You've Been Warned, a video on Facebook

I have strong opinions about lots of things, but this blog is not politically- oriented. However, I have taken a political stance. To that effect, I invite you to read the latest posting on Knee Jerk Reactions.

Barney Frank gets Heckled: Town Hall Meeting Totally Disrupted

Now we know why Bush refused to allow any dissenters into his public appearances. He only wanted one viewpoint heard. Unfortunately, he allowed this undemocratic attitude to infect those who see this divisive technique as proper in a town hall forum.

This image is a flame called Turmoil by V. Coskrey (c)2008

Barney Frank's experience with public forum censors...ah, dissenters...show that disruptive individuals have the power to stop discussion when they are unruly. The groups that are disrupting the health care debates are not democratic, but dogmatic, tyrannical despots who insist that only they can control our society. They would lead by tyranny and destroy our constitutional democracy. Given a chance, they would employ thought police and force to gain the upper hand. This is how the Taliban took power. This is how Hitler took power. This is how...there are numerous other examples. This is how it appears to me, anyway.

The town halls led by today's politics aim to foster democratic discussion of the issues of health care. Sure, there will be passionate opposition of all sides as the issues are discussed. But DISCUSSION and compromise is the democratic way. Dissenters should be attending the town hall meetings, asking questions, displaying placards, marching in protest, making speeches, stating criticisms, and writing editorial letters, pamphlets, and blogs. They should not disrupt the freedom of others to do the same.

T-shirts should not be banned from meetings. Placards can be held up high on narrow handles so that the view of the members of a meeting are not blocked. Small signs held against the chest can be used peacefully. No group should be allowed to prevent the free speech of another except to limit comments to the peaceful administration of the the meetings such as in the use of the Robert's Rules of Order. Anyone not heard within the meeting itself can make their views known through other channels.

This country is the premier example of how a democracy works. We are held up as an example to the fledgling democracies forming worldwide. Why must these rude groups showcase their opposition in such disruptive ways? What message does this send to other nations? Is this issue of health care such a threat to human rights that violence and total disruption of debate is the only recourse of a minority to be heard? No.

Obama is doing what he can to reunite our country. This win/lose mentality being promoted by some, INCLUDING THE PRESS, is not the essence of democracy. It is not what has made our nation strong. Our Constitution fosters reasoned discussion and compromise, a blending of viewpoints with a protection of human rights for all. Thought police and political censorship have no place in our country.

Bottom line, we can all have a voice. We do not have to block the voice of others to be heard.

Redefining the Constitution

I found it interesting that Governor Palin was willing to continue the practice of expanding the powers of the vice-president beyond those defined in the United States Constitution.

I was under the impression that a belief in the strict interpretation of The Constitution was a criteria of the Republicans for choosing justices to serve on the Supreme Court. Yet Cheney has managed to redefine the role of the Office of Vice-President without recourse to the intentions of the Founding Fathers, the authors of the Constitution of the United States.

The leaves of change can be had on items at Picket Fence Friends, a cafepress.com store.

Another surprise is the unquestioning acceptance of The Press for this expansion of VP-Power. Now that the new, expanded role of the Vice President is not subject to question and that now that the office is more powerful than was defined by the Founding Fathers, no one will say nay to such expansion of power--so says CNN when reporting on Palin and Biden's responses to the role of the Vice-President during their debate this past week.

Seems like expanding those powers, as would be the case if she is given the agenda of issues to work on as VP which she described during the vice-presidential candidates' debate this past week, would be a progressive interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. I find it interesting that such a progressive interpretation is anathema to the pro-life movement. A strict interpretation of the Constitution is required to support the pro-life claim that the Roe vs Wade decision is actually unconstitutional and should be repealed as such.

Why is no one suprised that this lady who is now the key role model of feminist accomplishment is not pro-choice?

For that matter, why is no one objecting to the politics that will force a seventeen-year-old into a marriage for which neither bride nor groom is mature enough?

Maybe she is not the Conservative that I thought she was.

I will be voting for Obama and Biden.
I am not an Originalist in terms of Constitutional Interpretation.

I believe that our Constitution is a flexible document with meaning that is to be interpreted against the needs of current society. I believe that the strength of our country lies in the value of our heritage that guides us in making ethical, democratic decisions that are held in check by the principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, yet allowing us to evolve into a an advanced society of the modern world.

Watch The Supreme Court on Trial on Link TV.
Here are some videos from Link TV on American Politics.