America’s toughest Sheriff Arizona’s Joe Arpaio…not so tough anymore?

Joe Arpaio: The people elected me

For two decades one of the biggest foes of illegal immigrants in the Grand Canyon State may be ending his law enforcement career with a whimper.  Along with his best buddy, former State Sen. Russell Pearce, he could also be voted out of office in November.  Pearce was dumped due to his radical views on immigration, and the same issue could be Arpaio’s undoing.  But the Sheriff is taking his regular arrogant stand indicating the people put him in office.

That arrogance could easily be shoved down his throat in the 2012 election if the “people” decide they are fed up with him too.  But Randy Parraz, the community activist responsible for getting rid of Pearce says, “The groundswell of people coming out protesting, we haven’t seen.  Anywhere else with this kind of stuff, he wouldn’t survive.  So true!  In Arizona they love their conservatives who, for the most part can do no harm.  But they did finally get fed up with Russell Pearce.

Arpaio will do anything for publicity.  Along with his immigration sweeps, he recently appointed a special volunteer cold-case posse to investigate Barack Obama’s birth certificate…AGAIN.  The Sheriff then reported that they had found probable cause to believe that the long-form birth certificate released by the White House last April was a computer-generated forgery.  Randy Parraz commented, “He retaliates against his critics.”



Sheriff Arpaio's Tent city



The group Citizens for a Better Arizona has been working against Sheriff Joe for some time now and recently asked former high-ranking officials from the state and local level about their impressions of Arpaio.  They are former U.S. Attorney Paul Charlton, former Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley and former Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon.  They came up with the following assessment:

“The men say their goal was to remove the politics and talk facts. They see those facts as years of the sheriff's abuse of power that have caused the state and city of Phoenix time and money and hurt its reputation.”  The $ figure is $300 million.  The damage to Arizona’s reputation is well known from the ridicule it has taken nation-wide.

Arpaio’s supporters have continued toppling since Russell Pearce. 

The latest is former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas who was disbarred April 10, “…for engaging in unethical conduct to intimidate and smear his and Arpaio’s political adversaries.”  A salon article reports that “…a three-member Arizona state Supreme Court disciplinary panel supporting the disbarment ruling also concluded there was ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that Thomas had violated federal civil rights laws.”



Arpaio and Andrew Thomas



The Salon piece continues, “While Thomas, a Republican, has not been criminally charged, the opinion made it crystal clear that his unethical and allegedly illegal conduct was the result of his ‘unholy collaboration’ with Arpaio, also a Republican, to use their law enforcement powers to retaliate against critics.” This is powerful stuff for the Sheriff’s November opponents to take to the election but still may not convince some of his fanatical followers

 

However, there’s more.  Salon continues, “The Supreme Court panel’s opinion stated that evidence indicated Arpaio had conspired with Thomas and Aubuchon to file the charges against the judge and two supervisors.”  Lisa Aubuchon is a former assistant prosecutor for Thomas who was also disbarred.  Still not enough?  Well, former Governor and current Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has also withdrawn her support.

The Young Turks on Sheriff Arpaio:

One of the worst accusations against Arpaio is his department’s handling of more than 400 sex-crimes cases.  The New York Times reports, “His deputies failed to investigate or conducted only the sketchiest of inquiries into hundreds of sex crimes between 2005 and 2007, investigations by Arizona law enforcement agencies have shown. Many of those cases involved molested children.”  Arpaio responded, “If there were any victims, I apologize to those victims.”  “If”???  

Also important and certainly not forgotten is the demise and ultimate firing of the Sheriff’s longtime chief deputy David Hendershott who was a part of Arpaio’s campaign finance scandal which is yet another federal criminal investigation.  Arpaio is also being investigated by the feds for civil rights violations.  According to the Overthrow Arpaio movement, “Hundreds of current sheriff's office employees have expressed a vote of no confidence in Sheriff Arpaio.”

But there is one thing sheriff Joe Arpaio should be commended for and that is his devotion to helping animals through his no-kill shelter MASH, the old Maricopa County First Avenue Jail converted to an animal shelter which is air conditioned.  It has been confirmed that the deputies’ care of these misplaced pets is great.  But is that enough to get America’s toughest Sheriff reelected?  The “people” will decide in November.

