Trolling Not Allowed

Trolling Not Allowed! Comments from anonymous trolls are not permitted and are deleted if posted by the offending pest.

Saturday, February 27, 2016

What is a Jew? What does it mean for someone to be Jewish?

I find a phrase used in an article that I just read to be very confusing, perplexing, and disturbing!
And yet, I have come across many people during my 68 years that have often used the same type of phrase.
The phrase in the article that confuses me, that perplexes me, that disturbs me is:
"but he was more Jewish than Polish."

Why do people say such a things? Why do people write such a thing?
I never hear anyone say or read anyone write:
"she is more Christian than Polish" or "he is more Lutheran than German" or "she is more Catholic than Italian"
Can anyone explain the use of this type of phraseology to me? Will anyone tell me why this is done?

And while I am at it, why do people say "you don't look Jewish" or "that sounds like a Jewish name" or such things? Why do some people refer to Jewish people as a race or as a nationality or anything other than a religion? And why do some people have the idea that all people of the Jewish religion have the same religious beliefs and practices and fail to recognize there are a variety of Jewish denominations?

I have written other Roland Hansen Commentary entries concerning Jewish as a topic or theme.

I have written other blog entries concerning Jewish as a topic or theme in Roland's Ramblings.

There are many, many interesting articles to the question of What is a Jew? all over the internet.

Wednesday, February 24, 2016

USA Republican Senators Warrant An Ass Kicking. How about a Writ Of Mandamus?

I found a webpage entitled 10 THINGS THAT SHOULD WARRANT AN ASS KICKING. If you wish, you may read it by following the embedded link contained within its title.

Well, I think the Republicans in the United States Senate warrant a good ass kicking. I realize that my wording (i.e. ass kicking) is quite strong, and perhaps vulgar, and it is something I try to avoid in my writings; but, gosh darn it to heck, the Senate Republicans who seem to have lost their minds need to do their job, plain and simple.

I am specifically thinking of the fact that these malcontents, these obstructionists, on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary boisterously avow they will not even hold hearings on any nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States that President Barack Obama may send to the Senate for consideration. After all, as the immediately preceding web page states, "Power to nominate the Justices is vested in the President of the United States and appointments are made with the advice and consent of the Senate."

I am not saying the Senate must approve any recommended nominee to the Supreme Court. I am just saying the Senate needs perform its Constitutional responsibilities and do its job. Hearings should be held; hearings must be held. A vote (up or down) on a nominee should be taken; a vote on a nominee must be taken.

The GOP is not the political party that it once was. And, GOP Obstructionism is not all that new or infrequent under President Barack Obama.

If it were not for the fact that the President, Congress, and Supreme Court are all equal in their respective governmental roles, I would suggest that the President request the Supreme Court to issue a writ of mandamus ordering the Senate to perform its Constitutional responsibility and duty. Unfortunately, it is doubtful that a mandamus would or could be issued to the Senate as an entity or to specific United States Senators.

My message to the U.S. Senate in regards to potential appointments of nominees to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Barack Obama is plain and simple: Have the hearings and take a vote.

With more than 300 days left in President Obama's term, the Senate has no excuse to delay.

Help me to spread the word. Let us all do our part to make the Senate do its job.

Sign the petition—tell the Senate to do its job.

Friday, February 19, 2016

Congressional Term Limits

The Congress of the United States of America is a bicameral legislature. Congress consists of two (2) chambers, i.e. the House of Representatives and the Senate.

Article I of the Constitution of the United States Constitution establishes the legislative branch of the United States national government, referring to it as Congress. It sets out the composition, membership, duties, and powers (explicit, implied, and denied) of the legislative branch of American government at the national level; and, it also has a section (Article I, Section 10) of what powers are denied, or prohibited without the consent of Congress, to the individual States of the United States of America.

Article 1 also puts forth the qualification requirements of those who may become a Representative and of those who may become a Senator. It does so for Representatives in Section 2 and for Senators in Section 3. There are only three (3) Qualifications of Members of Congress and those requirements concern age, citizenship, and residency.

According to the United States Constitution:
"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."
"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."
That being stated, I am constantly amazed that there are people who wish to put forth their own personally held opinions about Congress and who desire to impose their will unto everyone else in our great nation.

There are some people who believe they know who is better to represent others in the Congress of the United States of America than the voting public who those in Congress actually represent. These people want to LIMIT how many times I can elect/re-elect MY CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE. They want to LIMIT how many times you can elect/re-elect YOUR CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVE.

I cannot help but wonder why someone in South Carolina (for example) believes that he or she knows better who should represent me from Ohio in the United States Senate OR why someone in North Dakota (for example) or someone from Southeastern Ohio (for example) believes that he or she knows better who should represent me from Northwestern Ohio in the United States House of Representatives.

AND, who am I from Northwest Ohio to prevent someone in Kentucky (for example) from electing whoever they damn well please to represent them in either chamber of Congress OR to prevent someone in Northeast Ohio (for example) to represent them in the United States House of Representatives?

