George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, Stand your ground, self-defense, and manslaughter

Everyone knows about the George Zimmerman case in Florida, or at least all of the speculation with it. The speculation has taken a life of its own. The reality is that few actual facts are known. They are as follows.

1. George Zimmerman is a neighborhood watch volunteer.
2. Zimmerman saw someone he thought was suspicious and followed him. This was Martin.
3. Zimmerman got out of his vehicle and followed him when Martin tried to avoid him. Dispatch said he did not need to do that. That wasn't a lawful order, but is relevant to state of mind.
4. Zimmerman was armed. Martin was not.
5. At some point, there was a physical confrontation. There is speculation as to how it occurred and who initiated the physical confrontation.
6. Somebody was yelling for help. Speculation has conflicting sides to who it was.
7. Zimmerman had some sort of bleeding wound on the back of his head and nose, as well as grass standing showing that he was on the ground at some point.
8. As some point Zimmerman fired his weapon, killing Martin.
9. Police arrived and initiated a manslaughter investigation, detained Zimmerman and took him to the station.
10. Zimmerman was later released without charges. There is speculation as to whose decision it was for released. Zimmerman was not arrested. That means either there was no probable cause for an arrest or the prosecutor did not think there would be a conviction.
11. There is going to be further investigation, so this case is not closed.
12. Zimmerman has no convictions. Yes, he was arrested, but not convicted so that's irrelevant. Martin has no convictions. Yes he was suspended from school, but that's irrelevant. Those have no bearing on what happened in this individual case.

That's it. The rest is speculation, or irrelevant unless you have the inside information, and we don't outside of what has been released. Most of the rest is 'go team' bullshit going on between those who love the race card and limelight and those who want Zimmerman to win just so the Jesse Jacksons of the world lose. I like to see them lose too, but other things are more important here. You have politicians running their mouths on this when there's an ongoing case. Obama didn't help matters, but Santorum was actually worse with his comments, and I say that as a Santorum voter. Both of them are attorneys, should know better, and should let the system play out. The media at first, largely based on George Zimmerman's German or Jewish last name, played this up as a white on black shooting, stirring stuff up, even though Zimmerman's half Peruvian and does not look white. They made this a racial issue. Political correctness at its worst.

You have ABC likely doctoring a video so it fits their politically correct narrative. You have the New Black Panthers taking out a $10,000 bounty. You have Al Sharpton of Crown Heights infamy running his mouth. Jesse Jackson doing his thing. This is an ongoing case. State attorneys are still looking at this. Zimmerman deserves a fair investigation and if probable cause is found, a fair trial, and a chance to be either convicted or acquitted based on facts and the evidence, no more, no less.

You also have gun grabbers using this to attack the "stand your ground" law. Stand your ground has nothing to do with this. Michigan has a "stand your ground" law as does Florida. Here's Michigan's law. It sounds very controversial, right. Jennifer Granholm signed it, and she wore a hoodie in protest of this case and made comments on these laws. Does she know what she actually signed?

780.972 Use of deadly force by individual not engaged in commission of crime; conditions.

Sec. 2.

(1) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses deadly force may use deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if either of the following applies:

(a) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent death of or imminent great bodily harm to himself or herself or to another individual.

(b) The individual honestly and reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the imminent sexual assault of himself or herself or of another individual.

(2) An individual who has not or is not engaged in the commission of a crime at the time he or she uses force other than deadly force may use force other than deadly force against another individual anywhere he or she has the legal right to be with no duty to retreat if he or she honestly and reasonably believes that the use of that force is necessary to defend himself or herself or another individual from the imminent unlawful use of force by another individual.

This wasn't that controversial and passed easily.

