How does President Obama plan to get re-elected in November? – Part 2

In yesterday’s post we covered the Hispanic and Independent voters, the former of which most are probably in the President’s camp, the latter still uncertain but leaning left.  It is a well known fact that Independents have decided elections in the past, but, then, there hadn’t been this surge by Latinos before in both population numbers and their renewed interest to vote.  It could be formidable, and it could be Barack Obama’s blueprint for victory.

Hispanics, along with his majority share of Independents, could give the President the kind of mandate he received against John McCain in 2008.  But there is still yet one more block of voters that have hefty numbers, and which are also a deciding factor in most elections.

Always look LEFT

It is the female vote with polls repeatedly showing that women favor Obama over Romney.  But in the interim Hillary Rosen of CNN opens her mouth and Obama and the Democrats are taking a hit when it should be clearly and completely in the lap of Rosen.  She said on CNN, “that Mitt Romney shouldn't be relying on his wife for guidance on economic issues affecting women,” because she had never worked.  The Romney campaign jumped on this and the politics hit the fan.

Rosen is not officially connected to the Obama campaign and David Axelrod even said the comments were “inappropriate and offensive.” 

One campaign official said that family should be off limits but both the candidate and his wife have thrust Mrs. Romney into the arena so she will just have to learn to take the heat. {The latter, my take}  Later last week, Rosen said, “…that Republicans were attacking her as part of a strategy to divert attention from policies championed by Romney that will hurt women.”  She added, “…does Mitt Romney have a vision for bringing women up economically…?”

Tom Cohen of CNN said, “The ‘war over women’ erupted in full force Wednesday, when Romney said Obama may not have started the recession but his policies extended it, which hurt women.”  He added, “…in his {Obama’s} 3½ years, 92.3% of the people who lost jobs have been women. His failures have hurt women."  Somewhat true, but in need of clarification by federal labor statistics.

The total loss of non-farm female jobs does amount to 92.3%, but the “statistic does not reflect that men constituted a much larger chunk of the job loss pie in the year leading up to Obama's inauguration.”  Further, “In the 2008 calendar year, men lost a total of 2.7 million nonfarm jobs, compared with 895,000 lost for women. Men made up 75.4% of the 3.6 million jobs lost that year.”  Most thinking Americans agree that Barack Obama inherited a nightmare from GWB.

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, on NBC’s Meet the Press, “called Mitt Romney's argument that women have been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn ridiculous.’"  He added that, “…the recession and the crisis started at the beginning of 2008 before the president took office.”

On another issue, a Romney adviser balked (“We’ll get back to you on that”) when asked if the candidate would support the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Play Restoration Act that would expand workers’ rights to sue if there is a pay discrepancy between a man and a woman.  The Obama campaign countered issuing a statement from Ledbetter criticizing Romney for not standing up for women and their families.

In summary, should the President sew up the support of the Hispanics, the Independents, particularly this “swing” group, and the female vote between now and November, it is hard to see how he could lose the election.  With Mitt Romney starting in the hole on Hispanics and women, and on the fence with Independents, he has his work cut out for him.  The last two weeks of April and the month of May could very well chart the outcome of the election.

How does President Obama plan to get re-elected in November?

It won’t be easy and at this point it is far from being guaranteed.  It will certainly depend on the Hispanic vote, Independents, and women voters, although CNN’s Hillary Rosen may have muddied the water somewhat with her statements about whether Ann Romney has a real job.  More on that later.  I did a recent post on the Hispanic vote, “How do you get rid of conservatives in government? The Hispanic vote,” that shows some impressive numbers.

• President Obama is the overwhelming choice among likely Hispanic voters.  Head to head, the best any of the GOP candidates could do is get 14 percent of their vote.
• This is a nationwide trend resulting in a rejection of the Republican candidates the more they learn about them.
• 80 percent of the Hispanics voting for Obama in 2008 would vote for him again in November.

