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.



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

Month: September 2019 (page 1 of 2)

Today’s Rant for 09-24-19: “No West, Young Man?”

Today I posit a simple question in response to a tweet @DruckerPhilip I sent regarding the EPA’s decision to revoke California’s right to set its own automobile emissions standards.


“Pacifica Now!” The words referring to the nascent but growing idea of California, Washington and Oregon forming their own independent Pacific Coast nation, Pacifica.


Throw in the western side of British Columbia, and you have Cascadia.


“Good. When are you going?” was the basic response.

I started to wonder. When are we going to go? Then I saw this.


California made a deal with 1/3rd of the auto industry to abide by California emissions standards. Isn’t that what sovereigns do? Make deals with “foreign” manufacturers? Then I smiled. It has begun. Now my question has morphed to when is a secession not a secession, but a fait accompli? Since that time,13 more states have pledged to follow California’s lead. Who’s wagging the dog now, tail?

The US Constitution is eerily silent on the issue of State secession. Most likely because if several of the states (mostly southern) were not led to believe they could leave at will, they would not have ratified the Constitution, and left.

Right about now you are probably about to ask, what about that Civil War? How did Lincoln do it? He pulled a fast one. Lincoln relied on the Preamble for the basis of his supposed constitutional power in defiance of State secession. He relied on “a more perfect Union.” Lincoln posited he, as part of his presidential power and authority was therefore constitutionally tasked with perfecting, or at least preserving the Union, with whatever means he felt necessary. Including war.

Considering the US Civil War ended in 1865, it is a bit odd that it wasn’t until 1869 that our Supreme Court finally put in their by then, unnecessary two-cents worth. In Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, the Court indicated a sort of no-fault, mutuality of agreement between the State and Federal government before parting ways. Without further guidance, it would appear irreconcilable differences as a reason will do.

Adding a bit more fuel to the Molotov cocktail, or in California’s case, probably a flammable Pina Colada in a reusable container, the Eureka State is a referendum state, meaning it can have a vote for secession put directly on the ballot by voter’s initiative. That would leave, probably Congress to add their mutual consent whether to keep the world’s 5th largest economy and largest state contributor to the federal tax coffers.

But as I suggested earlier, there is more than one way to secede a cat. The Federal government has three branches. No more will the land of milk and honey fear or follow the dictates of the Executive branch. The orange skinned oaf has met his match. Next, could it be possible California refuses to honor a ruling from the Supreme Court? Perhaps refusing to trade with any state not willing to offer its women at least their natural, common law rights to an abortion prior to the quickening? That would leave only the laws of Congress left to disavow, discard and replace. Done. Without a single shot fired. Brexit is foolish. This is not. Pacifica Now!

Do you want to know more?
www.druckerreport.com(Weathervane Blog)

Today’s Rant for 09-17-19: “Insight to Riot.”

In recognition of the 50th anniversary of the beginning of the Chicago Eight (later Seven) Conspiracy trial, today’s topic for discussion, dissection and dissemination is “An Act for Preventing Tumults and Riotous Assemblies, and for the more speedy and effectual Punishing the Rioters” aka The Riot Act.

In 1714, The Riot Act was signed, sealed and delivered by Parliament in response to a series of “many rebellious riots and tumults” following the Death of the Queen Anne, the last of the House of Stewart and the subsequent coronation of King George I who hailed from the House of Hanover. In Germany. He was German. Apparently, a big problem in 18th Century England. He who was of the Whig Party and not the Tories. Another big problem. Modernly, insert Labor for Whig Party and you get at least some of the political rivalry and narrative thereunder. Of course, without the Tower of London, the hangings and beheadings (for the most part) although Brexit is pretty funny to watch.

Once read out loud, the Riot Act allowed the representatives of the Crown to disperse and arrest any crowd over the size of 12 or more persons who did not vacate the premises within one hour under penalty of death. The proclamation read as follows:

“Our sovereign lord the King chargeth and commandeth all persons, being assembled, immediately to disperse themselves, and peaceably to depart to their habitations, or to their lawful business, upon the pains contained in the act made in the first year of King George, for preventing tumults and riotous assemblies. God save the King.”

