Welcome to the Los Angeles Free Press!
The Original, 1960s, Counter-Culture Icon, and
still the Best Alternative to the Corporate-Controlled Media.

The LA FreeP~ A Real Head Trip for Smart Minds.

>>ARCHIVE SERVICES<<

For original 1960's and 70's Music Adverts,
News, Interviews, Reviews, and Articles:

stevenmfinger@gmail.com

USE Subject Line: ARCHIVE Request for [this]

ART KUNKIN, FOUNDER

STEVEN M. FINGER, PUBLISHER

To contribute articles and suggestions, apply for an internship, or create an alliance contact: stevenmfinger@gmail.com

Month: August 2019 (page 1 of 2)

Top Secret Warfare Plan – USA Defense vs Soviet Bloc Aggression


This is the 1st publication of a page of the Plan by a newspaper (to wit, the LA Free Press) in these United States. It’s a scoop, as they say in this business, over those other papers you may have heard of – the NYT, the LAT, the WashPo and the others that somehow seem tied into corporate interests and whose readers seldom look down into the underground (us, again) for their daily briefing.
However, with due transparency, please take note that we’re not claiming any deep dive into the worldwide secret spydom to say that we are the paper that brought this into the light. No… that was done by (not, just one, but) several European newspapers, even “Der Stern”, a West German magazine.
I’ll also tell that this wasn’t a new report, the article says it was at least 6 years old, so you may wonder why we made it a Front Page story back then in 1969. More to the point, why am I making it a Front Page story again… 50 years later?
Well, actually, the reasoning back then is very much the same as the reasoning now: Aren’t we (once again) talking about an opposing government that’s developing nuclear bombs and intercontinental missiles? (In fact, at this point, we’re facing nuclear missiles!)
So, in our usual manner of bringing together the LAFP of the day (in 1969) with the news of today… The hesitancy then, even in showing the public an antiquated plan, was as foolish as hardly saying a word now that there’s any plan at all.
There had best be one, right? Especially as the Treaty that was going to keep things from flying our way… just like that original article… is history!

I’ll leave you with that thought and move on as there are 4 other items in this Issue that also deserve reviews in light of the contemporary news- 3 articles, and 1 very interesting advert. In one way or another, they all are remarkably prescient.

Here’s the first one –
It’s about doctors that are either self-abusing narcotics or enabling others to abuse them. I know you’ll recognize the similarity to our present situation.  Had this old story been in mind as the opioid Wave of Death began, perhaps there would have been a review of doctors’ prescription practices and we would not have reached the point where there are now more than 100 deaths each and every day from drug habits that in many, many cases were begun by an over prescribing practitioner.

Fortunately, tho just yesterday, a decision was handed down by a Court… not against the doctors who dug the graves in this graveyard, but against those who brought the graveyard, itself, to life – the drug companies.

Once again, because the LA Free Press was publishing what corporations didn’t want to see in print, there was a head’s up about what might be coming down the road. Would the mainstream press rather forfeit its ad space than turn away a fellow corporation?  Apparently not as it’s a successful formula: today it’s addictive drugs, tomorrow it’s re-hab services… and so on.