Further, today there are five top states where Hispanics represent a sizeable portion of the eligible voting population and they are New Mexico, 42.5%, Texas, 33.7%, California, 27.1%, Arizona, 21.3%, Florida, 19.2%,  There are a number of eligible voters in New Mexico through Florida who are not registered, as follows: 202,650, 2,154,600, 2,026,500, 405,300 and 638,400, respectively.  That’s 5,427,450 potential voters for the progressive side…in just 5 states.

Next, Independents, that voting block that most likely decides the election; of course, Latinos could give Obama a landslide.  According to their website, “

Third Way

is a think tank that answers America’s challenges with modern ideas aimed at the center.”  They say that Swing Independents make up 15 percent of the vote and currently favor the President by 44 percent to 38 percent over Mitt Romney. However, they claim Obama’s “populist” message is turning them off.

Third way claims, “Swing Independents care about ‘opportunity,’ not fairness, prioritize cutting the deficit over reducing income inequality, don't believe the US economy is skewed to favor the wealthy and consider themselves to be haves, not part of the have nots."  That flies in the face of the fact that “prominent Republicans are admitting that Obama's focus on income in-equality has put the GOP on the defensive,” according to National Public Radio.

Ari Berman, the author of “Herding Donkeys: The Fight to Rebuild the Democratic Party and Reshape American Politics,” says in his NPR article that

Third Way

wants the president and Democratic candidates to drop the populism issue. Berman says, “That would be political suicide, not to mention terrible public policy.”  He also disagrees with

Third Way

that they are the Soccer Moms of 2012 and paints them simply as “fickle souls who can't make up their minds.”

In refuting

Third Way

’s stand on the issues, he quoted a new ABC News/Washington Post poll asking voters: "what do you think is the bigger problem in this country — unfairness in the economic system that favors the wealthy, or over-regulation of the free market that interferes with growth and prosperity?"  The answers were conclusive:

“Fifty-two percent answered ‘unfairness,’ while only ‘37 percent’ mentioned ‘over-regulation.’ A December 2011 Pew poll found that 61 percent of Americans believe the US economic system ‘favors the wealthy,’ with 36 percent saying it was ‘generally fair.’ In a November 2011 ABC News/Washington Post poll, 61 percent of the public said the federal government should "pursue policies that try to reduce the gap between wealthy and less-well-off Americans," with 35 percent saying it should not.”

Who could possibly argue with the concept that financial equality is one of the most important factors for survival, except the wealthy of course?

Part 2 and the women’s vote tomorrow.

Here’s why guns in the hands of the inexperienced is dangerous

It is a well known fact that many gun owners have little or no weapons training because a number of states do not require it. 



It's never too late



“In 28 states you can now openly carry a loaded gun in public with no permitting, screening or training.  Four states now require no permitting, screening or training to carry a concealed firearm in public.  And even in "Shall Issue" states that require one to obtain a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public, several have no training requirement.”

The above statement came from Ladd Everitt, who should know.  He compiles this data for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence in his role as their Director of Communications.  He used Arizona as a prime example exclaiming, “Law enforcement {in Arizona} would have no idea what the background of a gun carrier is until he opens fire (unless that individual voluntarily obtained a permit to carry a firearm into certain sensitive public spaces.”

One of the primary reasons used by the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) and its members for carrying their guns anywhere they choose is for self-protection or to help out a fellow citizen.  Second, they think the 2^nd Amend. gives them this right.  First of all, I don’t want the help of some yahoo playing Wyatt Earp because there is a good chance he or she might shoot me, not my aggressor.  Next, the 2^nd Amend. does not cover the carrying of concealed weapons.

But the real danger of these gun worshipping cowboys on the loose is found in the statements from and training of law enforcement officers.  In an article, “Police know better than to stand their ground,” in The Daily Beast, the irony is drawn: “while police departments now encourage off-duty police officers to avoid carrying firearms or confrontations, the so-called stand-your-ground laws effectively encourage civilians to do so.”



