Thursday, September 09, 2010

The Democrats have it far tougher to 'get out the vote' in the year 2010, than 2008 or 2006.

Social services for tent city; some move to E. Providence  (click title to entry - thank you)

5:33 PM Mon, Jul 27, 2009 

I probably don't have to write much here so much as mention the obvious. 

The 2010 Census may very well reveal a very 'morphed' country's populous.

No one can deny there has been a huge demographic shift in income and wealth in the USA.  There are people displaced in the USA and may be struggling with 'where to vote' or 'if they are allowed to vote' even though they sincerely have the desire to participate in the 2010 elections.

I am an apprehension to state, the 2010 Census will be a bit ludicrous compared to the 2000 Census, but, it isn't as though the USA hasn't sustained such dynamics before.  As a matter of fact the USA has a history of four significant economic implosions, but, none with the dynamics of 2008.

The democratic leadership in any district in the country needs, literally, to beat the bushes to find out whom is where and ask them to vote.  I think by the end of the day, there may be some very interesting surprises as well.  

Social Service Offices and Police Departments can be real resources to 'finding voters' or perhaps the circumstances of Americans have improved far more than we know and this dynamic is a minimal impact.  Let's hope that is the reality in the year 2010.  

Let's face it the constituency for the Republicans clearly won't have these issues.

The 'Sugar Coated" Politician wants to blame WHOM for Baliing out Wall Street?

Scared?  Mr. Bohner (H is silent and pronounced Boner.  There is no A with an e in Boner.  He is scared of his own name.) was scared?  He is still?  I could understand it then;  he had Republicans running up debt without paying for it just like his tax cuts for the wealthiest of citizens of the USA.

There are no jobs being created by the wealthiest of Americans.   They are as scared as Boner is.  They simply want to horde more money, that is all that is.

There is no EQUITY in the tax cuts for wealthy Americans.  The Bush Tax Cuts are DISPROPORTIONATELY large for the wealthiest of Americans compared to the rest of the country.  Either this is a democracy or it is a Plutocracy.  Which is it?  Because all I hear from Republicans is their extremism and how they love the original documents of this democracy.  So, either they are adhering to the 'idea' of EQUAL UNDER THE LAW, or they aren't.  It is a PRINCIPLE of our democracy.  The Republicans don't care about principles.  They are unprincipled?  Yeah, come to think of it, they are completely unprincipled when you look at the underhanded and ludicrous tactics of their campaigns.

That weirdo in Arizona, what's her name?  No, no, not Arizona, Nevada.  Oh, yeah, Sharron Angle.  Does she have an angle or what?  The woman doesn't even know how to spell her first name.  And she turns around and states, '...there are domestic, what?"  What was that she said?  Something like 'domestic influences' in the government that was going to undermine our democracy.'

She needs to get for real.  If you want to know what is going to undermine the government, it is cowards like Boner and her that are scared of their own power and give it away to 'wealth merchants.'


Yeah, like her and Boner.

..."Come on,"(click title to entry - thank you) the narrator in the Reid ad says. "Sharron Angle's the one who opposed Wall Street reform, wants to protect tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas, and says it's not her job to create jobs."...

Oh, then she starts in about the Second Amendment.  She said the Second Amendment is about owning personal arms and NOT about military arms.  Really?

 Does she know how to read because she can't spell her name.  These are the words of the Second Amendment which isn't going to matter if someone can't read.  But, here they are anyway.

Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified.  12/15/1791.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

That's it.  Fairly straight forward.   If you can read.  If one can't read then it can be confusing trying to do that phonetically.

A well regulated Militia....

Was Daniel Webster around when the Constitution was written?  Let me see what the bio says.  Have to be accurate, you know?  He wasn't.  He was born in 1782.  I'll be darn, so maybe we need to look at the Oxford English Dictionary.  Is that online?  It was around then.  Have you ever seen the size of that dictionary?  It is something to see.   That isn't helpful because it wasn't begun until 1857 when folks became disgruntled over the use of the English language in current dictionaries.  Well, that is interesting.  This is interesting, the Oxford English Dictionary began with "..."Unregistered Words Committee" to search for unlisted and undefined words lacking in current dictionaries...."

Let's see, the Declaration of Independence was authored by Thomas Jefferson and he was a well esteemed essayist of his day.  See, when one starts to interpret the WORDS of the USA Constitution it gets really tricky and why it takes JUDGES to interpret the law.  Back in the day, CITIZENS of the colonies never 'hung their hat' on WORDS.  They placed huge definition on the 'meaning' of writing a TEXT / ESSAY.  Which, by the way, is the way it should be.  WORDS are simply 'tools' to diction and ALONE have no real purpose.  You may as well grunt if one is simply using a single word for a purpose.

OH! is an expression of amazement or surprise or urgency, but, that is understood in the definition and USE of the word.  

So, if I may.  About the Second Amendment.

This is a well recognized statue of a Minute Man.  Minute Man is two words by the way.  It is at "Minute Man National Historical Park." 

