Freedom of Press?

I'm a reporter for my own blog.  If I went to a shareholders meeting at CNN and refused to yield my microphone so others could speak, they'd boot me out.

That would not be them restricting my 1st amendment rights, that would be them maintaining order.

Also, when has CNN or others with a "Hard Pass" to access the White House ever stood up for little journalists like me to also have access?

Why is there such a thing as a "Hard Pass" in the first place, if not because it restricts the "freedom of press" to those who are of big organizations that already agreed to follow certain rules?

Trump sucks.  But he gets to take questions from other reporters without one - Acosta - insisting on holding the microphone for as long as he likes.  That is against the rules, his rudeness  and/or contact with a random female intern debatable or not.

And no, this is hardly about the freedom of asking questions "aggressively".  And really, when has CNN been about that?  Did they "aggressively" grill Obama on when Gitmo would be closed or him drone bombing more kids than Bush did?  Do they even now grill Elizabeth Warren on when she's going to call for the enforcement of the Emoluments Clause?

No, this is just CNN giving the Right all the ammo they need to convince their followers that the mainstream press is biased.

Be This Guy

I'd like each morning for every worker in the United States to stand and face the flag outside their place of work, place their hand on their chest and sing the National Anthem.

I'd also like President Donald Trump to start his work day that way.  And the Board members of the NFL. 

And those who don't need to be fined, for the ThoughtCrime of not loving America, the Flag of America and the National Anthem of America enough.

Or is that just a penalty that we impose on football players who want to quietly kneel in protest of what they believe to be a wrong?

Meanwhile, I encourage all professional football players to "be this guy":

Chickenhawks

It's funny how fragile non-vets think we vets are. They apparently imagine that we vets see an NFL player kneeling in peaceful protest and we all clutch our hearts, or cry a single tear, or some such.

We don't.

And if only they'd have ever bothered to serve the country they claim such love for, they'd realize we soldiers and veterans are a bit tougher than that.

Most of us don't really care either way whether a civilian wants to protest. They can kneel, they can sit in, they can march, they can yell. That all is, after all, the First Amendment that we agreed to defend when we swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

You know what most vets think "disrespects the flag"? Not being willing to fight for it. And while that's anyone's right, to stay safe at home building careers and families while others sign up to protect them while they do that, they don't then get to go about with their chests thrust out loudly proclaiming offense at what some do or do not do while the flag is flying.

You value that flag so much? Show me your discharge papers. Never served? Well, good news, you can fly to Syria, right now, grab a rifle from the hands of a dead soldier there and show us what you got.

Because you telling off football players for kneeling isn't doing jack all to help America. And I include our cowardly chickenhawk President and his children in that. None whom have ever served anyone but themselves.

White Women Matter

Remember that Utah Police Officer who handcuffed the white woman who sassed him?

He was fired.

Remember the dozen or so stories you've heard the past year or so about a policeman killing an unarmed black man and then getting paid leave and reinstatement?

This is why Black Lives Matter protests, and why football players kneel peaceably in silent protest.

And this is why piously saying back, "All Lives Matter" is facetious and hurtful. All lives do matter - but the point of BLM is that the Black Lives seem to matter a lot less.

Fired for handcuffing a white woman. Paid vacation for killing a black man.

Doesn't mean all cops are bad, or that all cops are racist. Just means there's some issues that need addressing. Sooner that's realized, the better.

Respect what I respect!

Might be important to note here that "disrespecting the flag" would ordinarily involve doing something to it. Burning it. Wiping one's bottom with it. Standing on it. Spitting on it.

That's "disrespecting the flag".

On the other hand, there's failing to stand for it. Failing to salute it. These are not actions, but a person simply refraining from an action. It is "failing to give the flag respect" not actively "disrespecting the flag".

Think of it like Islamic Mosques. There's probably one in your town. You've never gone over and disrespected it by vandalizing it but you've never gone and kissed it or prayed in it either.

So you've not "disrespected the mosque" but you have "failed to respect the Mosque".

Care to know the difference between a Jihadi and an American Patriot?

Jihadists do not typically care that you "failed to respect a Mosque" they wait till you do something disrespectful to it before getting angry.

American Patriots? Apparently nowadays "failing to respect the flag" is an anger worthy offense. In need of name calling and punishment.

Pictured: Respect what he respects the way he respects it, or you are disrespectful!

An Easy Question

Clive Bundy using guns to take over Federal property is an acceptable form of protest in conservative world.

But an unarmed black man kneeling is just waaayyyy out of line.

At least we ain't disrespectin' the sanctity of the football field.

I'm glad to hear that it's not about race - but I'm suspecting why some might see that kind of difference in reaction and suspect that it is.