Concealed weapons are everywhere



Law enforcement has come out in force and almost 100 percent unanimous against gun laws like “stand your ground.”  But lawmakers never listen because they are playing to a constituency that loves its guns, and apparently hasn’t the slightest notion of what damage these firearms can do in the hands of the bad guys and the inexperienced.  Law enforcement even admits that law officers off-duty can misread a tense situation.

As an example of the difference in outcomes of a police force still allowing their officers to carry their weapons off-duty, The Baltimore Police Department last year had “three highly questionable shootings by officers in bars.”  By contrast both New York and Los Angeles have the policy for not carrying when not working and off-duty shootings are rare among their combined 45,000 cops.  Police departments suggest they simply walk away from most altercations.

Weapons training in law enforcement:

The Daily Beast says, “With police officers being warned away from involvement in all but the most unavoidable life-and-death confrontations, the last thing the nation needs is their replacement by unaccountable, self-deputized citizen surrogates.”  It becomes even more important when you take into consideration that minorities have been the targets of these so-called “watchmen.”        

 

Further, “In the Martin case, the evidence so far suggests that Zimmerman had convinced himself that the teenager was one of the dangerous “assholes who always get away,” as he put it to the 911 dispatcher (who encouraged him to remain in his vehicle and let the police investigate).”  George Zimmerman did not comply and this led to his shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin.

Also from The Daily Beast, “The ‘nation under siege’ rhetoric favored by advocates of widespread weapon carrying resonates with the worst possible self-appointed “community defenders”: the mentally unstable and those deeply rattled by America’s cultural and demographic changes.”  One needs to add here, all the “rhetoric” suggested above spews from the muzzle of the NRA.  Pathetic!

And if you didn’t catch the moral of this story, it is that even with the training that is available to private gun owners, and meager it is at times, you could never achieve the preparedness that law enforcement officers have.

Romney view(s) on gun control illustrate his flip-flop style in tackling serious issues

Mitt Romney on gun control

In 1994 running against Ted Kennedy for Massachusetts’ Senate seat, Mitt Romney said, “I don’t line up with the NRA” on gun control.  By 2008 he had completely reversed himself stating that if he became President, he would support the 2^nd Amendment and vigorously defend the rights of Americans to defend their homes.  This was also at odds with the fact that early in his political career he was supportive of many gun control laws, particularly the Brady Act.

Today the GOP candidate is opposed to any further gun control legislation.  He called Trayvon Martin’s shooting “a tragedy” and said there should be a “thorough investigation.”  To my knowledge he didn’t mention the “stand your ground” law, nor did he comment on whether it was good or bad legislation.  It would seem to me the perfect opportunity for President Obama to come out in full force to repeal all these laws and challenge Romney to his positio

Mitt Romney on gun control 4 years ago:

In his 1994 Senate bid, Romney defied the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) by saying that he favored strong gun laws and did not “line up with the NRA.”  But in considering a run for the presidency in 2006, he signed up for a lifetime membership in the NRA.  He even praised the group for “doing good things” and confirmed “supporting the right to bear arms.”  When asked in 2007 if he was still in favor of the Brady Bill he was vague and referenced his term as Governor.

Romney said that he signed the assault weapons ban as Massachusetts’ governor exclaiming that it was a “weapon of such lethality” and poses grave risk to law enforcement.  This didn’t get him any accolades from the NRA but then that may well be put aside when he addresses the gun lobbying group at its annual meeting Friday the 13^th in St. Louis, MO. 

This after the recent Trayvon Martin shooting and the earlier massacre in Tucson, AZ, injuring former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords and killing six.  This when the nation is still reeling from mass school shootings and a potential hate crime that left 3 dead and two injured in Tulsa, OK.  I am running a documented count of shootings across the U.S. which I started in March and will publish monthly.

