Although HALLOWEEN was on Sunday, the real bewitching hour will be after the polls close on Tuesday, November 2, 2010, when it will be known who will get the political “TRICK OR TREAT” goodies of this mid-term election. It isn’t just President Obama and the Democrats who have a lot at stake, but also people like Rep. John Boehner, RNC Chairman Shelby Steele, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, Sen. Mitch McConnell, and last but not least, Sarah Palin. If the Democrats manage to retain the majorities in both the House and Senate, this will send a resoundingly strong message to the GOP and Tea Party that in spite of all the unprecedented mean-spirited and hateful politics of personal destruction launched primarily against President Obama, still, the American people are willing to continue trusting in the ‘CHANGE’ that he has promised as opposed to the “PLEDGE TO AMERICA” offered by the Republicans.
If this indeed happens and instead of the ‘Thrill of Victory,’ the political Right experiences the ‘Agony of Defeat,’ and have to swallow that bitter pill again, surely they will want to blame this unexpected outcome on somebody, and guess who will be the scapegoat; none other than former Alaska Governor and face of the Tea Party, Sarah Palin. The Republicans took a gamble on her endorsements of candidates, betting that her folksy appeal and catchy phrases would translate into votes across the wide political spectrum, including those undecided Independents, who would sweep out the incumbent Democrats in Washington D.C., thus repudiating Barack Obama’s presidency and leadership. To President Obama and the Democratic Congressional majority, the ‘people’ have spoken and they had better be listening very intently this time.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 31, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Christine O’Donnell is no Constitutional scholar, but she is not alone
It is amazing to hear people argue over the separation of ‘Church and State’ when it really isn’t all that difficult to understand. The first thing is to start with the Articles of Confederation, and then go from there. The original 13 colonies [New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia] were autonomous, self-governing bodies with legislative power invested separately in each State instead of through a central (federal) government. The Constitution was a compromise between State’s Rights advocates and those who wanted a national government (“Federalism”); with the States retaining some of their power, but not with the same authority as before. Even the Constitution itself was an imperfect document, and thus, 27 amendments were added to it, which are now called the “Bill of Rights.”
As it pertains to ‘any’ mention of religion contained in specific wording of the Constitution itself as it was adopted by the Founding Fathers, Article VI, states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and “all” executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification [or disqualification??] to ‘any’ Office or public Trust under the United States. Now, Amendment I of the Constitution, says: Congress (Const. Article I, Section I) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion -OR- prohibiting the free exercise thereof… Usually, this clause is used to prove or even disprove, depending upon your point-of-view, whether America is a Christian nation or not; however, nowhere is the specific theistic religion, “Christianity” mentioned, but rather by the generic term, ‘religion.’ The First Amendment should be read in conjunction with Amendment X, which reads: The powers [Legislative, Judicial, and Executive] not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited [SEE Art. I, Sect. I] by it, are reserved to the States respectively, -OR- to the People.
It would seem from combining the two amendments that the Federal Judiciary has no authority to mandate religious matters among the States, to include banning the teaching of creationism in public schools or determining whether a courthouse can display a copy of the Ten Commandments. Of course, the problem arises when expressions of other belief systems besides Christianity are denied to their devotees. And besides all that, even the Declaration of Independence mentions “Nature’s God,” or “Creator,” to which many religious faiths, both ancient and present, could claim as the object of their worship. In fairness to Delaware Tea Party Senatorial candidate, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Paulson, President of the First Amendment Center, who vindicates her by reminding us that as early as 1640, Rhode Island founder and theologian Roger Williams cited the need for "a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." He goes on further to quote the words Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, in which he said that the language of the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church and State."
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 19, 2010
As it pertains to ‘any’ mention of religion contained in specific wording of the Constitution itself as it was adopted by the Founding Fathers, Article VI, states: The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and “all” executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution, but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification [or disqualification??] to ‘any’ Office or public Trust under the United States. Now, Amendment I of the Constitution, says: Congress (Const. Article I, Section I) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion -OR- prohibiting the free exercise thereof… Usually, this clause is used to prove or even disprove, depending upon your point-of-view, whether America is a Christian nation or not; however, nowhere is the specific theistic religion, “Christianity” mentioned, but rather by the generic term, ‘religion.’ The First Amendment should be read in conjunction with Amendment X, which reads: The powers [Legislative, Judicial, and Executive] not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited [SEE Art. I, Sect. I] by it, are reserved to the States respectively, -OR- to the People.
It would seem from combining the two amendments that the Federal Judiciary has no authority to mandate religious matters among the States, to include banning the teaching of creationism in public schools or determining whether a courthouse can display a copy of the Ten Commandments. Of course, the problem arises when expressions of other belief systems besides Christianity are denied to their devotees. And besides all that, even the Declaration of Independence mentions “Nature’s God,” or “Creator,” to which many religious faiths, both ancient and present, could claim as the object of their worship. In fairness to Delaware Tea Party Senatorial candidate, Christine O’Donnell, Ken Paulson, President of the First Amendment Center, who vindicates her by reminding us that as early as 1640, Rhode Island founder and theologian Roger Williams cited the need for "a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world." He goes on further to quote the words Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802, in which he said that the language of the First Amendment built "a wall of separation between Church and State."
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 19, 2010
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Christine O’Donnell may just be her own worst enemy
Perhaps Karl Rove, former GOP political strategist and brilliant architect of two George W. Bush presidential terms, hit the nail on the head when he said that Christine O’Donnell has a history of saying, “nutty things.” This could not be any clearer than at her first opportunity to publicly explain what her agenda is, she uses the time to explain her past involvement in “witchcraft,” instead. It would seem that she just shot herself in the foot and greatly diminishes voters taking her seriously to be elected to the U.S. Senate.