Senate vote:
Roll Call No.463 Yeas--27

Allen Cropsey Jelinek Schauer

Barcia Garcia Kuipers Sikkema

Basham George McManus Stamas

Birkholz Gilbert Olshove Switalski

Bishop Goschka Patterson Toy

Cassis Hammerstrom Prusi Van Woerkom

Cherry Hardiman Sanborn

Nays--10

Brater Emerson Leland Thomas

Clark-Coleman Jacobs Scott Whitmer

Clarke Johnson

Excused--1

Brown

House Vote 1:
Roll Call No. 371 Yeas--91

Accavitti Elsenheimer Law, David Sak

Acciavatti Emmons Law, Kathleen Schuitmaker

Adamini Espinoza Marleau Shaffer

Amos Farhat Mayes Sheen

Anderson Farrah McDowell Sheltrown

Angerer Gaffney Meyer Smith, Virgil

Ball Garfield Miller Spade

Baxter Gillard Moolenaar Stahl

Bennett Gleason Moore Stakoe

Bieda Gonzales Mortimer Steil

Booher Gosselin Newell Stewart

Brandenburg Green Nitz Taub

Brown Hansen Nofs Vagnozzi

Byrnes Hildenbrand Palmer Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Palsrok Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Pastor Walker

Caswell Huizenga Pavlov Ward

Caul Hummel Pearce Waters

Clemente Hune Plakas Wenke

DeRoche Jones Polidori Williams

Dillon Kahn Proos Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Robertson Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Rocca

Nays--15

Cheeks Hood Lemmons, Jr. Murphy

Clack Hunter Lipsey Smith, Alma

Condino Kolb McConico Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Meisner


House Vote 2:

Brandenburg Green Mortimer Stewart

Brown Hansen Newell Taub

Byrnes Hildenbrand Nitz Van Regenmorter

Byrum Hoogendyk Nofs Vander Veen

Casperson Hopgood Palmer Walker

Caswell Huizenga Palsrok Ward

Caul Hummel Pastor Waters

Clemente Hune Pavlov Wenke

DeRoche Jones Pearce Williams

Dillon Kahn Plakas Wojno

Donigan Kooiman Polidori Zelenko

Drolet LaJoy Proos

Nays--16

Cheeks Hood Lipsey Smith, Alma

Clack Hunter McConico Smith, Virgil

Condino Kolb Meisner Tobocman

Cushingberry Leland Murphy Vagnozzi

--------

These passed with super-majorities. These passed easily nationwide, including Florida. Florida's version is quite similar.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.—
(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term “criminal prosecution” includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

776.012 covers stand your ground.

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:
(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or
(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.

776.013's circumstances are:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.

What's a forcible felony under Florida law? It's what you'd think it would be.

776.08 Forcible felony. —“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

Just to cover all the bases, here's aggravated assault and aggravated battery as defined under Florida law.

784.045 Aggravated battery.—
(1)(a) A person commits aggravated battery who, in committing battery:
1. Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement; or
2. Uses a deadly weapon.
(b) A person commits aggravated battery if the person who was the victim of the battery was pregnant at the time of the offense and the offender knew or should have known that the victim was pregnant.
(2) Whoever commits aggravated battery shall be guilty of a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

And:

784.021 Aggravated assault.—
(1) An “aggravated assault” is an assault:
(a) With a deadly weapon without intent to kill; or
(b) With an intent to commit a felony.
(2) Whoever commits an aggravated assault shall be guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

The stand your ground law there is very similar to ours, although Florida's more detailed. It doesn't cover this case at all any more than normal self defense.

Reasonable is a key word here. Reasonable not as viewed by George Zimmerman, his dad, those who don't like race baiting assholes and want to teach them a lesson, those who are race baiting assholes who want to teach cracker and whatever is derogatory for Peruvians a lesson, Al Sharpton, or anyone else except the jury or police/prosecutors when they decide to charge/not charge.

The questions that need to be answered are this as the process unfolds.
1. Is there probable cause to charge George Zimmerman with Manslaughter?
2. If yes, can he be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a fair trial?

No more, no less. The best thing the general public and media can do is let the system play out and quit poisoning the case.

Thoughts on the Giffords assasination attempt and fallout

A lot of yapping has been going on in all quarters the past few days. I decided to wait it out before posting anything. Right now, here's the facts. Anything else is opinion, conjecture, speculation, opinion, demonetization, or even lies.