While campaigning, Romney tells potential voters that we have all the gun control laws we need and about a month ago let the world know he owns two shotguns.  Not a handgun, mind you, just two shotguns and he actually doesn’t even own them.  In an interview with the Boston Globe he bragged of being a hunter and having a gun of his own.  He was corrected by the interviewer who said isn’t that your son’s gun?  Romney responded, “Um, well, yes, but so what?

The man is an enigma unto himself, making it repeatedly clear that he is swayed by the issue at hand and will switch in whatever direction necessary that will benefit his candidacy.  By the way, this isn’t Romney’s first appearance before the NRA.  He addressed them in 2008 and 2009 and sent a video message for the 2011 annual meeting.  Since charges against Martin’s killer, George Zimmerman, have been made, will this come up at the NRA’s meeting?

And finally, the dreaded link with Barack Obama in his views on gun control.  Yes, says former presidential candidate Rick Santorum, Mitt Romney does share many of President Obama’s views on guns.  He also included the issues of health care and energy policy in this forum.  Santorum sums up Romney’s apparent nomination by saying, the party shouldn’t nominate a moderate with this little contrast with the President.  But it sure looks like they will.

Romney label by Arizona’s Russell Pearce could be damaging

Russell Pearce & AZ Gov. Jan Brewer

You remember Russell Pearce.  Arizona’s resident bigoted and racist state senator until the people of his district threw him out of office in disgrace recently for his extremist views.  Pals with the state’s best known racist and neo-Nazi, J.T. ready.  Pseudo-author of Arizona’s famous anti-immigration law.  Yes, this is the one, and now he has another notch on his gun.  He has placed GOP presidential hopeful, Mitt Romney, in his despicable category.

Russell Pearce said that he and Romney have “identical” views on immigration.  For some, most specifically Hispanics, that is the kiss of death for the candidate.  Democrats have already jumped on the bandwagon to make Romney look like an extremist in his quest to unseat President Obama.  Although I am firmly behind the President, I’m not sure Mitt Romney is that much of a fanatic, although he may eventually have to be in order to enlist Tea Party support.

Romney’s campaign website “outlines an immigration policy that calls for securing the border by completing a high-tech fence and hiring border patrol agents. He also said he supports E-Verify and opposes ‘magnets’ for illegal immigration, such as amnesty programs and in-state tuition for people in this country illegally,” according to Cronkite News. 

But Pearce does claim that “…much of his {Romney’s} policy was modeled – by people who I’ve worked with – after my legislation.”



Mitt Romney on immigration



U.S. representatives Raul Grijalva, D-Tucson, along with Charlie Gonzalez of Texas and Xavier Becerra of California comment that “Romney has allied himself with Pearce, Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach, former California Gov. Pete Wilson and other backers of stringent laws against undocumented immigrants.”  This is all followed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer’s endorsement of Romney back in February that just adds fuel to the anti-immigration fire.

Looking at President Obama’s position on immigration reform, there appears to be no change from his State of the Union speech in 2011 and 2012.  But there are also no bold moves to advance an aggressive agenda on the issue.  Lots of talk and no action.  This is what the Hispanic community is looking at, plus the fact that Obama is setting records on deportation.  However, the one real plus in the president’s corner is the mud-slinging against Hispanics by the GOP.

GOP Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich makes Obama's case:

Here are the President’s remarks on immigration in 2011:

Today, there are hundreds of thousands of students excelling in our schools who are not American citizens. Some are the children of undocumented workers, who had nothing to do with the actions of their parents. They grew up as Americans and pledge allegiance to our flag, and yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities. But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us.

It makes no sense.

Now, I strongly believe that we should take on, once and for all, the issue of illegal immigration. And I am prepared to work with Republicans and Democrats to protect our borders, enforce our laws and address the millions of undocumented workers who are now living in the shadows. I know that debate will be difficult. I know it will take time. But tonight, let's agree to make that effort. And let's stop expelling talented, responsible young people who could be staffing our research labs or starting a new business, who could be further enriching this nation.