The first version of the Riot Act in the United States of America (this excludes colonial adaptations) was passed by Massachusetts in 1786 in response to Shays’ Rebellion. The rebellion was a rural, populist response by farmers to increased taxation and predatory debt collection practices initiated by big city Boston politicians, bankers and lenders. At the federal level, George Washington signed into law the Militia Act of 1792 with the subtitle of “An act to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” Funny how it didn’t take long for supposed free speech loving Americans to enact laws against inciting riots. Congress shall make no law…

But in all fairness, inciting acts of violence and legitimate public discourse in opposition to the political status quo are two different horses of the same general color. Under current case law, I think it fair to say your First Amendment right to free speech does not include the right to incite imminent, lawless action virtually to cause damage to property and personal injury. Brandenberg v. Ohio 395 U.S. 444 (1969)

At the time of the trial for the Chicago, or Conspiracy Eight (then Seven), prohibitions against inciting riots were codified in federal law under 18 U.S. Code § 2101 – Riots, as part of the Civil Rights Act of 1968.

Under this Act, conspiracies amongst individuals crossing state lines for the purposes of inciting a riot were against the law. Of course, the government must prove the defendant crossed state lines with the premeditated intent to cause chaos, disruption and violence, you know, a riot. Usually, it is quite difficult to prove what someone was thinking at any given moment in time and citing the lack of email or tweet evidence although modernly you’d be surprised what some people nowadays put in electronic print, in social media, Facebook and Twitter and absent a hand-written “confession” letter (no word processors, neither) or even a wire-tapped phone conversation, predictably, the Chicago Seven trial went rather badly for the thought police. This despite everyone in the courtroom getting a free concert performance from Arlo Guthrie. But that’s another story along with additional info you may wish to read about in the Throwback Thursday section of the FREEP.

But for now, this is Tirade Tuesday and, accordingly, I’ll end with an admonition. For those of you who have never been “Read the Riot Act” you can now safely check that off your bucket list, figuratively and literally.

Oil Men Kill Smog Bill Even as Repressed Women Rise Up. What Happens Next?

The answer is here. But first… a word from our Editor:
“Hello, dear friends.
Today marks the first day of a radical change to our 50-Year Throwback Thursday feature. As you know, for years now, each week, from the LA Free Press Archive we’ve pulled our Issue from 50 years back and compared its articles to the contemporary news – and the parallels have been amazing!
And, of course, you also know it wasn’t that we were just trying to amaze you. We were also trying to forewarn you: What was, is also what is, though the names may have changed.
Here are but two examples… The Ecology Movement, which morphed into Climate Change, and Women’s Lib as a forerunning title of the Feminist Movement.
Our point, all along, has been that the Movements remained because the injustices persisted. And our hope was, in recognizing that, those that read the Free Press would ensure that the Tipping Point would not be reached, the bounds of good governance and a equitable society and, surely, of survival, would not be breached.
But, dang, we’re awfully close, aren’t we? Just in these two… Climate Change is at the mark of Climate Crises, and the Feminist Movement’s component, Metoo#, is more obvious every day. The simple truth is that on its grand go-around in the 60’s, the counterculture didn’t win. And this time around, it can’t afford to lose.

Hence, we’ve arrived to the reason for the format change: At this point in the 60’s – far past 1967’s springboard into The Summer of Love where Hippie Ideals flourished, and heading quickly into the Chicago 8 Conspiracy Trial – it begins about two weeks from now (in 1969 time) – wherein some of those Ideals seemed to be convicted, we’ll then move into and through the Nixonian Government, a challenge to higher ideals if ever there was one. Kinda like now, if you see where this is going… but, if not, let me put it this way – it’s not just that there will be a lot of news, it’s that a lot of that news will be about causes like ours being set against by forces like theirs. (Again – kinda like now.).

Simply put, there are, from this point forward, too many articles and, particularly, too many that deserve to be put under a magnifying glass, to squeeze them all into a single Thursday.  To be extra clear, if we’re to win this time around – when the stakes seem infinitely greater (we’re carbon’d upto our limit), as so, too, seem our opportunities (to avoid war(s) vs trying to stop those in motion) – we need to look at these articles closely to see what was, and what was needed to come out ahead.

Therefore, the new format will accommodate that.  As in this first ‘edition, rather than including 4 or 5 articles as we usually do, we are only discussing 2. Taking a closer look, because the format can now support that. And, as it’s true that this and each successive Issue has so many articles in it, this new format does not just consist of a Thursday, it draws out and discusses articles on the following Wednesday, as well. Together, will see how this works.