1. Six people have been killed, including Judge John Roll and a nine year old girl.
2. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, was shot and is in critical condition, but likely to survive. Good. Hopefully she makes a full recovery.
3. In custody as the prime suspect is Jared Lee Loughner who was by all accounts, caught at the scene. He's been charged with murder and attempted murder. The case has not gone to trial.
4. Loughner had things posted on myspace and youtube, but that's the extent so far about what is known about his opinions.
5. This is a federal case due to a federal judge being killed and a congresswoman being attacked. There is also Pima County jurisdiction for other charges that may occur.
6. Loughner has invoked his right to remain silent at this time.
7. The firearm was a Glock 19 (9mm) pistol. (not an automatic as earlier news reports stated)
8. Loughner has two priors, one for drug paraphernalia possession, the other unknown outside of it being a "minor" charge.

Those are the facts. Anything else is conjecture. What follows below is opinion.

One thing surprising to a lot of people, but that we take for granted is how easy it really is for us to meet our representatives. I've seen Mike Rogers several times over the last 10 years. The only entourage I've seen him with is staff. Sometimes, it's just Mike. Mike's office has been vandalized in the past, and he's had his share of threats. The only security I've ever seen around Mike are concealed pistol holders. I've also met in the past Debbie Stabenow (then congresswoman), John Dingell, Tim Walberg, Pete Hoekstra, Vern Ehlers, Justin Amash, Fred Upton, Candice Miller, John Conyers, Dan Benishek, and Thad McCotter, as either a candidate or congressman (or both). People in both parties. I'm not saying that to sound important, but to mention accessibility to those who make the effort. None of them had police escorts that I could tell. None of them had overt private security. I know several of them are gun owners and are probably CPL holders, and have CPL holders on their staff, but it's nothing like presidential security.

Same goes for the state level. I've never seen major security for our state reps either outside of the check in at the house building and the floor itself at the capitol. DC is more stringent, but security is not difficult there either. Our state reps are even more accessible than our congressmen. Many here in Livingston County (and Shiawassee and part of Ingham) probably saw Joe Hune knock on their door.

Even the gubernatorial and senate candidates I've seen did not have a lot (or any) security. I saw Granholm making the rounds at the capitol without police escort. I don't know how much security she had at speaking events. Carl Levin drove himself to one event (I've seen Rogers do the same several times). Bouchard, Butler, Zandstra, and Rocky have been easily accessible during their campaigns without massive security.

Unfortunately but understandable, I think we may be losing that to a degree with this. It'll be interesting to see what future security measures are taken to reduce the chance of lone wolf deranged individuals like the next Loughner.

And that's exactly what Loughner is by all accounts. A lone wolf deranged individual who didn't really fit in any political spectrum, as you'd guess by a guy who lists Mein Kampf and the Communist Manifesto has favorites.....next to We the Living (Polar opposites of one another Collectivists books next to Objectivist books). He was athiest, supported flag burning, didn't support the currency, thought there was mind control through grammar (whatever that is), and was big on "conscience dreaming". This guy really couldn't be put on a map.

As far as Giffords goes, she's a moderate by democrat standards and isn't as controversial to the mainstream as a lot of the other democrats. By most accounts, people liked her (and her district went for Bush twice and McCain). She's relatively pro-2nd Amendment, and at least moderate on border issues (and better than Bush there). If this was indeed a right v left ideological hit in Arizona, I can think of someone else I'd expect to be the target, and no, I'm not mentioning who it would be. This is the work of one nutter.

But according to the leftists, kos crazies, and the media, this is all Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck's fault, not the shooter. Dancing in the blood before it is dry. It was almost like it was glee. They wanted to find something to attack Palin, who they are obsessed with (and I think it comes down to their pro-abortion views, and Palin is a real threat to that as she chose life over eugenics) I'm not surprised. This is politics, which is about power, and the left wants power over people. The big attack on Palin is gasp, targets on districts from her PAC site during the election. Big f'ing deal. Big deal. (DCCC did the same thing, and KOS targeted Giffords for not being leftist enough) Anyone who works in the business understands some of the terms. Target seats. A target district is a swing district. That's it. That was the clear intent, and anyone with a brain knows it. Those saying otherwise are idiots or agenda driven. The cable TV and talk radio attacks are out there as well. Free speech for some, not for all. Scratch a liberal, find a fascist.