And then in 2012:

Let's also remember that hundreds of thousands of talented, hardworking students in this country face another challenge: The fact that they aren’t yet American citizens. Many were brought here as small children, are American through and through, yet they live every day with the threat of deportation. Others came more recently, to study business and science and engineering, but as soon as they get their degree, we send them home to invent new products and create new jobs somewhere else.

That doesn't make sense.

I believe as strongly as ever that we should take on illegal immigration. That’s why my Administration has put more boots on the border than ever before. That’s why there are fewer illegal crossings than when I took office.
The opponents of action are out of excuses. We should be working on comprehensive immigration reform right now. But if election-year politics keeps Congress from acting on a comprehensive plan, let’s at least agree to stop expelling responsible young people who want to staff our labs, start new businesses, and defend this country. Send me a law that gives them the chance to earn their citizenship. I will sign it right away.



Barack Obama speaking to latinos



Very similar, but in 2012 condescending to the fact that the upcoming election will prevent real reform while making another pitch for the Dream Act.  Giving in to election year realities is expected these days but there is no excuse for the fact that nothing was started in the last 3-plus years.  A real shocker would be for Obama to propose and push his immigration plan right up to November showing the forcefulness he needs to exhibit, in the process locking the Hispanic vote.

Hind-sight is always 20/20, but I have always thought the President should have tackled immigration reform before health care, but, then, that is probably the reason I am not a White House advisor.

The NRA’s sinister roll outside gun rights lobbying

Think the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) only concerns itself with the right for anyone to buy a gun, no matter what their background is, and carry it anywhere in the U.S. they want to?  Think again.  This duplicitous organization, in its crusade to convince a bunch of brain-washed gun worshippers the 2^nd Amendment gives them the right to do anything they choose with firearms, has an underlying reason for constantly appealing to members’ pocketbooks.

The NRA does hit up its members for donations that these gun chumps easily give up to keep them armed to the hilt, but there is a method in their madness.  The NRA wants to go big time in the lobbying of conservative causes.



Grover Norquist

 They are hooked up with one of the most ultra-conservative lobbying groups in the country, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), who dreams up legislation that is pro-business and anti-consumer, then takes it to dim-witted, mostly GOP state legislators throughout the U.S. who often pass the legislation verbatim.  A good example is the “stand your ground” law that is responsible for the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida by George Zimmerman.

The NRA actually brought this proposed law to ALEC, who first got it passed in Florida and subsequently 20+ other states.  But the bullets hit the fan this past week when four of ALEC’s corporate sponsors dumped them, no doubt over the “stand your ground” law and the Trayvon Martin killing.  The companies were Coca Cola, Pepsico, Kraft and Intuit and according to some there may be more. 

Thanks to the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), ALEC is finally being exposed for the conspiracy it is.  You can see all the action at their site ALEC Exposed.

The CMD has also documented the NRA’s participation in other conservative legislation that has nothing to do with gun rights.  NRA lobbyist Tara Mica was instrumental in developing and coordinating the bill for voter ID that inhibits voting by the poor, ethnic groups and minorities.  Mica was also responsible for participating in the preparation of the model legislation that eventually became Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB-1070. 

The question the NRA members might want to ask themselves at this point is just how much of their membership dues are being used for this non-gun lobbying.  Unless a majority of the enrollment are bigots who also are in favor of this same philosophy,

Karl Malone



Josh Horwitz, head of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence (CSGV), says the NRA's role with ALEC cements his view that the NRA is really a base for the conservative movement.  Further, "People think the NRA is just a gun group. It's really not," he commented.  You might want to click on CSGV’s website, “Meet the NRA.org,” where you can check out the group, particularly its leadership.  People like: 

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, and David Keene, former chairman of the American Conservative Union, Robert Brown, creator of Soldier of Fortune magazine, rock guitarist Ted Nugent, former NBA star Karl Malone, Chuck Norris, Oliver North and Tom Selleck.