Here’s the second one on this list of articles: In January of ‘this’ year (1969) – yes, I know, the article says ’68 but, hey, I wasn’t the Editor back then – all hell broke loose at Valley State College. Why? Seemingly, it’s was precipitated by a program which integrated the all-white student body with a couple of hundred black and brown bodies. When they held a peaceful assembly, the administration declared it an unlawful assembly, and almost the entire group was arrested!
[Ed.’s Note: As I’ve mentioned before, I’ve some personal experience in matters of this kind having once been arrested for unlawful assembly in California myself. That said, here are some things generally unknown:
1. What the 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States actually says is “that congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble”.
2. That most people, even our Reporter, believe the adjective describing such an ‘assembly’ is ‘peaceful’ rather than ‘peaceably’ and, hence used the former rather than the latter. (“peaceful” can be applied to a person or an object “at peace”, whereas “peaceable” can only be applied to a person, and means “Inclined to keep the peace”.)
3. – and this is an important distinction – The California Constitution does not provide such a Right but, conversely, in its Criminal Code, Statute 407 defines an “unlawful assembly” as two (yes, just 2) or more people assembled together “to do an unlawful act, or do a lawful act in a violent, boisterous, or tumultuous manner.”
So… back to those ‘unlawfully assembled’ students… Though made clear to the Court that they, themselves, were not violent – only the arresting Officers were violent – it was not until several years later, when other cases were defended, did a court rule that the assembly must, in fact, “be violent or pose an immediate threat of violence”. In other words, an assembly that was only “boisterous or tumultuous” would, more rightfully, not be regarded as a violation of the statute.
So, at this early date, in this instance, upon the arrest of just the second person – per the Statute – eventually 286 students were arrested, convicted, and penalties meted out.
Let me clear about this, other than the students, damn few folks were shouting about this being a 1st Amendment violation. In fact, in spite of the 1st Amendment’s declaration that ‘Congress shall make no law abridging the Right to assemble”, IT ALREADY HAD… by restricting the promotion of the assembly and the travel to it!
This was done almost immediately after Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination on April 4, 1968 via the passage of  the Civil Rights Act on the 11th of April – in the wake of the riots that had broken out country-wide. Among the many who celebrated this step forward, few voiced concern of the prohibitions within it against inciting additional riots. After all, it seemed as if the battle had been won for this issue… and what other liberal issues were there to be fought for? But, aha, here were these students, short on resources (i.e. money, lawyers… and, maybe, needing to get back into school to go any further, they were short on time, too). And so no real challenge was made, in their trials, to that Section of the Act – which reads as: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2101


Coincidentally, though, these trials were coming to this conclusion almost exactly on the anniversary date of another assembly. But that one was a truly large, truly violent (violence again supplied courtesy of the police) riot – it was at the Democratic Convention in Chicago.

At the upcoming trial for leaders of that protest, this very law will be key. So much so that a ‘campaign’ was begun against it! Here, from the LA FP is one of the campaign’s ads. Then it was just 1 year and 1 day from the actual riot. Now, even though it’s 50 years old (today!!) remarkably, you will instantly recognize it… as the very same law being used at this very point in time. (i.e. by the liberal left against the alt-right in Charlottesville, and by the Trump administration against the liberal-left everywhere.)

Finally, we bring you this last article from this Issue – for 2 good reasons:
1. It is an excellent re-telling of the rise of the Feminist Movement, AND
2. because of the somewhat surprising support its reasoning gets from this current article in Salon
https://www.salon.com/2019/08/30/misogyny-meet-hypocrisy-climate-deniers-go-after-aoc-greta-thunberg-with-sexist-attacks/
(The balance of ‘Don’t Count Chicks Before They Hatch’ is on the ‘A Unique Perspective’ Tab. Go to ‘Topics’, CLICK right arrow til you reach Women’s Rights & Wrongs.)

If you would like any additional Items from our Archive, please let me know through the ‘ARCHIVE Request’ Box at the top right of this page.

On 08-27-19 Today’s Rant is: 25th For The 45th Or Fight!


There has been a great deal of discussion lately regarding the 25th Amendment. In an era where a sitting president in public declared himself to be the “King of the Jews” and the “Second coming of G-d” I can’t say such talk is completely unwarranted or unexpected. Let’s do what we do here, break it down and see if we can make an educated guess as to the purpose of the 25th Amendment and its applicability to our present president and situation.

XXV is a somewhat unique amendment in that it, for the most part, is an amendment added to the Constitution for procedural purposes, clarifying and adding to the rather staid issue of presidential succession as contained in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6 of the Constitution reading in part;

“In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President …”

FULL TEXT: https://www.congress.gov/constitution-annotated/

Seems simple enough, but as we know from discussions here, the Constitution was purposely written in a “vague” manner that not only encourages interpretation but, as a practical matter, demands it. Our latest mission impossible, should we decided to accept it, is to find the Constitutional meaning for the word “Inability”. Let’s break it down.

The Amendment is fairly new. It was written in response to the Kennedy assassination and the status of then VP LBJ as successor to the presidency. The main inquiry was, did LBJ assume the duties and obligations of the presidency, or was he actually president? Vive le Roi! Long live the Roi! With that in mind, moving on. 