Speaking of "hateful" rhetoric, here's some blasts from the past.

Craig Kilborn Show - Graphic of Target Site around then President Bush. Sniper's Wanted was the caption.

"Death of a President" - 2006 Film about assassinating George W Bush.

Alec Baldwin talked about stoning Henry Hyde and killing his family. This c***s***er Baldwin even brought the kids into it....and I don't even care for Mr. Hyde.

Or Kos Crazy 'Boy Blue' who ripped...Gabrielle Giffords as dead to him.

Plenty more at Michelle Malkin's site

Talk show host Mike Malloy - I hope Glenn Beck kills himself.

Talk show host Montel Williams - Michelle (Bachman), slit your wrist. Better yet, start at the collarbone.

And about 90% of what comes out of Congresscritter Pete Stark's mouth.
Surprisingly, in a good way, I haven't heard Obama run his mouth and take pot shots like Clinton did after the OKC bombing. Yet. We need to be prepared, though. Clinton did it in 95, and the doubletalking political hack Sheriff Dupnik (long known leftist and anti-freedom - and reason why guns only in hands of cops is terrible idea) in Pima County is blaming talk radio now for this. Speaking of Dupnik, he needs to finally be taken out. (oops..inflammatory rhetoric). Taken out election time politically.

Rahm Emanuel mentioned "Never to let a crisis go to waste." After major events, our freedoms are most at risk. The attack on gun shows happened after Columbine. The ban one evil black rifles happened after the Stockton mass shooting. The Class III regulations came after mafia wars of the 20's and 30's. The KKK pushed for and achieved pistol registration and CCW restrictions after Dr Ossian Sweet defended himself with a firearm in 1920's segregated Detroit. The 1968 Gun Control act came after Bobby Kennedy's assassination. The Patriot Act happened after 9/11 after Reno and Clinton pushed for the same thing and failed a couple of years earlier, in the name of the War on some Drugs. The 2nd and 4th amendment are the usual attacks.

Right now my concern is the upcoming assault on our first, second, fourth, and tenth Amendment rights. From Politico.

McCarthy’s spokesman confirmed the legislation will target the high-capacity ammunition clips the Arizona gunman allegedly used in the shooting, but neither he or the congresswoman offered any further details.

“Again, we need to look at how this is going to work, to protect people, certainly citizens, and we have to look at what I can pass,” McCarthy said. “I don’t want to give the NRA – excuse the pun – the ammunition to come at me either.”

Pennsylvania Rep. Robert Brady, a Democrat from Philadelphia, told CNN that he also plans to take legislative action. He will introduce a bill that would make it a crime for anyone to use language or symbols that could be seen as threatening or violent against a federal official, including a member of Congress.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0111/47338.html#ixzz1Af8bYLqg

Actually, it's "standard" ammunition magazines (not clips) for a Glock 19. As far as the Brady proposal, it'll be real interesting for what the language is, as it is already illegal to threaten congresscritters. "Could be seen" Real broad language there, and shouldn't pass Constitutional mustard. I'll look for the actual language when it is out.

We need to circle the wagons, and make sure that Congress knows that our freedoms are non-negotiable in any new legislation. Period. We can not let the establishment or left try to do the same thing that was done after the Oklahoma City Bombing. It may sound crass to put things in this perspective and it is unfortunately, but that's how things work in politics (power). Politicians will never let a crisis go to waste. We need to be ready and have a strong defense for any anti-freedom restrictions proposed. No more gun grabs, free speech clampdowns, or Patriot Acts. I remember what Clinton did in 1995, and we need to make sure that any repeat attempt of Clinton is challenged forcefully (like the NRA finally did in 2000) and does not happen again, whether it is by the media, Dupnik, or anybody else. We can not let ourselves be the goats.

AP thinks a few speak for all Republicans

My eyes are rolling back in my head with this crap from the AP.

WASHINGTON – Republicans were for President Barack Obama's requirement that Americans get health insurance before they were against it.