Tom Selleck

 Robert Spitzer, a political scientist at the State University of New York at Cortland and at Cornell University, who has studied and written about the NRA for decades, talks of other non-gun issues in which the NRA has become involved.  As an example, the NRA fought hard against campaign finance reform in the days of McCain-Feingold. "They were taking a very much free-enterprise, government-hands-off-the-campaign-process (approach),"

Finally, Spitzer said that the NRA has its work cut out for it, because gun ownership is on the decline in America.  Now that’s the best news we’ve had in a long time.

Corporate stampede to dump ALEC – Do your part today

Unfortunately it took the death of Trayvon Martin in Florida at the hands of George Zimmerman to convince at least some of the corporate world just how despicable the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is.  When the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) brought the “stand your ground” law to the them, it was originally passed in 2005 in Florida, later being passed by 20-something other states.  The law’s efficacy is being questioned nationwide.

This is all the result of the dedicated reporting of the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) on ALEC’s activities in an expose that finally put this reprehensible organization in the spotlight, drawing attention to its lobbying efforts on the state level that favor big business at the expense of the consumer.  The very consumer that supports these large corporations that also support ALEC.  Well the tide has turned and they are dropping like flies.

It was announced late last Thursday that Coca Cola and Pepsico had dumped ALEC, then on Friday Kraft and Intuit decided to bail.  No doubt more are on the way and this list will need to be updated regularly today.  But there were holdouts, some you deal with every day, and you should know who they are (below), and I will show you later how you can add your voice to the referendum.

Wal-Mart refused to withdraw its support of ALEC claiming, "Our membership in any organization does not affirm our agreement with each policy created by the broader group."  Not good enough and you should let the retailer know by your future shopping habits.

According to Reuters, due to “political risk,” Pfizer, Reynolds American, Altria/Philip Morris and non-board ALEC member Procter & Gamble refuse to leave ALEC.  Customers of these companies should decide whether they want to leave them.

Exxon Mobil and British alcohol firm Diageo (makers of Smirnoff products and Johnnie Walker whisky) declined to comment.



Pfizer drugs



Pfizer, the world largest drug manufacturer, said, "We don't agree with every ALEC position, but we participate in ALEC's healthcare forums because state legislators that are the members in ALEC, they make decisions that impact our business and the country's business every day."  Not added is the fact that state lawmakers pass the laws dictated by ALEC, unfavorable to drug users.

Reynolds (Camel cigarettes) said ALEC provides "a valuable forum for sharing of ideas and fostering better understanding of a broad range of both legislative and business issues."  In other words, we let them do our dirty work.

Others who weren’t talking when this was posted are Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, AT&T, State Farm, plus others.

Now this may all change during the day, adding more dropouts, and you can check the progress of this issue by going to CMD’s site, ALEC Exposed.  And in case you aren’t mad enough yet to participate, here are a few priority items on ALEC’s agenda:

• Suppress voting by students, the poor and ethnic minorities through restrictive Voter ID laws.

• Push climate change denial and restrict protections for our environment.

• Undermine public schools by using tax dollars to subsidize for-profit schools.

• Limit consumers' rights and the basic right of workers to organize.

• And privatize and ration Medicare and Social Security, as well as other government services.

Get the scoop on ALEC below from a U.S. Representative:

So now that you are mad enough, here are some sites to visit where you can learn more about the antics of ALEC.  First check out the ALEC Corporations that are involved in this conspiracy and you will see a wide array of the U.S. corporate world.  It’s alphabetized for easy reference.  Next, find your state lawmakers that do just what ALEC mandates and tell them to stop this practice and start representing the people or you will vote them out of office.

