The title is a bold statement for someone who takes his Constitution as seriously as I do.
Freedom of the press, at the moment, means giving various media entities the freedom to interpret that Constitution, a role which the Founders never imagined, which is why those brilliant men gave that role to the Supreme Court.
The Founders clearly imagined that the role of a free press was ONLY to present facts so as to allow the people to make up their mind on the issues of the day. If advocacy was to be expressed, the Founders meant it to be reporting on the advocacy of the community, not the advocacy of or for the political process itself.
That is what a free press was SUPPOSED to be.
What the press does now (both sides of it, although the Left is more egregious in it's abuse), is nothing less than full-on advocacy for political policy, and it's been that way since World War Two. When FDR gave his famous "Four Freedoms" speech on 1-6-1943, he outlined the controversial, but then-limited belief of what freedom meant here and why it was important to fight for it in other lands. Now, it must be understood that Roosevelt was what we might now call a "one world" advocate, and he believed that Government was responsible for securing these four Freedoms:
As America entered the war these "four freedoms" - the freedom of speech, the freedom of worship, the freedom from want, and the freedom from fear - symbolized America's war aims and gave hope in the following years to a war-wearied people because they knew they were fighting for freedom. (ibid)
It was also obvious that FDR was not referring specifically to the US Constitution, but to the "natural freedoms" that the Founders sought to encode within the Constitution. The first two of FDR's Four Freedoms are actually addressed in the Constitution, the last two are not. Press Freedom in FDR's day was actual freedom. To be sure, some newspapers of the day were delighted to push FDR's liberal political agenda, but for every paper which pushed it, there were two who opposed it effectively. Such variety of political flavor simply doesn't exist in the media anymore. With one, only one exception, Fox News, the entire mass media of the USA is nothing more or less than the propaganda arm of the current White House.
When bringing the news becomes exclusively the bringing of the viewpoint of politicians, then the press has lost it's moral right to be free.
Our Nation will soon undergo a complete metamorphosis. It's not clear what it will actually become, or what will be left of the Founders' dream of "natural rights", but this much is certain: Freedom of the Press will not have the guarantee it enjoyed, but then abused and destroyed, in the next iteration of the USA. If the Left wins the coming epic struggle, it will insure that it's fawning acolytes remain in their current destructive role, not the former free-press role. If the Right wins the struggle, it's unlikely that the media will again be entrusted with the power to degrade the Natural Freedoms as they now do.
In either case, a Free Press has no future here. We owe the media no allegiance whatsoever at this point.
They have lost their Constitutionalright to be free.
Craps, you lose, Jesse. A&E rolled the bones and crapped out earlier.
Editor's note: Jesse got two people cornfused. It was Megan Kelly who opined that Santa was a Caucasian. "Duck Commander" Phil Robertson, a Christian evangelist, lay preacher and Sunday School teacher, referred to the Bible's position that homosexuality is a sin in his Gentleman's Quarterly interview. Megan Kelly might have raised a race issue, Robertson did not. GQ, of course, is concerned entirely with sexual identity conflicts in men's clothing, nothing more. Seems to me that Duck Dynasty-brand clothing is unlikely to be worn by GQ's metrosexual readers, whose idea of outdoors is sipping a latte at a sidewalk cafe, not hunting ducks in the Louisiana bayou.
Jackson's clumsy attempt to inject racial discord where none existed before seems to this observer as a desperate attempt to have "another fifteen minutes of fame".
The loud "THUD" you heard is Jesse Jackson's head hitting the deck after his latest swan dive, but don't worry, Jesse didn't hurt that head. Solid bone there; his brain, if any, is in his ass.
Finally, yours truly found a use for the extra pounds which have accumulated on the front porch.
I have some nice hogwashers, both Carhartts and some Keys (but they're more comfortable than Carhartts).
Hogwashers were not made for concealed carry, unless you want to carry the smallest of mouseguns which fit in the not-too-generous pockets, and even then, you have to use a pocket holster or your gun will "print" (be visible in outline from the outside of the pocket. Hogwashers also lack a waistband with which to hold an IWB holster. No one wears a belt with hogwashers, unless it's a tool belt. That leaves just one option: carry a belt-pack of some sort, and those are a dead giveaway that you're packing heat.
But wait! Your fearless experimenter seems to have stumbled upon another way to carry with hogwashers: Under-hogwasher carry.