NRA member’s “Obama assassination joke” shows the insanity of this organization

Pres. Lincoln's assassination

At the recent NRA meeting in St. Louis, a reporter had the luxury of witnessing first-hand just what a bunch of morons make up at least a portion of the membership of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).  Alexander Zaitchik, writing for Media Maters for America, was on an airport shuttle bus when this idiot, who is an attorney by the way, dropped the bomb:

“What do Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Barack Obama have in common?"  The answer, "Nothing. Yet."



Gun wacko Wayne LaPierre



According to Zaitchik, the quote came from a professional Second Amendment extremist named Stephen Burke, who is a buddy of Wayne LaPierre, Exec. V.P. and CEO of the NRA.  In his day job “Burke specializes in getting guns into the hands of ex-cons whose licenses have been revoked or downgraded for criminal activity.”  A shining example of the NRA’s mission to put guns in the hands of everyone, no matter their background, allowing them to carry them anywhere.

What is chilling about this group of gun worshippers is the fact that most of the shuttle bus erupted in laughter, except for the “soft-spoken” father from Long Island who was going to the convention with his teenage daughter; he just looked out the window, “embarrassed.”  Yes, there are NRA members who believe in moderation and don’t wish to participate in the lunacy of these double-digit red necks.  They are apparently few, however.  Pathetic!

Zaitchik cautioned, though, that parents who want to shield their children from this kind of low class humor should keep them away from NRA conventions.  He added, “The group's leadership has in recent years expertly cultivated a very profitable hatred and paranoia among its membership.”  We all know that the use of hate and fear-mongering has a distinct appeal to conservatives.  And it keeps the NRA coffers full from the dull-witted among its members.



NRA 2012 convention



At the convention, NRA members and their leaders described President Obama as an “enemy of freedom,” with the same old tired phrase that he wants to take away all their guns.  This bunch of deadbeats will be after the President in November, but it’s not clear if his GOP rival, probably Mitt Romney, will be their saving grace.  Romney has vacillated on his support of gun control since he was the Massachusetts Gov., and wasn’t a surefire at the NRA convention.

But did you know that the NRA was almost bankrupt in the mid-1990s?  Considering the donations of only two gun manufacturers at this year’s convention, Ruger and MidWayUSA, who gave up $8 million, that’s hard to understand.   And in 2007, one of its former lobbyists, Richard Feldman, “…described the organization as a "cynical, mercenary political cult."  Zaitchik is more conciliatory of the group today, but I say it hasn’t changed.  Nada.

 The NRA’s official battle cry for November is “All In.”  Zaitchik says it works when you consider the group’s extreme, even “insane” interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment.  The organization has gone on the offense in recent years which is plainly obvious in the states of Arizona and Florida.  Arizona has the loosest gun laws in the country allowing guns in bars by owners who had no background checks.  And Florida passed the original “Stand Your Ground” law.

The NRA has as its steadfast partner the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in passing its absurd gun laws.  ALEC is a pro-business, anti-consumer group composed of U.S. corporations and state legislators that pass legislation designed for the profits of American companies while leaving consumers to fend for themselves.  In many cases the legislation is passed by states verbatim of what ALEC proposes. 

"Shoot-em-up Charlie" cartoon of the NRA and ALEC

But currently the NRA is focused on a federal bill to allow gun owners to carry nationwide, according to their state’s laws.  As an example, under this proposed law, a gun totin’ cowboy from Arizona with no background check, nor any training in firearms whatever, could carry his or her handgun to any U.S. state, no matter what the state’s gun laws say.  It’s another of the NRA’s licenses to kill. 

Thirty years ago there were discussions of a national handgun ban.  Today we’re talking about universal right to carry, brags the NRA’s Chris Cox.  Will this conglomeration of misfits still be bragging when some of their own are killed by the guns they want everywhere?

Largest auto and home insurer STATE FARM refuses to dump ALEC

Think State Farm Insurance is “Like a Good Neighbor,” as the slogan brags in their advertising?  Think again.  They are a part of the largest anti-consumer group in the country and even after numerous requests from its customers and pro-consumer groups State Farm says it will not budge in its support of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC).  They continue to maintain both their membership and leadership in the organization.

SF VP Louise Perrin said, "(O)ur work with ALEC is limited to research projects for use by public officials considering matters that impact the affordability and accessibility of insurance," according to the Center for Media and Democracy who has been bird dogging ALEC for some time now.  My interpretation of Perrin’s remark is that SF works with ALEC to wring every dollar out of their policyholders with limited coverage in return.

CMD states that Corporations like State Farm pay a hefty amount to participate in ALEC’s business-favored programs, somewhere around $50,000—plus additional money to serve on specific task forces—some of which is spent to promote NRA causes like the “stand your ground” law that has been deemed responsible for the killing of teen ager Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. 