I would enjoy hearing one day what kind of protest is acceptable

to conservatives. I know that if it's a protest for a conservative cause, then it's "all the usual".

But what is the acceptable form of protest if a black were to think that we need to have a national discussion on police brutality?

No, no, I'm not asking what they should NOT do in their protests, heaven knows we've heard plenty about the inappropriateness in them being in parks like the Tea Party or on streets like Martin Luther King did or in public in general like any other protest either.

And the inappropriateness of them waving their arms or waving signs or yelling loud or swearing or chanting. We know no traffic is to be blocked, like the patriots did in the Boston Massacre, or violence used, like in the Boston Tea Party.

We know it should not disrespect the flag, the nation, the military, the veterans, the police, the President, or the government in general. It should not disrespect anything that any conservative respects.

It should not be while at work or on the clock or if too much money is earned or if their salary is too high or if it's a game or just a private event in general.

I mean, great, we're all good now on the "don'ts".

Just need to know now how and where they can. Any suggestions would be appreciated. If they'd not be laughably ineffective or fall far short as to what whites get to do, that'd be even better.

But come on. It's not about race, right? So this should be an easy question.

Quit it.

Every time the blacks protest - by marching in a street or standing on the corner or sitting in the park or kneeling at a ball game - I hear the same thing.

"They need to protest differently!" is what all the comments boil down to.  The complaints are that they are blocking traffic, or that they are too rough in having their faces dent the riot batons of police, or they are interfering with those who wanted to get to work in 12 minutes instead of 17, or when they avoid all that and instead just kneel, that they are disrespecting the flag and our veterans.

This last makes me say, "Quit it".

First off, let me re-iterate the absurdity of claiming that your problem with black protestors is their "method" of protesting.  I've yet to hear of any method of a black person protesting that doesn't have some conservative - non-racist, of course - telling me why that way of protesting is bad.

Apparently, to protest appropriately, a black person needs to remain at home, preferably under his bed, duct tape over his mouth, quietly thinking - well, thinking good thoughts, that in no way would disrespect anything.

Second off, I'm tired of this whole, "We stand because of this" thing, where they then drag in a photo of a dead veteran.  Really?  Really?

So the flag of any nation must always be stood for?  Never protested?  Nazi flag, Soviet flag, North Korean flag?  There is never any freedom for any in those nations to refuse to honor those flags, because to do so would dishonor the soldiers who fought under those flags?

But let us leave aside the flag for the moment - which is but a piece of cloth, and cannot be "disrespected" - and focus on the soldiers.

Can we examine - without laughing - the absurdity of claiming that soldiers who in theory fought for freedom are somehow upset with blacks exercising freedom?  Can we also examine the absurdity - and disrespect - of millions of non-veteran sports watchers claiming to take offense on behalf of the soldiers dead and alive?

I have two words for all non-veterans who attempt to silence black people out of "respect" for me:

Quit it.

I didn't serve so you could sit through the National Anthem at home while complaining about a black guy not standing.  I didn't serve so you could tell me what I served for.  I didn't serve for the "freedom" to shut up and never offend you.  I didn't serve so that black people could be killed by the police and the rest of us make excuses.

And I didn't serve so you could go on and on about your great love of a flag you never bothered to fight for, or even offer to fight for.  Don't tell me what you'd do in a "Red Dawn" situation, I can clearly see what each of you non-veterans did when you were 18 and had every chance to show that fire, that fierceness and that fondness of the flag.

Jack crap.

And as for my fellow veterans - well, I know you know better.  There was never a platoon or squad yet that ever was unified in political views, nor was it even about that.  We served - and some fought - so that we could all be as wrong and as dumb as we cared to be back home.

So if you care to - I'd be the last to insist - why not lay off those guys who kneel?  I personally think that we all served and fought to defend corporate interests and make rich bastards richer, but if you truly came away from your term of enlistment thinking that it was all for freedom, then here's a novel idea - let those guys have their freedom to kneel.

You'll find that your body, your mind and your soul are made of sterner stuff, and they kneeling will do no lasting damage to you.

Finally, quit pretending - veterans and non-veterans - that this is over some employment contract or how they are "on the clock".  There's not a one of you that doesn't spout off your dumb political opinions - and everyone else's opinions on politics are always dumb - every break, every lunch, and oft times every hour.

If you can stand at a water cooler and blather about why Hillary sucks - and yes, we all know she does - then some guy pre-game can kneel during a song.

Police are killing minorities in disproportionate numbers.  Your kids are going to remember you being upset by that - or being upset at how a black person displays grief over that.

Leave me out of it either way.

Since you ask...

As a veteran, I think the usual line is that we were fighting for freedom. And to uphold the Constitution. I'm not as sure of that at 48 as I was at 18, but let's go with that.