Here's how you do it:
First, you need to wear a decent weight shirt or undershirt over your skivvies. Next, you use a minimal belt and belt holster for your weapon, and a minimal magazine holder for the extra maggy if you carry one. You strap it on over the top of the tee-shirt (the photo shows a Hanes Beefy-T). It looks like this:
The gun is a Walther PP in .380, the holster is a 40-year old Bianchi sized just for the gun, and the mag pouch is an old Leatherman multi-tool case. The belt is about 50 years old and shows it. As the rig sits on my nearly-non-existant hips, the gun and holster lies right in the front body joint between my leg and torso. It's almost unnoticeable standing, it's fine sitting (tested for almost two hours), it's fine walking, and I drove about 45 minutes in town in my manual-shift truck and that presented no problems, either. No, I don't wear the towel with the set-up. Modesty is my middle name.
With the hogwashers on, I look like this doing Hogwasher Carry:
No Printing at all!
Here is a shot of access, which couldn't be easier. Hogwashers have snaps or buttons on the side, and unbuttoning the top of the two buttons give me instant access.
Flip the thumb-break on the Bianchi and pull the PP, which is in Condition One with the safety "on", as you can see in this separate view:
Ummm, I lied, you can't see the safety from that side. Take my word for it, it's "on". This holster was altered from a right OWB to a Left OWB, so I use it on the right UNDER the belt, which keeps it snug in the natural crease in my body. The business end doesn't quite tickle my junk, so it's not true "mexican" carry.
Hogwasher carry. It's how men do it in their most comfortable outdoor clothing.
BTW, I attended my usual retired-cop coffee klatch this ayem, and none of the old street bulls or detectives there could detect this set-up with eyes alone. There was probably 200 years of copping experience sitting at that table, too.
Note that the Walther PP is a compact pistol, a tad bigger than the "slim" Nines of today. I will cast about for a suitable skinny holster for a Glock Model 19 and see how this works with a bulkier pistol.
We on the Right like to use Eric Holder's failed Fast & Furious operation to beat him and his boss up with. Okay, but a dangerous splinter hangs off that cudgel.
The NRA correctly tells us that "guns don't kill people, people kill people". That is the ULTIMATE truth in the gun control "debate", isn't it? I think so.
We need to stop saying that "Eric Holder's gun killed Brian Terry". That statement just doesn't fit. If we want to keep on thumping Holder for Gunwalker, that's fine, there's plenty of fail in his op to thump him with. Personally, I'd bet serious money that the Justice Department DOES know exactly who killed Brian Terry, so why hasn't the USDOJ issued a warrant yet?
Bottom line: Holder, for all his faults, did not Kill Terry, so stow that sentiment please.
Okay, any of you who have trouble with keeping promises, leave now. Ditto anyone who believes that pensions are ANYTHING but deferred compensation. Ditto anyone who thinks that pensions and pensioners are one sided, for those folks forget that those pensioners ALLOWED their employers to USE employees' money for at least a quarter-century in most cases, money that those employers either invested to their profit or spent on improvements.
Now, with all of the prejudiced people gone (or driven underground to lurk!), let me address all of those who had the discipline to stick to a job long enough to get vested in a defined-benefit pension, and lived long enough to start collecting it.
An audience of maybe enough to fill a bridge table in the old-folks' home?
I'll relate my case, because I'm a pensioner. My case is NOT typical, because I held down two careers, both offering defined-benefit pensions, and I completed both careers, so I am what is derisively known to many as a "double-dipper". Make that triple dipper, because I have lived and paid into Sociable Seguridad long enough to collect THAT as well.
(waits for the audible level of derision, apoplexy and just plain retching to subside)
First, let's look at my military pension: I am a retired USAF Reserve Major, and my pension is about $25K/year. While on Active Duty in the USAF, I fought in a foreign war, getting shot at in the unfriendly skies of Vietnam in I-Corps, the DMZ and on 20 occasions, over North Vietnam. I flew as a crew member in the ancient but honorable B-52D and later, the B-52H. Long days, physical danger, some hardship, but I stayed with my Reserve career and retired from it in 1995 with 22 years served, thereby earning a pension which I had to wait until 2003 to begin collecting.
Then there is my Public Service pension. Yes, I am one of those oft-reviled Oregon Public Employee Retirement System "hogs at the trough". We OPERS people seem to have targets on our backs, or so it would seem by the way our right to our defined-benefit pensions keeps getting eroded to pay for OTHER "hogs at the trough", namely the HUGE load that illegal aliens and their offspring put on our State, particularly our school systems (roughly 20% of the entire K-12 budget is provided for schooling the children of illegal immigrants who are not even legal to be in the country).