Now that you are fully armed with information, you are ready to take action on your own.  Go to CMD’s Dump ALEC site and you can send your own letter to corporate America that says you are sick and tired of these underhanded methods to undermine your rights as a consumer and a customer.  You’ll feel better and it will help CMD in its fight to oust ALEC.  Do it today!

The ALEC conspiracy broadens

The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) has been called a “bill churning mill” primarily due to the fact that, of the nearly 1,000 bills it presents to state lawmakers each year, 20 percent become law.  Some of them verbatim, right out of ALEC’s factory.  Marvin Meadors writing for the Huff Post likens it to the “evil law firm” in the movie The Devil’s Advocate, a 1997 film in which a lawyer finds out his new boss is Lucifer himself.

I can see how the Koch brothers, David and Charles, would be considered the devil reincarnated by consumers because everything these two concoct ends up flying in the face of the average American citizen.  Things like the “stand your ground” laws (Castle Doctrine), voter id laws, voucher programs for private schools that dilute public education, anti environmental bills, anti-immigration legislation, anti-worker laws, and the list goes on.

But the Koch brothers aren’t in this alone; their cronies are some of the largest corporations in the U.S., all of which depend on the very consumers ALEC laws are designed to oppose.  Companies like Wal-Mart, Kraft, State Farm, Exxon/Mobil, Verizon, AT&T, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, not to mention Koch Industries and there are more.  These back-stabbers are joined by over 2,000 of your state legislators who pretty much do just what ALEC tells them to.

And then there is the National Rifle Assn., which brought the “stand your ground” law to ALEC, who along with the NRA got it passed in Florida in 2005, which then went on to another twenty-something states.  It is the basis on which George Zimmerman shot and killed black teen ager Trayvon Martin in Florida recently, and the possible answer to why justifiable homicides are increasing at an alarming rate in the states that have passed this law.    

ALEC was actually founded by conservative Paul Weyrich, also the founder of the Heritage Foundation to defy liberal think tanks.  He was one of the earliest to marry conservatives to evangelicals, joining Jerry Falwell to found the Moral Majority.  Weyrich actually said: “I don't want everybody to vote. Elections are not won by a majority of the people.”  He continues, “As a matter of fact, our leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”

His underlying meaning, above, becomes quite clear when you consider the voter-id laws that ALEC is proposing under the guise of stopping voter fraud that are actually meant to discourage voting by the poor and ethnic minorities. 

But there is probably nothing more profound in ALEC’s privatization efforts than its crusade to turn America’s prisons into private enterprise.  Its model legislation has been responsible for an explosion in prison population.  Laws like “three strikes,” mandatory minimum sentencing laws, and “truth in sentencing” that does away with or limits parole.  As crime fell dramatically in the 1990s, the prison population grew by a half-million inmates, as just one example.     



Gov. Brewer fills private prisons



And where do we go for the most glaring examples of ALEC’s privatization of prisons?  Why Arizona of course.  I did a post on this in February, “Private prisons another example of big business exploiting states,” which related the conspiracy going on between Gov. Jan Brewer’s office, Sheriff Joe Arpaio and the Republican state legislators to bring in companies like Corrections Corp. of America (CCA), and guarantee to keep their cells filled for profit.

But there is a darker side that the state doesn’t talk about because it completely refutes Arizona’s original reason for going this route.  It was to save money, which it hasn’t.  A report released in February reveals that the state overpaid its private prisons by $10 million between 2008 and 2010.  And what they received in return was unacceptable including malfunctioning alarm systems, fences with holes in them, inept staffs plus other problems.

In total there were 157 serious security failings across five facilities.  There were some 28 riots, a figure that cannot be confirmed since the prison administration attempted to hide the evidence.  And just this past Tuesday, Arizona’s Dept. of Corrections awarded a $349 million three-year contract to privatize health care for inmates, costing $5 million more than the state paid in 2011.