ALEC was also involved in the creation of and passing of Arizona’s anti-immigration law, SB-1070.  They have been active in passing voter ID legislation that confuses and discourages the poor and ethnic groups to vote.  ALEC wants to privatize the prison system and education across the country when it has been proven that the public system is just as sufficient and less-expensive.

So just remember, every time you pay your premiums for auto and/or homeowner insurance to State Farm, a portion is going to ALEC to support pro-corporate legislation that puts the consumer at the bottom of the priority list.  And some of these may be bills that reflect just the opposite of what you believe on the issue.  ALEC’s control over conservative Republican state legislators is now legend; in many cases they pass ALEC legislation word for word.

A U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, (D) Wisconsin, comments on ALEC:

CMD says, “State Farm's participation on ALEC's insurance committee has put the insurer in a position to benefit from several major pieces of insurance industry model legislation.”  This includes the Consumer Choice Motor Vehicle Insurance Act.  The Act, “lowers the minimum amount that insurance companies typically must insure motorists for under state law in auto accidents.”  Further, “the law can mean lower payouts for insurance companies, yielding higher profits.”

BINGO!  State Farm is interested in its profitability over the quality of coverage it provides for its policyholders.

CMD adds, “The lower minimum coverage can also mean that consumers who thought they had insurance for serious accidents do not have enough to cover the injured parties.”  It happened in Wisconsin where ALEC worshipper Governor Scott Walker signed legislation that “…reduced the state's minimum coverage for auto liability insurance by half.”  This is a secret collusion between corporations and state legislators led by ALEC with the consumer always on the losing end.

CMD reports on other ALEC-sponsored auto insurance bills that leave consumers holding the bag:

• The After Market Crash Parts Act, which leads to lower costs for insurers transferring “…the risk to policy holders that after-market replacement parts might be inferior to the manufacturer's part.”

• Create an industry-controlled registry of insured motorists for states to identify motorists who flout mandatory insurance laws (a model law which effectively creates the same kind of public-private partnership in mandated auto insurance that many ALEC members would oppose when it comes to health insurance).

• Restrict or prohibit non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering) if an individual in a car accident did not have insurance* -- an industry effort to ratchet up the sale of policies.

• Prohibit state governments from being involved in the private insurance market (a theoretical proposition that may be a preemptive strike against policy makers who have considered taxing gas to cover uninsured motorists).

Other companies on the Fortune 500 list with State Farm have dumped ALEC.  They are McDonald’s, Coca Cola and Kraft.  Currently a total of 10 consumer-oriented companies have cut the cord with ALEC, and CMD forecasts more will follow.

Now I am not suggesting that you drop your State Farm insurance and switch to another company because casualty insurance today is such a tediously technical issue and you need a company track record.  And also, if you have the kind of agent I do, you wouldn’t part with him or her for anything.  Just call Bob Lapinski at State Farm (309) 735-8621, and tell him to get out of ALEC now.

You can see a series of my posts on ALEC here.

There is no excuse for behavior unbefitting a U.S. military soldier or…a human being



Abu Ghraib Prison

 We just learned of an incident from 2010 where soldiers took photos of themselves posing with bodies of suspected Afghan insurgents.  In one they are holding two disembodied legs for the camera.  It’s happened in the past—the most famous was the Abu Ghraib Prison incident in Iraq where prisoners were physically and psychologically abused, and there was also sexual abuse including torture.  That was 2004.  But we didn’t learn our lesson.

Even when 11 soldiers were convicted in courts martial, sentenced to military prison with dishonorable discharges.  Two others were sentenced later, and Brigadier General Janis Karpinski was reprimanded for dereliction of duty and then demoted to the rank of Colonel.  It’s hard to understand how the Abu Ghraib thing went on for so long but it did and with the media notoriety you would think that an even half intelligent person would understand the dangers involved.

Troops urinating on dead Taliban bodies

Fast-forward to January of 2012 where the gung-ho U.S. Marines are caught in a video showing them urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban members.  The video shows the marines laughing, with one commenting, “Have a nice day buddy,” another saying “Golden, like a shower.”  These guys are supposed to be a part of Scout Sniper Team 4 with the 3^rd battalion 2^nd marines from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, where you would expect more discipline.