For the moment, though, let’s just consider these two articles… which as you might have suspected are in accordance with the examples given above.  And for good reason. Please, if you wish, take them both for a read, and return tomorrow if your curious if our thoughts about them – published then – agree with yours.

Yes, Oil Men Kill Smog Bill is the ‘Screamer’ Headline but the one that is right on the money is the article headline itself – Lobbyists Suffocate Bill to End Pollution.  Here the article continues…

And (tomorrow) our thinking is this….



Our second article is this one. As it mentions, it concludes an earlier published interview (which can be found in our 50 Year Throwback of this year’s August 29th Throwback). Even taken together they are a concise statement of (yes, our thoughts on this one will also be here for you upon your return 🙂 )

Today’s Rant for 09-10-19: “Why not now?” – Kimberly Teehee (2019) Well, for Starters…

On December 29, 1835, the Treaty of New Echota (TNE), the Echota is the capital city of the Cherokee Nation, new and old, was agreed to by the United States government as a “minority party” that at least superficially passed muster (at least with the US) as a valid, binding representative of the Cherokee Nation.

https://americanindian.si.edu › static › nationtonation › pdf

On September 4, 2019 Kimberly Teehee, Native American activist, advocate and member of the Cherokee Nation became the Nation’s first official US Congress delegate fulfilling one of the promises of the TNE yet previously left vacant for nearly 200 years. Delegate Teehee will not have an actual vote. Her principal roles will be as an observer and adviser. Of course, appointing a Native American to Congress was not the main purpose of the TNE. It was, as it turns out, to facilitate the forcible removal of the Cherokee tribe from their native lands in what was, in 1835, the relatively new state of Georgia, to an area far west, to the territory that would one day be known as Oklahoma.

You see, gold was discovered in Georgia. (Yes, long before the California Gold Rush was.  I guess it was the ‘not quite so great Georgia Gold Rush’.) This prompted the good citizens of the USA to demand the enforcement of their “state’s rights” as the basis of removing that which stood between them and the promise of El Dorado. Namely, the Cherokee Nation.

When the idea of relocation was first brought to the attention of our then Sixth President, John Quincy Adams, a supporter of native rights, he was initially reluctant to move forward. However, subsequent threats of doom, death and destruction moved Adams to begin negotiations with the Tribal Leaders, Cherokee Chief John Ross, to be precise. Not unexpectedly, Ross was cool to the idea.

All of this changed when, in 1829, Andrew Jackson became our seventh President. Jackson, a noted racist and overall psychopath (meaning he did his own killing, often in broad daylight), would have none of these meandering negotiations. So, without Ross, and with a minority group called the “Treaty Party” (you can’t make this stuff up) headed by a minor tribal figure by the name of Major Ridge, who not surprisingly claimed to speak for far more than the actual fraction of the Cherokee Nation his party, in fact, represented. In 1830 Jackson signed the Indian Removal Act into law conveniently allowing him to relocate the Cherokee west, by force, if necessary.


Eventually, the TNE was worked out between the Federal Government and the sort of but not really Cherokee Nation for their ancestral land that somehow the settlers of Georgia now claimed all rights into, of and about and therefore, non-inclusive, of course. In return of $5 million in compensation, the Cherokee agreed to move west of the Mississippi ceding their previously owned land within the Georgia borders. They were given a two-year grace period to move voluntarily. Only approximately 2,000 Cherokee left. When time ran out, the roughly 16,000 Cherokee remaining were forced off their land by 7,000 troops. The Cherokee were not allowed to take any of their belongings. Many did not have shoes. Most did not have but minimal clothing.

The forced 1000-mile relocation (please note that the power of relocating the population now resides within the emergency powers of FEMA) would begin in 1838 and would continue through the winter. The US government knew this. They went through with it anyway. In the end, the Trail of Tears took the lives of 4,000 people most of whom died of cold, hunger and disease. Some still call it a relocation program. Still others, a carefully planned and executed act of genocide. About time they got that Congressional representation without a vote, don’t you think?

To see what the Cherokee Nation thinks, please visit the Museum of the Cherokee Indian @





Older posts
Archive of Posts