These are your tax-paying dollars folks, and ALEC makes the U.S. Congress’ pork barrel politics look like kids stuff.  The question is not if, but rather when, ALEC will come up with a new state program to privatize.  How about parks?  Now that’s a possibility.  Fence them all in and charge admission.  But the state must find ways to force more people into the parks for maximum profit of let’s say a company like “Private Parks of America.”

Absurd?  Not at all.  And if progressives don’t get busy on both the national and state levels and dump these conservative lawmakers that worship big business, this country is in for a shock some day when corporations will occupy the White House and the Congress, not individuals.

BREAKING NEWS: Just announced that Coca Cola and Pepsico have severed their ties with ALEC due to pressure from special interest groups.  More on this later. 

“Stand your ground” gun laws have to go



Fla legislators love the NRA



Two good questions arise in a Wall Street Journal article that seem to challenge the “stand your ground laws in those states where it has been passed.  “For instance, does a rise in justifiable homicides reflect killings that otherwise wouldn't have happened? Or does it reflect the fact that more killings might naturally fall into the "justifiable" category, if a new law broadens that category?”  Tough questions and without more study will no doubt remain unanswered.

Up until the killing of Trayvon Martin by neighborhood watch captain George Zimmerman, the primary battle between gun control advocates and those for more gun rights has been to just let anyone who wants to own a weapon of their choice take it anywhere they wanted to.  So far, the gun worshippers have gotten their way.  Now it would seem that the NRA-backed gun bubbas would like to add an amendment: “If I kill someone, let me call it self defense.”

The alleged justifiable homicides almost doubled between 2000 and 2010, but distinguishing these events are some interesting factors.  Around 60 percent were strangers.  Firearms were used in 80 percent of the cases compared to 65 percent in non-justifiable cases.  The average age of victims in justifiable versus non-justifiable are about the same. 

Re. the race issue, in 75 percent of each type the victim and the killer were the same race.  On the other side, in these quasi justifiable cases, when the races are different, the victim is more often black.

So far there is only one common denominator in all the chaos of these laws and statistics and that is the fact that there is a proliferation of guns in the hands of literally anyone who wants them and these gun nuts are able to walk around with their firearms just about anywhere.  And that is not right.  George Zimmerman’s judgment was proven inadequate to own a handgun when he defied law enforcement by following Trayvon Martin, resulting in the black teen’s death.



Where the 2nd Amend. was designed for



In my opinion, the 2^nd Amendment was meant by its drafters to protect individuals in their homes.  Conversely, as a militia then, or for today’s law enforcement and military, the purpose was to arm them for anywhere they were needed to protect the citizenry.  Protection of the homestead was the definition of the “Castle Doctrine” for several years until the gun-crazy gang decided they wanted to play Wyatt Earp.  Retreat was the law before this “stand your ground” crap.

Fla. legislator on his "stand your ground" law

According to the WSJ, one of the reasons reports of the U.S. homicide rate is in decline is the fact that it is voluntary for states to report the data, and police agencies across the country aren’t consistent in their reporting.  I did a post earlier this week, “48 dead from 49 shootings across U. S. in March alone,” where the title speaks for itself.  Actually, there was a slight increase in homicides from 2000-2010, but slight decline when adjusted for population.



GOP delivers for the NRA



Now when you look at justified killings over the same period, justifiable rose by 85 percent.  And most of these occurred after 2005 when Florida and 16 other states passed their first “stand your ground law.”  Coincidence?  The NRA would argue yes.  Sane individuals would see the figures as representing a law that all of a sudden provided these gun addicts a legal excuse to blast away.  And they would have probably continued to get away with it if not for George Zimmerman.

I am not suggesting that gun owners use the “stand your ground” law for a reason to either shoot or actually kill someone.  These people have been so brain-washed by the National Rifle Assn. that they are convinced they must push for the right to display their weapons before the world, fighting for literally any way to do this, and to stand firm against any move to control the violence caused by all these loose weapons on the street.  Pathetic!