With the learning curve still at zero, a group of guys at a Bagram U.S. Air Force base in Afghanistan apparently didn’t understand the importance of, or just didn’t care, about the Muslim bible and burned several copies of the Quran.  Peter Lavoy, acting assistant secretary of defense, said it was done “unknowingly and improperly.”  He stated further, “…all 140,000 coalition troops in Afghanistan are being retrained in the handling of religious materials.  There’s more.

U.S. Soldiers urinating on dead Taliban:

Army Staff SGT. Robert Bales left his outpost in Kandahar province's Panjwai district in March going house to house allegedly killing 17 villagers.  He’s described as a “gregarious” family man with five boys from Norwood, OH, close to Cincinnati.  In the Kandahar massacre, the 17 villagers were shot and killed, some burned, with five others injured.  Although it is not known for sure, it is believed that Bales did not know any of his victims.  

Now we know this select few are not indicative of the U.S. military as a whole.  The balance are courageous beyond the call duty and have served with honor in both Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.  And I am sure they have plenty of judgment since it takes a lot of that to just stay alive.  But bad acuity doesn’t just occur in the armed forces.  Look at President Obama’s Secret Service team’s fiasco in Cartagena on Colombia's Caribbean coast.

Secret Service agents placed on
administrative leave

Eleven agents “were implicated in a prostitution scandal in Colombia that also involved about 10 military service members and as many as 20 women. All the Secret Service employees who were involved had their security clearances revoked.”  A supervisor will be allowed to retire, another fired, and a third non-supervisor resigned.  The Service has said that the President was never in danger but, still, is this a good example of judgment?

On the one side you have the Geneva conventions that dictate that the dead in war “shall be respected.”  On the other side are troops that have watched buddies murdered by snipers and roadside bombs and who might see revenge in these kinds of episodic events.  But this is still absolutely no excuse for behavior unbefitting a U.S. military soldier, or…a human being. 

If, however, there is a breaking point in these kinds of occurrences that are happening to American servicemen and women, and this could be defined with more research, then the military should study this immediately.

Has the NRA provided a ‘license to murder’ in “stand your ground law?”

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg thinks so, claiming the National Rifle Assn. (NRA) promotes a gun culture at the expense of public safety in its creation of and promotion of the “stand your ground” laws.  This legislation that allows gun owners to claim self defense in shooting someone, even killing them, if they feel threatened, has been passed or is under consideration in 35 states.  Florida, where it originally passed in 2005, is where Trayvon Martin was killed.

Bloomberg claims it advocates vigilantism saying, “You just cannot have a civilized society where everybody can have a gun and make their own decisions as to whether someone is threatening or not."  Further, "This has nothing to do with gun owners' rights, nothing to do with the second amendment. Plain and simple, this is just trying to give people a license to murder."  The twisted minds of the NRA and some of its members will no doubt try to refute all of this.

And this fanaticism is not limited to the gun worshippers.  Immediately following the Trayvon Martin shooting, U.S. senators introduced NRA-backed legislation that would require all states to honor any permit for the concealed carry of weapons that has been issued by any other state.  Considering the fact that just about anyone in the state of Arizona can buy a gun and carry it anywhere they choose, you could be putting gun freaks on the street throughout the country.

It is almost as if the NRA looks at a tragedy like Trayvon Martin’s killing and suddenly realizes the promotability of the incident to assure its dues-paying membership that, no matter how horrific a situation is we can overcome the negativity by passing another law to loosen gun control.  And then they promptly take it to the gun nuts in Congress who are afraid to oppose the NRA.  Pathetic! 



Geo. Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin

If you are a Bill Cosby fan, or even if you aren't, this is a must-see video on his view of gun control below:





And something that could become a national public safety issue is the confusion that has been planted in the minds of police officers of whether or not to bring charges against someone like a George Zimmerman for killing Trayvon Martin in supposed self defense.  The Sanford, Florida police did not, yet a special prosecutor brought 2^nd degree murder charges against Zimmerman.  This kind of mentality could potentially release a maniac to do even more killing.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, “Most Americans support the right to use deadly force to protect themselves -- even in public places -- and have a favorable view of the National Rifle Association…”  OK, I can live with number one, confined to the home, but two and three completely baffle me considering the evidence of so many guns on the street and the shootings that take place daily.  There were 48 deaths from shootings alone in just last March. 

The poll concluded that "Americans do hold to this idea that people should be allowed to defend themselves and using deadly force is fine, in those circumstances," said pollster Chris Jackson. "In the theoretical ... there's a certain tolerance of vigilantism."  But did the poll mention to its respondents that many of these cowboys have absolutely no training in the use of firearms, like in Arizona where it isn’t required.  Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to stop Gun Violence.