Following the rules set down as State Law in my employment as a Patrol Deputy Sheriff for 25 years, I earned and paid into the OPERS system enough to retire with around $50K/year in OPERS pension. My pension's base level is 50%, but pension accrues on overtime pay, and I worked a lot of overtime (12,500 hours or so over my career), so I retired with 89% of my base salary, also equal to 67% of my Final Average Salary.
With Sociable Seguridad, according to my final annual statement, I had worked 47 years of full-time credit, but I didn't get the maximum because I elected to take my payments at age 62 instead of waiting until 65. SSA gives me about $18.7K/year, so I total $93.7 in deferred compensation per annum.
That's me. The gudwife had to retire medically 20 years ago, and her SSA is far less than mine, but taking it all together, we're comfortable enough, WHICH IS WHAT I INTENDED TO HAPPEN ALL ALONG!
Yes, Sweetpea, I did my retirement planning back when I was still in my teens, pushed in that direction by my wise father and mother, didn't YOU? Oh, I'm sorry you didn't, here, let me educate you with one simple parable. It is known as the Fable of the Grasshopper and the Ant.
Into the present.
Nowadays, defined-benefit pensions are rare, most "pensions" amount to nothing more than savings accounts which your employer may or may not contribute to, but 55 years ago, when I started working, defined-benefit pensions were the rule, and anything past casual day labor earned a pension. My reading tells me that in the Nation's struggle to pull out of the bad recession of the late 70's (the Carter Recession or "stag-flation" or whatever you want to call it), most companies started to cut down on pension contributions. Those companies with strong Unions and the States with their strong public-employee unions were the last employers to begin to chop up their defined-benefit pension systems. This was done in most cases by phasing new employees onto the new, more thrifty systems, and who can argue with that? Perfectly legal, and even moral, that.
Where it gets dicey is when employers start to cut back payments to those already retired and on payments from the older defined-benefit systems. This brings on the legal issue of "what does that contract really say", and that will all have to be decided by the courts, which of course, are led by judges with lots of conflicting interests (Oregon Appellate Judges are in OPERS, just as I am). Just recently, military retirees were told that their COLA payments ("inflation-proofing"*) were being cut by 1%, or over half. We OPERS retirees also had our COLA payments cut this year.
Oh well, the Judges will sort it all out. We're a Nation of Laws, right?
The thing that gravels my butt and motivated me to spend a couple of hours writing this morning was the moral issue here. What does it mean when our leaders can't keep their promises?
What it means is that if they can't keep their promises to pensioners, they will not keep them to their Nation insofar as the Constitution requires them to in other cases. The same mindset that trashes the pensioners trashes the entire Constitution, and then what do we have?
None dare call it Liberty anymore.
Note: In Part Two, we will look at the only thing that will save the present older generation, which the Dear Leaders and the youth seem hell-bent on tossing into the dustbin. That thing is civic activism, and it can be brought into action in time to affect next year's elections, and those of 2016 as well.
* today's COLA does little in the way of "inflation-proofing". The actual rate of inflation, with all goods and services included, is between 5% & 9%, depending on how honest the economist is. The present method of calculating inflation, disregarding the "volatile" elements of the economy as it does, is simply lying with statistics, nothing more.
I've been blogging here for close to ten years. One of my major quests on this blog has been to show the readers what Socialism is, what it does, and how it got that way. I think I've just found the best, most concise explanation of Socialism ever. I didn't write it, and it needs editing, but it IS readable, so I will present it here after only changing the font to better suit my blog (it was originally Verdanna Bold 14-pt).
"p32 Most of us believe socialism is what the socialists want us to believe it is-a share-the-wealth program. That is the theory. But is that how it works? Let us examine the only Socialist countries-according to the Socialist definition of the word-extant in the world today. These are the Communist countries. The Communists themselves refer to these as Socialist countries, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here in the reality of socialism you have a tiny oligarchial clique at the top, usually numbering no more than three percent of the total population, controlling the total wealth, total production and the very lives of the other ninety-seven percent cent...
If one understands that socialism is not a share-the-wealth program, but is in reality a method to consolidate and control the wealth, then the seeming paradox of superrich men promoting socialism becomes no paradox at all. Instead it becomes the logical, even the perfect tool of power-seeking megalomaniacs. Communism, or more accurately, socialism, is not a movement of the downtrodden masses, but of the economic elite.
p35 If you wanted to control the nation's manufacturing, commerce, finance, transportation and natural resources, you would need only to control the apex, the power pinnacle, of an all-powerful socialist government. Then you would have a monopoly and could squeeze out all your competitors. If you wanted a national monopoly, you must control a national socialist government. If you want - a worldwide monopoly, you must control a world socialist government. That is what the game is all about. "Communism" is not a movement of the downtrodden masses but is a movement created, manipulated and used by power-seeking billionaires in order to gain control over the world . . . first by establishing socialist governments in the various nations and then consolidating them all through a "Great Merger," into an all-powerful world, socialist super-state ..."
