearl and others to war areas?

    Hmmm.. I thought it was the MSM bosses that did that. And, I thought it was up to the reporter to decide that on their own?

    But, now that Obama has saved the day, he can tell them to NOT go and cover the news. he can tell them to just ignore the “dangerous” people that he won’t name.

  8. Bunny Colvin says:

    Are any of you dopes aware that the State Dept regularly issues travel warnings on its website? (Probably not, as I doubt most of you crackers ever leave Dixie). Well, they do. And this is a similar situation. Only paranoid tea baggers like yourselves could find a reason to whine about this law.

    No, Bush didn’t kill Daniel Pearl. But Pakistani ISI was likely involved. And Bush sure as hell pumped plenty of our tax dollars into Pakistan for “their support in the war on terror”.

  9. You actually are making my point, Bunny. The State Dept. does post travel warnings. So, why the need for this law? Can’t journalists read those warnings? Do they actually need special hand holding? Couldn’t they just add the warnings in to the others, or create a different web page? They actually needed a law to get this done?

  10. Trish says:

    Being journalists, by definition, generally means liberal so they don’t bother with laws, and apparently (ie the new AZ immigration law) don’t bother to read ANYthing.

Pirate's Cove