I asked him the amount of training the average gun owner was required to have?  His reply: 

“If they're simply purchasing firearms, none whatsoever.  If they are  going to be carrying that gun in public, they MIGHT be required to have training.  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.”

“According to the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, nearly 100,000 people are shot every year in the United States in murders, suicides, accidents or police intervention.”  A whopping 91 percent want every gun owner to have a background check, including those in the gun show loophole, a move that the NRA and its members will probably fight to the death.  A measly 6 percent were in favor of no or minimum restrictions.

There is so much mixed reaction in this poll that I recommend that some independent pollster conduct a current study to determine just how often a gun-carrier has been successful in stopping an individual confrontation or has been instrumental in assisting someone in need.  The NRA crusades for guns for everyone everywhere in the name of protection and self defense.  It is time that we know just how effective this is, particularly re. carrying of concealed weapons.

Graying Granny Marion Hammer excellent example of NRA’s brain washing



Marion Hammer



Attacking grandmothers is not something I would normally do but Marion Hammer is the exception.  She is ruthless in her loyalty to the National Rifle Assn. (NRA), one who illustrates perfectly just how this gun worshipping culture is instilled in kids from a very young age.  She was five when her grandfather gave her a .22 bolt-action single-shot rifle—at least it didn’t have a high-capacity magazine—and ordered her to “hunt down a rabbit or a squirrel for dinner.”

In 1995 she was president of the NRA and today is committed as a top lobbyist for the organization dedicated to putting a gun in the hands of every American—including even 5-year-olds—and make it legal for them to carry their weapons anywhere they want to.  She was the ramrod behind the “Stand your Ground” law which has been deemed responsible for the Florida shooting and killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman.  She is now 70 years old.



Brian Malte



“Brian Malte, director of legislation for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said he considers Hammer an extremist.”  Further, "Marion Hammer and the NRA are the masterminds of a dangerous paranoid mentality that got Trayvon Martin killed, the mentality that is responsible for endangering all of our lives.  It's based on a lie that you need to be armed to the teeth anywhere you go,” said Malte.



Gary Kleck



Rep. Dennis Baxley, the Ocala Republican who sponsored Florida's Stand Your Ground law in 2005, counters. "It's not because we want to shoot somebody," he said. "We want to keep people from getting hurt."  Based on that statement, I looked for some confirmation of just how often an individual’s personal gun is used for self-defense.  The latest I could find was a 1997 study by Gary Kleck, an expert and Professor of Criminology at Fla. State U.  He said: 

“…gun ownership is largely passive self-protection--once a gun is acquired, the owner only rarely does anything defensive with it. Only a minority of defensive owners actually use their guns for self-protection; most of the rest just keep the gun in a bureau drawer or similar location, where it is available for use should the need arise.”

There’s more.  In 2008, Hammer and the NRA defied Walt Disney and the Chamber of Commerce and were the driving force behind a 2008 law that allows employees to bring guns to work -- as long as they lock the weapons in the car.”  She wasn’t done.  Her next pursuit was taking on the medical community to pass legislation “…to prevent doctors from asking young patients about guns in their homes. A judge shot down that law, saying it violated doctors' free speech.”

In the following video you must watch it to the end for the true meaning:

Apparently “Stand your Ground” was inspired by a Florida homeowner, 77-year-old James Workman, who shot and killed an intruder in a trailer outside his hurricane-damaged home.  He wasn’t prosecuted because it was legal to protect yourself in your home against imminent harm.  A reasonable law that most gun control advocates agree with.  But that wasn’t good enough for Marion Hammer, who saw an opening to move gun defense out onto the streets.

Hammer is described as “emotionally compelling’ in her presentations to lawmakers.  What is more important than her enthusiasm to these under thumb legislators is the fact that, if they don’t cooperate, the NRA will cut off contributions to future campaigns and back a competitor in the next election to run them out of office.  It is bad enough when money alone can decide elections but it is tragic in the hands of a Marion Hammer and the NRA.

Hammer has said little following the killing of Trayvon Martin, only commenting that Stand your Ground is “a good law.”  It is this complete lack of recognition for what is wrong and the lack of responsibility to admit you have perpetrated something horrible on the American public, that is defined by many as typical NRA arrogance.  And it will go on as long as the Marion Hammers and her NRA are allowed to pass more gun rights laws and loosen those on the books.

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.