The 25th Amendment is written in four sections. Section 1 involves presidential succession and the unresolved status of the vice president in cases involving Death, Resignation or Inability of the president. Short version, the VP doesn’t “assume” the powers and privileges of the presidency, s/he becomes the actual president. Section 2 involves appointing a new VP (the President does it). Section 3 addresses temporary disabilities (perhaps surgery) and written declarations allowing the VP to assume the duties and obligations of the presidency  and Section 4 that offers guidance regarding a situation where the president, for physical or mental reasons, may, or may not be able to continue as an acting president. Section 4 is admittedly a bit more on the gray side than sections 1-3, but the real question and point of contention seems to be what constitutes an “Inability” when by all reasonable standards, the president is at least still alive and conscious or to put it another way, capable of refusing to leave office? Like here. Like now.

There is no real precedent as Section 4 has never been invoked. Thought about, most recently during Reagan’s second term in office, but never acted on. It would also be fair to say there is no past indication that XXV is an alternative to the impeachment process. But, and I believe this is key, for even more than the definition of inability, the decision to remove under the 25th A for physical and mental impairments was left to politicians. And  that was even clarified by our 34th President;

…the “determination of Presidential disability is really a political question.” –Dwight D. Eisenhower

To invoke the 25th Amendment involves two branches of government, the executive and the legislative. Currently, “High Officials” in the form of cabinet members must first vote by majority to invoke. (Or, I might add, to some other body as Congress may delegate.) Then the invocation must be approved by 2/3rds of both chambers of Congress. The Supreme Court being left out on purpose due to the political question doctrine (the Supremes cannot involve themselves in a strictly political battle between the President and Congress).

The chief author and advocate of the 25th Amendment was Senator Birch Bayh, a famous trivia question answer in constitutional circles for being the only person other than the Original Framers responsible for authoring more than one Amendment.  (He also wrote and passed the 26th lowering the voting age from 21 to 18 years of age.) As a passing foot-note he was also an advocate for the ERA Amendment and for an amendment changing the election for president to the popular vote.

In final analysis, I blame Birch for our current constitutional confusion. Why didn’t he leave the determination of physical and mental “Inability” to medical experts? Doctors, psychiatrists and physicians? Those involved in medicine and healing and who might be able to make an actual determination of fitness and hence the word Inability? Politicians judging the physical and mental impairment of another? (suppression of laughter) Good luck with that.

On 08-20-19 Today’s Rant is: Dear George, I Hate to do This by Letter but We’ve Been Growing Apart for a Long Time Now…


One of the questions I am often asked about colonial America involves the motives behind the American colonists’ desire to throw off the yoke of King George and form their own independent country free from the shackles of British rule. The most common answer is the colonists felt they were paying too much in taxes to the British. This is not true. In fact, considering the amount of protection provided by the English army to the colonists their taxes were of reasonable value and amount compared to the average Londoner who paid more in actual revenue to the King’s coffers. So why did the colonists revolt?

The answer is archived in the Library of Congress in a historical document, The Fairfax County Resolves (the ”Resolves”), which strangely, is an almost forgotten piece of American history.

https://www.loc.gov/collections/george-washington-papers/articles-and-essays/fairfax-resolves/

I have never been in a classroom (other than my own) or a seminar that mentioned the document. This is a bit surprising if for no other reason than the Resolves are attributed to the heavyweights George Mason and Washington as being the primary drafters. But I know about it and now so do you. I think you will find it more interesting than you may have first imagined. For purposes of constitutional significance and analysis, the Resolves are broken into 24 separate resolutions with the overall effect being a love letter of colonial grievances sent directly to King George. Enticingly, it starts with a blatant threat of possible future violence against the Crown.

“1. Resolved that this Colony and Dominion of Virginia can not be considered as a conquered Country; and if it was, that the present Inhabitants are the Descendants not of the Conquered, but of the Conquerors.”

https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-10-02-0080

The first point of contention addressed is England’s claim of supreme authority over the American colonies. In their opening salvo, the Georges are reminding the Crown and British Parliament that as Englishmen the Colonists have the same natural rights as any person born of English blood and living on English soil, these rights later identified in the US Constitution. The colonists petitioned for their right of adequate, responsive and just representation as was their rights as freeborn Englishmen.

