IS KACI HICKOX IN THIS FOR HER 15 MINUTES OF FAME?

I'm sick of hearing Kaci Hickox's incessant whining over the state of Maine trying to protect its citizens. Recently back in the U.S. from working with Ebola patients, she thinks she should be privileged in not having to serve a quarantine like others in the same position. Poor baby. On Thursday she and her boyfriend took an hour long bike ride and returned to a pack of journalists, which was no doubt her intention all along. There's too much at stake here to allow some publicity craving person to upset the apple cart. The woman is supposed to be a medical professional, although I wouldn't want her caring for me under any circumstances. Hopefully Maine will follow through on their promises and physically confine her.

IS AMERICAN PUBLIC ANGRY ENOUGH TO DELETE CONGRESS?

A CNN poll says 70% of the U.S. is angry at the direction of the country. The question is what percentage of that group is registered voters? Let's just hypothetically guess that all of the 70% are and they are mad enough to vote all the deadbeats in Washington out of office. I'm talking both parties, although the expunction would naturally apply mostly to the GOP. Yes, we have arrived at that point. But it probably won't happen because so many voters out there are simply unconscious and have no idea who or what they are voting for. The only thing they know for sure is what the negative advertising tells them and their decisions depend, for the most part, on which politician or political group spend the most money. Pathetic but true.

36% of Republican voters are extremely angry, compared to on 26% of Democrats. It makes sense that the GOP turnout would be higher because they have the Senate to gain. But what baffles me is why Dems don't understand that, while they do hold a majority in the Senate, they could lose it if they don't vote. Duh?

1st AMENDMENT DISPROVES 2nd AMENDMENT ABSOLUTISM

Cliven Bundy Ranch militia lunatics

Back to Barry Lyga and the barefaced fact that the history of the revisionism of the 1st Amendment proves without a doubt that the 2nd Amendment is not absolutist in its words or meaning. Just reading it alone illustrates how out of date the concept is:

2nd: "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."

Most of the militias around these days, or patriot movements as they are also called, are those like the wackos in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and Waco, Texas, plus the fringes like Cliven Bundy in Nevada. All of them a bunch of crackpots that feed on those who worship the 2nd Amendment. In other words, outdated legislation. So how does the 1st Amendment shed doubt on the 2nd?

1st: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the 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."

First of all, there is nothing out of date, which might speak to the fact that the 1st Amendment has seen so many abridgements. Lyga says: "We have freedom of speech, yes, but we have still decided — as a society — that certain kinds of speech are illegal. For example, libel/slander are actionable. Speech, right? But illegal and punishable." In addition there's perjury and you can't lie under oath or  try to download child pornography. If you can amend so many aspects of the 1st, how can the 2nd possibly be a sacred document that cannot be touched?

Are the conservatives on the Supreme Court completely devoid of common sense, or is this just their ploy to cater to the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby? And why hasn't one of the gun advocate groups like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence taken this premise to court as a matter of precedent?

But then, maybe we should just repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Still more to come.

TEA PARTY EMAIL BLASTS FEAR MONGERING THEN ASKS FOR MONEY

Here's the text of an email I received from Tea Party radicals this morning:

Mad As Hell: Boldly, brazenly and in the cockiest manner possible Obama spits in our faces. He lies, creates then covers up scandals, protects those who violate the law and targets innocent conservatives and citizens for their beliefs. Our military has been decimated at a time when world tension is heating up. US sovereignty has been compromised. Terrorists have been put in White House positions. Americans are being forced to turn in their guns. Congress won't do anything so we MUST.

 

And then they beg for money. 

 

Half of the crap they are espousing doesn't make sense. Like decimating our military and terrorists in the White House. If there is anything this country could do to get completely back on tract it is to get rid of these double-digit IQ conservative extremists.

WANT A BETTER ECONOMY? FORBES SAYS VOTE DEMOCRAT

In 2012 the very conservative magazine, Forbes, said "...laissez faire policies [strongly opposing government intervention] had far less benefits than expected, and in fact produced almost universal negative economic outcomes for the nation!" This 80-year analysis is significant for such a right wing publication. Thus, the horrid results George W. Bush left for Barack Obama which the current President has turned around into an increasingly improving economy. Forbes examines the compelling positive results of Democrats over the GOP in personal disposable income, Gross Domestic Product (GDP), corporate profits, stock market return, reduction of national debt and avoiding Great Depressions and Great Recessions. With these facts, anyone voting Republican on November 4 wants to return to the days of GWB.

MORE ON 2ND AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE

David Kopel of the Washington Post said "The Second Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to own and carry firearms, including handguns. The 2nd Amendment actually says, "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." The District of Columbia v. Heller 2008 ruling, "...protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home." A bit off the subject but the Justices said nothing about cowboys walking around on the streets with their guns. Something tells me that, until we find something more direct--that is to really gut the 2nd Amendment--we concentrate on passing universal background checks and getting rid of concealed carry, except for extenuating circumstances.

More to come.

IS THERE A 2ND AMENDMENT LOOPHOLE?

Dictionary.com defines loophole as, "a means of escape or evasion; a means or opportunity of evading a rule, law, etc. The gun show loophole is a perfect example in the world of weapons rights. What we are dealing with for the 2nd Amendment is the fact that the National Rifle Assn., led by wacky Wayne LaPierre, holds it so absolute that there can be no change. Just some slight modification like making universal background checks mandatory. No, says wacky Wayne, it takes away the rights of gun owners, which kind of indicates to me some of his NRA members couldn't pass background checks.

In fact, 74% of NRA members support background checks so that would indicate that wacky Wayne LaPierre doesn't represent his membership, rather a gun industry vehemently against it. Yes, and 89% of the American public supports background checks so why can't we get it done? Because the NRA's gun lobby fills the pockets of Congress, thus, their complete hands off the issue. Okay, we can't get Washington to do anything, and many states like Arizona and Florida give guns to just a warm body, so we have to find the loophole in the 2nd Amendment. Someone with a good enough legal mind to bring this outdated legislation forward to the 21st Century.

Gun nuts will think I'm crazy and actually that's a compliment coming from them, but I am perfectly serious about this venture. Hopefully it will encourage others out there to take up the crusade, write about it, and with enough networking get a forum to revise or appeal the Constitutional Amendment that is being used by wacky Wayne LaPierre to allow the slaughter of school children and other innocent people. To start the ball rolling I am opening a debate that has been going on for several years comparing the 2nd Amendment to the 1st Amendment. The premise is that, if the 1st can be interpreted with certain parts being changed to fit the situation, why can't it also be done with the 2nd?

As an example, in the First, we have freedom of speech but can't commit libel or slander, same for perjury, or download child pornography. In other words there are corrective mechanisms, even to Amendments to the Constitution. I urge you to read an article by Barry Lyga that takes this very approach into consideration.

This my first post on this subject with more to come.