Apparently the President, and some of my friends, are now imagining that what I was really serving for was to make sure that our nation was safe for conformity, and to make sure that sportsmen would be forced to stand and honor the flag against their will.

Um, no. That wasn't what I was serving for. Sorry for the confusion. I was serving because I honestly believed back then that we had freedom, and that it was worth preserving.

"Freedom" meaning that it was okay for people to think or worship or vote or speak or sit or stand differently than I or others.

Let us pause and consider something - how often do we hear criticism of BLM or Antifa for their "violent" protests? And justly so, if and when they are violent, as violence is not a freedom.

But here are some few ball players simply kneeling in peace. Is our democracy too fragile to withstand that? If it is, then golly, we've already lost and have no further use for that flag anyway. Call up Rocketman, we give up.

I also would sharply question - as a veteran - how many complaining actually stand at attention in their living room giving the civilian salute to the flag during that anthem. We used to do that.

I doubt most complaining on facebook do that any more, if they've ever done it a day in their lives.

Let's also remember the story in the Book of Daniel, where King Nebuchadnezzar tried to force everyone to give honor and respect to the image he erected. That - like a flag - was a symbol not of God, but of the Nation-State.

Daniel and his friends were correct to resist being forced to acknowledge State authority then, and Colin and his friends are correct to resist being forced to acknowledge State authority now.

It doesn't matter if you agree with them - heck, I'm not even saying whether I agree with them. But it is their right.

Trump and the 1st Amendment

President Donald Trump has blocked a woman on his Twitter account.  I don't think she is the first, but who knows.  I know that just him blocking one person is enough to bring up a valid issue.

No, not that he has thinner skin and is more easily offended and triggered than the most delicate of liberal snowflakes, though that is patently true.  Conservatives who love to think of their leader as "tough" should do some serious re-evaluating on that one, though of course they will not.

And it's not even the issue about how immature and childish he is in general, both in what he tweets on twitter and how he responds when it's ever dished back.

No, it's a Constitutional issue and a real one.  It's about his violation of the 1st amendment rights of various citizens, of which this model who hurt his wittle itty-bitty feelings was just the latest to be so deprived of her inalienable rights.

What violation?  What right?  Deprived of what?

Oh, my dear conservatives, you who are so able and willing to quote the 2nd amendment in full (and I'm pro-2nd amendment, so don't go there!) don't remember the 1st amendment?

Here you go:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I would draw your particular attention to the "or of the press" and the "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

You see, just like the 2nd amendment is not a right to a musket, but to whatever gun exists nowadays, so the right to a free press and to petition your government is not speaking of a quill and ink on parchment, or the ability to hitch up your wagon to a mule and visit the White House.

If a President - say Barack Obama - had set a policy that said that any of the press could see his press releases, but not Rush Limbaugh, you'd have been furious.  And if a President - say Barack Obama, still y'all's favorite boogeyman - had said that any could call up the White House and petition him for a redress of grievances, except Glenn Beck, you'd have been furious again!

And if any one said, "But hey, Rush can just learn of what the President is saying second hand, so no biggie!" you'd justly be against that, and cry out the louder!  And if anyone said, "Well, Glenn can't call, but he can still email, so he's still okay!" you'd be whining your bottoms off about discrimination and undue burden!

Well, conservatives, it works both ways.  The Whiner-in-Chief has shut out a citizen of the United States from reading of his pronouncements.  Everyone else - save a select few others that frighten him and wound his wittle feelings - can see what he tweets each day at three or four in the morning, but these ones cannot.

And everyone who wants can tweet a complaint against the President and have at least there be some chance of him seeing it, but not this model.  Nor any of those in general that triggered or offended the Donald.

And that not only is unfair, that not only is childish, but it is a bona-fide violation of the First amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

And it needs to stop.

The President of the United States needs to learn what the least Mayor of the least village already learned.  That if you're going for public office, if you're then holding public office, you must be there for the public.  ALL the public, not just those who praise your name to the skies, but those who dislike you, your policies and any and all that you might stand for.

That's the deal, that's the rule, and it's been in place since Democritus and Republicus duked it out for who'd be Mayor of Athens back in whatever century BC!  You're elected by the majority of the people, but you serve the totality of the people.  That obvious fact is obvious.

So.  Our President now needs to use his tiny hands to wipe away his wittle tears and unblock those citizens who wounded him in his buttocks.  If there are some from other nations, he may Constitutionally leave them blocked, though maturity would dictate otherwise.

Or he may resign to the private sector, where you're allowed to ignore others who say things that frighten or upset you.  Yeah.  Really.  And I doubt I'm the only person to have this occur to them, I fully expect some legal scholars to write on this at some point.