This was during the time directly after the Boston Tea Party, an interesting act of colonial terrorism for which the Resolves tell us the colonists were willing to pay damages for. But what they weren’t willing to do was be subjected to the Coercive Act (aka the Intolerable Act) – a series of laws adopted for the main purpose of punishing Massachusetts by means of economic coercion. The laws were harsh and the colonists righty surmised they were a bit too much on the tyrannical side to be ignored. It was this type of economic punishment and additional taxation without representation in Parliament that the colonists objected to, as clearly stated in the Resolves.

Next, the Resolves indicates their desire to remain members of the British Commonwealth, but will not suffer the indignities of tyranny and become for all intents and purposes the slaves of their British “masters.” In between hints of embargoes and trade wars, the Resolves identifies and praises the efforts of the colonists as they begin to work together in an ever more coordinated effort to protect their rights and liberties as freemen.

So, what we have here is the ground-work for freedom, autonomy from the Crown, the protection of rights, constitutional and otherwise, a plea for economic security and taxation with representation. Everything that America would someday become.

Lastly, Resolution 17 is quite illuminative as to the Founding Fathers’ or, at least, George Mason and Washington’s position on slavery.

“17. Resolved that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that during our present Difficulties and Distress, no Slaves ought to be imported into any of the British Colonies on this Continent; and we take this Opportunity of declaring our most earnest Wishes to see an entire Stop for ever put to such a wicked cruel and unnatural Trade.”

This was 1774, and although this sentiment does not release the early Americans from liability for their inhuman continuation of slavery until after the Civil War, it does indicate a desire for the ending of the practice as a necessity to what would become the American way of life. It just took a lot longer, and a bloody war to do it. But we did eventually abolish slavery. For after all, we are the sons and the daughters of the conquerors and we do those types of things, don’t we? Yes, we do.

On 08-13-19 TODAY’S RANT is: El Norte Deporte


America is a nation of idioms. Some true, some not so much. My favorite American idiom is “By the sweat of one’s brow.” America is a land where the streets are paved with gold. It is a land of unlimited opportunity and success is gained through one’s own efforts or hard work. “By the sweat of his brow (fill-in the story of wealth and prosperity). Another popular idiom is “America is the melting pot of the world.” This maxim refers correctly (until recently) to the historical process of America’s cultural assimilation and acculturation of mostly Western Europeans during the 20th Century. Ellis Island, Statue of Liberty, very American, and true.

A truism that doesn’t get a lot of play is “America is a nation of second, third and even fourth in line younger brothers and sisters.” This refers to the ancient and still in place European blood-line traditions of inheritance where the oldest son inherits all while the rest of the clan inherit nothing. Working for dad might have been one thing, but working for your brother (the squanderer) until he kicks the bucket, well that’s another. With nothing to lose, why not try your luck in the new world? A land where tradition, blood, family and seniority had little meaning and “By the sweat of one’s brow…” you get the picture.

It may have even been possible that many of these immigrant fortune seekers may also have heard the words of the Declaration of Independence and that America was a land where everyone had the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. They may have even understood the Constitution guaranteed these Rights from undue government interference. That these Rights were inalienable, meaning that every person was entitled to a certain fundamental fairness in their dealings with the government. That each new citizen was entitled to due process of law. Words like proper notice and the Right to be heard.

They may have even understood that America was a nation comprised mostly of Christians, but was not a Christian nation. They may have heard about the First Amendment and it’s guarantees of religious free exercise for all and where there was no official, government endorsed religion.

They may have heard about free speech. The Right to criticize one’s own government without fear of retaliation or retribution. Where there was no royalty to criticize, no titles, no upper crust of society to fear. A land where anyone could attain wealth and status through a combination of unfettered ambition and, you guessed it, “By the sweat of one’s brow.” And to state the obvious, there must have been quite a bit of sweating going on in those days.

They may have heard The Star-Spangled Banner. America, “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” Those going west may have heard “Home on the Range” which paints the American west as where seldom is heard a discouraging word and the skies are not cloudy all day. “Go west young man” probably sounded dang good right about then.

America, the shiny city on the hill. The place where anything was possible for someone without even a dollar in their pocket but the guts to make a long, arduous journey from far away based on nothing but the promise of a better life for oneself and family. By nothing more than the sweat of one’s brow, and far away from the misery which they once called home.

What happened?

Older posts
Archive of Posts