That statue 'embodies' the meaning of the Second Amendment.   It is a symbol of a colonist TURNED militia MEMBER.

One has to recall that the 'citizens' that were composing the USA Constitution were doing so to form their government and give it definition.  There were men and women that died during the Revolutionary War.  They were remembered in the USA Constitution as the 'backbone' to the freedom from England's Kings and Queens.  That is what the 'signators' of the USA Constitution were IMPRESSED with at the time of the authorship of that document. 

Now, the First Ten Amendments are very interesting.  The application of those amendments 'over time' have been interesting as well and reveals a society 'interested' in being correct and competent for the time of the application of those writings.  So, for anyone to say the Second Amendment is about personal weapon possession is taking the ENTIRE meaning of the Amendment out of context.  


Quite frankly, to have citizens believe they need to be armed against their democratically elected government is nothing short of paranoid.  But, it goes on and THAT is the meaning of Ms. Angle's angle on the Second Amendment.

The 'idea' that a democratically elected government that prides itself on COMPETENCY to its citizens is a DANGER to them is hideous and outrageous.  If any of the signators of USA Constitution were able to speak from the grave they would denounce this ludicrous use of their writings. 

Do I have to say it?  I mean people HUNTED their dinners, okay?  They owned guns.  Guns put meals on tables for families.  THAT was the purpose of the gun being held by the Minute Man in this statue.  The 'gun' is the subject of the Second Amendment, not the man.  The gun was what secured their freedom, not simply the man or the willingness to die for the cause, although, let's not diminish the 'character' of the Minute Men either. 

The Second Amendment clearly states, right in the first words of the writing, A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.


It doesn't say 'any bozo with a gun' can have one.  NO WHERE in the writings of the USA Constitution does it even IMPLY the citizens should have enough 'fire power' to destroy themselves.  So much for the role of the lobbyists for the NRA, okay?  

THAT is why the USA Constitution has a provision for a 'Constitutional Convention.'  The authors of the USA Constitution had extreme reverence for freedom and the PURSUIT of happiness.  So much, that they humbled themselves before their CITIZENS yet to be born and provided a way to change that document SHOULD it ever prove to be an impediment to a citizen's freedom.  That was 'CITIZEN' in the singular.  They weren't interested in a Constitutional Convention, they just took great pains to write the document.  The Amendments were to add freedoms not EXPLICIT enough in the Constitution.

At any rate, THAT is the issue with Ms. Angle's angle on the Second Amendment.  The 'CONTEXT' of the writing of the original signators of the USA Constitution CLEARLY AND CONCISELY states the use of guns are to INCLUDE a 'Well REGULATED militia..."

Regulation of weapons in the USA society in order to protect citizens from criminals and to some extent themselves is not only allowed under the USA Constitution, it is MANDATED.

End of discussion.

"Why at Ground Zero?"

Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, executive director of the Cordoba Initiative, poses at a hotel in Abu Dhabi Monday.
What kind of a question is that?  That is the question of 9/11 families?  I am astounded.

"Why at Ground Zero?" is a question that deeply reeks of bigotry.  The 9/11 families don't hear that in those words?

It is very troubling these family members are asking such a harsh question of a legitimate Muslim community.

Implied in that question is the 'idea' that somehow a Mosque built near the former site of the World Trade Center and nearby buildings somehow represents Al Qaeda.  The 9/11 families don't hear that?  They don't hear how they have branded themselves with bigotry in those words?


The USA and New York, out of respect for those that perished that day,  have treated these family members well and with deep abiding respect.  I think it is time they show some as well.

It is interesting to realize how a man of faith such as the Imam is so in tune to the 'real message' in those words and the actions of so many that seem to believe this is some kind of sacrilege of the 'DOWNED' buildings.

I happen to agree with his point of view as quoted in this article in the "New York Daily News."  I sincerely appreciate his insight and wisdom in speaking 'the truth.'

Imam of proposed Park51 mosque near Ground Zero says opposition is for benefit of elections.  (click title to entry - thank you)
Originally Published:Monday, August 30th 2010, 11:16 AM
Updated: Tuesday, August 31st 2010, 2:40 AM
Politics are fueling the furor over the proposed mosque near Ground Zero, the imam behind the controversial project said Monday.
"There is no doubt that the election season has had a major impact upon the nature of the discourse," Feisel Abdul Rauf told The National, an English-language paper in Abu Dhabi.
The debate over whether the Islamic cultural center should be built in lower Manhattan has been hijacked by "radical voices" on all sides, he said....

The Republican Party in its fervor of extremism is implying this 'real estate' is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  THAT is nonsense.  Nothing is further from the truth and everyone knows it.  It is about time the 9/ll families that are finding this such an abomination apologize to the country and seek counseling with their spiritual leaders, whomever that may be.  Religious Freedom in the USA allows them to seek whatever spiritual leadership they choose.

Honestly !  How could they be lead around by the nose like this?
It is all 'old baggage' and if they haven't dealt with it yet, then it is time !  Nine years.  At least the Muslim community that is building the Mosque allowed plenty of time to pass before they sought comfort in their new community center at this location.