THE CONSTITUTION / THE PRESS

Freedom of opinion is, and has always been, backed-up by law in America since the founding of our republic. That freedom had been placed into state constitutions and, most particularly, into the federal Constitution. Freedom of speech, a free press--and the right of peaceable assembly--are enunciated distinctly in the Constitution. The first ten amendments, especially, addressed personal liberties; it denied the Congress from enacting any law that did abridgment of speech freedom, of press freedom, and the public's right to petition the government through peaceful assembly. The Constitutionally guaranteed right enjoyed by America's press corps was granted in order that a free people could be kept more fully informed by a free press that would, in the aggregate, inform without bias. When the main-media-aggregation combines in connivance to slant news--so as, to disadvantage that free-flow public reception of information--they injure and undermine the spirit of that constitutional protection; thus they, thereby, are practicing defacto censorship by methods of slant, omission, and deception. The American people become inexcusably hindered in making wise determinations, in analyzing competently--such as,in evaluating the merits and qualifications of candidates seeking political office. The people become impeded, or obstructed, in their need to be kept abreast to, and apprised of, the facts of current events. The term: "journalistic malpractice", needs to be more seriously taken by both the public and, members of the "free press".

IRRESPONSIBLE PARENTING

It's seldom that individuals who are upright, self-respecting, and well-mannered adults...became so, after having been raised in disorderly, unkempt, households...under vulgar, violent, and otherwise irresponsible parents. The odds are that, character-wise, people reflect their upbringing. It's uncommon that properly disciplined and well-raised children become undisciplined and ill-mannered adults. So; it makes sense that communities of responsible parents, who raise well-disciplined kids, would be pleasant places to live; just as...communities of irresponsible parents who are raising undisciplined brat-delinquents, would be unpleasant places to reside. It just seems--to me, at least--a commonsense conclusion that an orderly society COMPELS there be RESPONSIBLE PARENTING.

A "FACT" IN..."DEMOCRAT" HISTORY

Senator Stephen A. Douglas, "Democrat" Illinois,it might be said, was a man of conflicting convictions. He had, at first, given his endorsement to the 1857 "Dred Scott Decision"; but then, during his campaign for the Senate the following year, he had taken the position that the effect of the Act could be negated by popular sovereignty. He had opposed President Buchanan's attempt to effectuate onto Kansas a federal..."slave code", via a blatant injustice monstrosity, called the "Lecompton Constitution". But then, he also had said this: "I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to Negroes at all when they declared that all men were created equal. They did not mean Negroes, nor savage Indians,nor Feejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. They alluded to men of European birth and European descent--to white men, and to none others,when they declared that doctrine. So spoke Senator Stephen A. Douglas, "DEMOCRAT", Illinois, October 15, 1858.

JUST A BIT OF, DISMAL, RECOLLECTION

September 18, 1850, the (compromise) "Fugitive Slave Act" became law. It allowed that a "Special Federal Commissioner" could order assistance from "any bystander" in the apprehending of a runaway slave. The act also held that any citizen rendering assistance to a fugitive Negro would be subject to a fine of $1,000, a 6-month jail sentence, and $1,000 in damages, per fugitive slave. Now...this followed, exactly, two days later (September 20, 1850): "Be it enacted....That from and after January 1, 1851, it shall not be lawful to bring into the District of Columbia any slave whatever, for the purpose of being sold, or for the purpose of being placed in depot, to be subsequently transferred to any other State or place to be sold as merchandise. And if any slave shall be brought into the said District by its owner, or by the authority or consent of its owner, contrary to the provisions of this act, such slave shall thereupon become liberated and free."

NEGRO SOLDIERS SNAP TO ATTENTION

From the start of the Civil War, abolitionists of the North had enthusiastically urged President Lincoln to accept Negroes into the military forces of the Federal Government. One of Lincoln's main concerns had been that doing so might trigger the loss of border States, loyal to the Union, should they see such a move as a Republican attempt to gain equality for the black man. And so, throughout 1861 Lincoln resisted the inclination. He had, as President, the "legal discretion" to employ Negroes by the military; that became the ground upon which Negro troops could be activated. As, during that first year, it became apparent the war would not be short term, Lincoln acquiesced. "Legitimate" acceptance of Negroes, as soldiers into Union Forces, first, became underway in Louisiana (September 26, 1862). "The First Louisiana Native Guards" were mustered into service under General Benjamin Franklin Butler ("Spoons", they use to call him, for having seized a 38-piece set of silverware in New Orleans from a woman who tried crossing Union lines).

THE "CREEPING" ROT

"I therefore believe", the American Creed concludes,"it is my duty to love my country; to support its Constitution; to obey its laws; to respect its flag; and to defend it against all enemies". That "Creed", of course, is no law; merely, just a statement of, or belief in, a principle. Americans are at liberty to, publically--even, on enemy soil--express despicable tirades of condemnation against their own nation. Many seem acutely fond of the practice, even if they do it for no reason other than, the inimical pleasure they derive out of being, infuriating. It does seem that, during the era of "hippie", it became among many fancy to, publically foul-mouth America, and many aspects of what might be considered traditional, Americana. Even so, Americans have the Constitutional grant to despise and to transgress that..."Creed" and, to hate this very nation they dare not vacate. As to that..."flag", legally, people may in public either burn or do otherwise desecration to it. Instead of a nation, how would a household fare, if some of its members made sport of doing disesteem to the family name; if they defaced walls of the home, and, routinely cursed household traditions and practices--all this, while flat-out refusing, emphatically, to pack grip and...get out?

ZONED-OUT

There is an alarming level of enthusiastic ignorance on the part of too many young Americans. This applies even among college graduates. When asked to name America's first president, Abraham Lincoln or even,Franklin Roosevelt, might be the shocking response. What could explain a college graduate believing New Mexico to be a foreign nation? How is it possible that a high school, or college, graduate would be unable to answer exactly on the number of States there are in the Union? These are not exaggerated examples; this is reality.