All that, then, leads me to the subject of Congressional Term Limits. I strongly assert that there are already term limits imposed on Members of Congress. Each and every member of the United States House of Representatives is limited to a two-year term; and, each and every member of the United States Senate is limited to a six-year term. The Ballot Box is the mechanism to impose term limits. If the majority of voting age residents in a congressional district so choose, they may change their Representative or Senator every election cycle OR they may choose to retain those elected officials. If I have an incumbent elected official who I believe is doing a good job for my geographical area, I want to keep that person. On the other hand, if I have an incumbent elected official who I believe is doing a bad job for my geographical area, I want to fire that person. The ballot box gives me the power and the authority to impose term limits, provided that I am in the voting majority. It is only those in THE VOTING MINORITY, THOSE who are NOT GETTING THEIR WAY, AND PEOPLE FROM OTHER GEOGRAPHICAL POLITICAL JURISDICTIONS who WANT to DENY me MY RIGHTS to choose my duly democratically elected United States Representative or Senator.

Okay, That is it! Now, if you want to know what set me off today (I have addressed the same topic for decades), just look at the reproduction below of something that occurred on Facebook:

Elaine Soukup shared Conservative Minds's photo.
Thursday, February 18 at 2:00am ·

Conservative Minds
February 17 at 10:07am · 
We poke fun at the "ignorance" of people in third world countries for allowing political dynasties to remain in power, thus allowing the unilateral corruption to keep them third world, but by not imposing term limits on our officials, we basically do the same thing. Agree or disagree? Let us know here at Conservative Minds

Roland Louis Hansen:
We already have term limits. It is called The Ballot Box.
Thursday, February 18 at 10:030pm

Douglas Pettigrew:
But the ballot box doesn't work very well when the same people control Congress for 40+years.
Friday, February 19 at 1:10am

Roland Louis Hansen:
I respectfully disagree with you, Douglas Pettigrew. The ballot box works exactly as it is supposed to work. Each individual elected to the House of Representatives is limited to two years; and, each individual elected to the Senate is limited to six years. After those periods of time, another election is held and new terms for those positions  are held, and so on and so forth. The ballot box reflects the will of the majority of voters in each district for the U.S. House of Representatives every two years and for each State for its U.S. Senators every six years. People who disagree that the ballot box serves as a mechanism for term limits are simply dissatisfied that their own viewpoint is not reflected by the majority of voters from the districts of which the elected persons have been duly elected.
Friday, February 19 at 8:29am

Thursday, February 18, 2016

Toledo, Ohio: Washington Local Board of Education; Patrick Hickey, Superintendent; Washington Local School District. Embarrassment. Scandal. Shame.

Back on December 27, 2015, I published a Roland Hansen Commentary entitled Patrick Hickey. Toledo, Ohio: Washington Local School District. Superintendent. Saga, Legacy, Scandal, Shame? If you follow the embedded link contained within its title, you may read all kinds of interesting information contained within the blog entry's embedded links that are contained therein.

Yet again, here in Toledo, Ohio, the saga of embarrassment, scandal, and shame has raised its ugly head in the Washington Local School District. The Washington Local Board of Education that bought off its superintendent, Patrick Hickey, for an approximate quarter of a million dollars ("In December, Mr. Hickey accepted a separation agreement that will pay him more than $200,000 in exchange for leaving the district two years before his contract expires." Attribution cited in embedded links below) has now banned Mr. Hickey from all school property (ref: BOARD RESOLUTION – APPROVED 2/13/2016) including any school events in which his own children are participants.

Meanwhile, there are outdoor signs in the form of billboards that promote Patrick Hickey.

You may read more about the Toledo, Ohio Washington Local Schools community embarrassment, scandal and shame in the following embedded links:

Thursday, February 11, 2016

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act

Over the past 50 years there has evolved a History of Federal Voting Rights Laws in the United States of America beginning with The Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Within that legislation of 1965 was a temporary five-year provision contained in Section 5. Rather than allowing that provision to expire after the initial five years, Section 5 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act was renewed for another five years in 1970. That section was renewed again in 1975, but this time it was renewed for seven years. And when those seven years were up in 1982, it was renewed by the United States Congress for 25 years.

Then in 2006, Congress extended the requirements of Section 5 for an additional 25 years.

An interesting twist to Section 5 occurred as a result of a 2013 United States Supreme Court decision.

Here is an excerpt from The Voting Rights Act of 1965: Background and Overview, Kevin J. Coleman, Analyst in Elections, July 20, 2015 that effectively points out the twist:
The Voting Rights Act (VRA) was successfully challenged in a June 2013 case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder. The suit challenged the constitutionality of Sections 4 and 5 of the VRA, .... In its ruling, the Court struck down Section 4 as outdated and not “grounded in current conditions.” As a consequence, Section 5 is intact, but inoperable, unless or until Congress prescribes a new Section 4 formula.
If you click on the embedded link that follows, you may read the entire Background and Overview article.

What exactly is Section 5, you may ask. Well, to get the answer to that, I suggest you read ABOUT SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT from the United States Department of Justice.

Given the plain, simple, truthful fact that the intention of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is to assure that various jurisdictions within the United States of America do not attempt to infringe on the right to vote of any person or group of persons, I see no reason why its intended purpose should not be made a permanent provision of the Voting Rights Act.

For a quick and easy read, I highly suggest that you go over to read Voting Rights Act Fast Facts from CNN.

Voting rights for all Americans regardless of race or color or whatever should be and must be guaranteed.

As my son, Adam Hansen, has stated, "No one has to renew an act to allow me to vote. It should be that way for all men and women."

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Run, Bernie, Run. Quilter and Sanders.

Next Tuesday (February 9, 2016), I will be attending a fundraiser in Lucas County, Ohio for Bernie.

Yes, I wrote Bernie. And yes, I wrote fundraiser in Lucas County.

Oh, and I wish the best to Bernie in New Hampshire next Tuesday.