Note that his example is best considered in the light of history, and in the light of the two most recent failed Socialist attempts, the USSR and Nazi Germany I hope by now that you all understand that Hitler led a socialist state, not a right-wing fascist state as the Left would alter history and have you believe.
Now put it together. What did both of those States do to get started and how did they wind up failing?
Both States took over from weak governments. The USSR was formed out of the failed Czarist monarchy, and Hitler sprang up from the Weimar Republic which failed due to losing WW1, having to pay reparations, and the world's Great Depression. In both cases, the putative dictators paid lip service to the downtrodden masses, with Hitler doing the better job of that. Hitler, between his release from imprisonment and seizing of absolute power, was the perfect "community organizer", setting up soup kitchens to feed the starving masses, putting clothes on the masses' backs (uniforms, but the ensembles kept them warm and gave them the required sense of identity), and controlling the worst of the street terror (anarcho-bolshevism) which had arisen with the decline of the Weimar Republic.
Then Hitler and his counterparts in the USSR disarmed their citizens. This disarmament was actually the most important step, because it precluded the citizens from changing their minds later and tossing out the Socialists.
Skipping over the obvious mechanisms of failure, in both cases, the USA, we find that the US Military ended Hitler's dreams, and the US Dollar ended the Soviets' dreams.
If you are a Socialist trying to conquer US individualism and turn the nation into the next "great" Socialist empire, how do you proceed?
You proceed as in above:
Disarm the citizens.
Control the press.
Throw free shit at those whom you've convinced that earning their way in life is not required.
Constrict commerce to only those avenues of trade that the Government can control.
Do it all in the name of the downtrodden masses.
There it is, in a nutshell.
What is the one thing that is currently stopping the wannabe Socialists?
Our guns. In our safes. The Socialist Dream simply cannot proceed while we have the guns.
The latest school shooter, in Arapahoe High School in Colorado, killed himself, but left behind his legacy, a Facebook Page filled with admiration of the left's agenda, according to the Arapahoe County Sheriff.
Let's add it up, shall we?
Lefty high school student, had recently suffered a personal reverse (failed to place well in a debating group).
School without adequate security to prevent an assailant from entering with a less-than-concealable long arm.
School with inadequate armed security (if any, some reports say there was one resource officer, some don't say that). It WAS a gun-free zone.
Nope, didn't fit the agenda. Put away the blood-dancing shoes. Freeze the gun-control commentaries in the press. Too much danger of the shooter being properly identified as lefty-looney, therby killing off the Marxist "necessity" for a gun-control push.
The gun-controllers are losing because their case is shallow, over-hyped AND it fails strict scrutiny of the Constitution.
Observe this process. It is carefully calculated to attack the Bill of Rights.
There was a mall shooting a year ago in Oregon. A crazy guy went into a mall full of Christmas shoppers and opened fire with a stolen rifle, killing two, but when a Concealed Carry person drew on and aimed at him, he ran off to a remote part of the mall and killed himself.
The simple fact of history from the Clackamas Mall shooting was that the Second Amendment didn't start the shooting, it ENDED it.
That simple explanation doesn't fit the agenda of the Left, who want to eliminate the Second Amendment, so, in a carefully-laid plan to "memorialize the victims", they have deliberately left out mention of Nick Meli, the armed citizen who stopped the shooter's rampage without firing a shot.
The Left is AGAIN revising history to suit their agenda. I am AGAIN bringing out the HISTORY book to remind folks of the truth of the incident.
Exhibit A: in today's Oregonian:
The "commentary" mentioned there is from a MAIG supporter, and does not mention the armed citizen. The link goes to a list of articles, none of which promenently mention the armed citizen. There ARE, however, plenty of mentions of gun control ideas with which to weaken the Second Amendment.
This blog does not believe in defensive warfare. Never has, never will. I offer the following solution:
Since the "free press" is not free, but is totally enrolled as a major political tool of the Left, it has ceased to deserve the protection of the First Amendment. In the State of Oregon, all political organizations which seek to press the Government for a political end must Register as Lobbyists.
It's time the press was Registered as lobbyists, and it's time that they are forced to follow the strict rules that all political lobbyists have to follow.