Notwithstanding her previous statements about “masturbation and pornography” are adultery, using condoms are “anti-human,” or about her academic record, and misappropriating campaign funds for personal use, certainly Ms. O’Donnell may have to clear up for voters the part about dabbling in the occult arts. The outcome in November will be more than just reading tea leaves or wiggling her nose because people aren’t looking for a magic act or a “wack-job,” but for someone who can do the job of being a great legislator who seeks bi-partisanship support and has a good plan on how to bring solutions to Washington D.C, instead of using the same old, stale anti-Liberal, anti-Big Government, anti-Womens Choice, anti-Gay Rights, we are the true "patriots" and family-values standard bearers rhetoric.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 5, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Notwithstanding her previous statements about “masturbation and pornography” are adultery, using condoms are “anti-human,” or about her academic record, and misappropriating campaign funds for personal use, certainly Ms. O’Donnell may have to clear up for voters the part about dabbling in the occult arts. The outcome in November will be more than just reading tea leaves or wiggling her nose because people aren’t looking for a magic act or a “wack-job,” but for someone who can do the job of being a great legislator who seeks bi-partisanship support and has a good plan on how to bring solutions to Washington D.C, instead of using the same old, stale anti-Liberal, anti-Big Government, anti-Womens Choice, anti-Gay Rights, we are the true "patriots" and family-values standard bearers rhetoric.
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
October 5, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Monday, October 4, 2010
What really brought down the Twin Towers?
Although it has been nine years since the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, still this question still lingers in the minds of Conspiracy Theorists; and not without some justification, it seems. That the mighty towers came crashing down after being struck by Boeing commercial aircraft is, on second thought, quite implausible if the structural architecture is taken into consideration. According to WIKIPEDIA, The Twin Towers had a tube-frame structural design system with high-strength, load-bearing perimeter steel columns called Vierendeel trusses that were spaced closely together to form a strong, rigid wall structure, supporting virtually all lateral loads such as wind loads, and sharing the gravity load with the core columns.
The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop. Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.
The core of the towers combined steel and concrete structures of each tower with a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contains 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4inches (10 cm) of thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch
(2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.
The impact from the aircraft smashing into the upper floors and the resulting fire from burning jet fuel would not be enough to melt steel girders and break down the reinforced concrete structures which were designed to withstand significant shear stresses, damaging a 107 story building to such an extent that it would come crashing down to the ground in a heap of twisted metal girders, dust and ash. Instead of the planes weakening the integrity of the buildings beyond a critical point, it is more likely that a simultaneous demolition-like detonation of explosives at vulnerable areas, probably including the elevator shafts, could be responsible for this tragedy. Even scientific tests, including forensic examination on any available evidence scattered among the remaining debris were not performed by independent, non-government laboratories and the results have not been made available to the general public.
So, yes, the Twin Towers as well as the Pentagon were destroyed and over 3,000 American citizens of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions were indeed murdered by terrorists, but the real question remains largely unanswered, namely: Did all these former terrorists from Saudi Arabia orchestrate such a masterfully deadly plan on the American homeland by themselves or did they have help from inside the United States?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 28, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
The perimeter structure containing 59 columns per side was constructed with extensive use of prefabricated modular pieces each consisting of three columns, three stories tall, connected by spandrel plates. The spandrel plates were welded to the columns to create the modular pieces off-site at the fabrication shop. Adjacent modules were bolted together with the splices occurring at mid-span of the columns and spandrels. The spandrel plates were located at each floor, transmitting shear stress between columns, allowing them to work together in resisting lateral loads. The joints between modules were staggered vertically so the column splices between adjacent modules were not at the same floor.
The core of the towers combined steel and concrete structures of each tower with a rectangular area 87 by 135 feet (27 by 41 m) and contains 47 steel columns running from the bedrock to the top of the tower. The large, column-free space between the perimeter and core was bridged by prefabricated floor trusses. The floors supported their own weight as well as live loads, providing lateral stability to the exterior walls and distributing wind loads among the exterior walls. The floors consisted of 4inches (10 cm) of thick lightweight concrete slabs laid on a fluted steel deck. A grid of lightweight bridging trusses and main trusses supported the floors. The trusses connected to the perimeter at alternate columns and were on 6 foot 8 inch
(2.03 m) centers. The top chords of the trusses were bolted to seats welded to the spandrels on the exterior side and a channel welded to the core columns on the interior side. The floors were connected to the perimeter spandrel plates with viscoelastic dampers which helped reduce the amount of sway felt by building occupants. The trusses supported a 4-inch (100 mm) thick lightweight concrete floor slab with shear connections for composite action.
The impact from the aircraft smashing into the upper floors and the resulting fire from burning jet fuel would not be enough to melt steel girders and break down the reinforced concrete structures which were designed to withstand significant shear stresses, damaging a 107 story building to such an extent that it would come crashing down to the ground in a heap of twisted metal girders, dust and ash. Instead of the planes weakening the integrity of the buildings beyond a critical point, it is more likely that a simultaneous demolition-like detonation of explosives at vulnerable areas, probably including the elevator shafts, could be responsible for this tragedy. Even scientific tests, including forensic examination on any available evidence scattered among the remaining debris were not performed by independent, non-government laboratories and the results have not been made available to the general public.
So, yes, the Twin Towers as well as the Pentagon were destroyed and over 3,000 American citizens of various nationalities, ethnicities and religions were indeed murdered by terrorists, but the real question remains largely unanswered, namely: Did all these former terrorists from Saudi Arabia orchestrate such a masterfully deadly plan on the American homeland by themselves or did they have help from inside the United States?
Robert Randle
776 Commerce St. #B-11
Tacoma, WA 98402
September 28, 2010
pbks@hotmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)