The obligation in the new health care law is a Republican idea that's been around at least two decades. It was once trumpeted as an alternative to Bill and Hillary Clinton's failed health care overhaul in the 1990s. These days, Republicans call it government overreach.

Mitt Romney, weighing another run for the GOP presidential nomination, signed such a requirement into law at the state level as Massachusetts governor in 2006. At the time, Romney defended it as "a personal responsibility principle" and Massachusetts' newest GOP senator, Scott Brown, backed it. Romney now says Obama's plan is a federal takeover that bears little resemblance to what he did as governor and should be repealed.

I need to check the archives, but I think that old "alternative" to Hillarycare at the time was a Nancy Kassembaumn bill. Romney is a rather liberal republican on several issues, which is one of the reasons why he did not win the nomination in 2008.

In the early 1970s, President Richard Nixon favored a mandate that employers provide insurance. In the 1990s, the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, embraced an individual requirement. Not anymore.

"The idea of an individual mandate as an alternative to single-payer was a Republican idea," said health economist Mark Pauly of the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School. In 1991, he published a paper that explained how a mandate could be combined with tax credits — two ideas that are now part of Obama's law. Pauly's paper was well-received — by the George H.W. Bush administration.

Nixon was very liberal on domestic issues. Affirmative Action. Price freezes. George HW Bush raised taxes and was against "Reaganomics." That's not conservatism. Conservatism is about LESS GOVERNMENT.

Because those people supported, the AP thinks they speak for all or even most Republicans. I don't think so. Individual mandates did not become law for a reason. It was and is a damn bad idea. I don't care if you are Mitt Romney or Barack Obama. I did not vote for either of them.

Biased tripe in the 3rd most leftist media outlet

If I want to find a good left wing biased media source, I can always count on MSNBC with that little wuss Keith Olberman, The New York Slimes, or the standard setters in the media, the AP/Associated Press. Those three set the standards of leftism.

Normally, I don't even comment on it anymore because it is what it is. They don't even pretend to hide it anymore. It's like reading the original Kevins aka "Communications Guru" stories.

Liz Sidoti and the AP already prepared the spin in case of Republican win tomorrow. I don't count chickens before they hatch, so we'll wait and see what actually does happen.AP article

WASHINGTON – For Republicans, an election win of any size Tuesday would be a blessing. But victories in Virginia, New Jersey or elsewhere won't erase enormous obstacles the party faces heading into a 2010 midterm election year when control of Congress and statehouses from coast to coast will be up for grabs.
It's been a tough few years for the GOP. The party lost control of Congress in 2006 and then lost the White House in 2008 with three traditional Republican states — Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia — abandoning the party.
So even if political winds start blowing harder behind them and even if they can capitalize on Democratic missteps, Republicans still will have a long way to go over the next year because of their party's own fundamental problems — divisions over the path forward, the lack of a national leader and a shrinking base in a changing nation.
The GOP would overcome none of those hurdles should Republican Bob McDonnell win the Virginia governor's race, Chris Christie emerge victorious in the New Jersey governor's contest, or conservative Doug Hoffman triumph in a hotly contested special congressional election in upstate New York.

That's a crock of Bullshit.Wins there, the 19th senate district here at home, and the other special elections would be a check on Obama's power, Granholm's power, or the other state districts. It also is something the GOP could brag about.Virginia and New Jersey are NOT republican states. Virginia, despite its reputation for being Republican, has long been competitive. Chuck Robb was a senator there in the 80's long before Jim Webb and Mark Warner. Doug Wilder won there long before Mark Warner. New Jersey has long been democrat, but has a few republicans in power like Tom Kean and Christie Whitman. Winning in those states is a big deal, as was losing them. The 23rd district is a swing district, but and the GOP may "win" (Hoffman is a Republican) despite the clustermuck and bone headed decisions of leadership.

Wins there wouldn't mean we're back, but it is a start. A good start and something to build on, and a starting point of what kind of candidates that should run depending on the districts.

There's more.

"It's going to be a difficult road to walk, to work with relatively new entrants into the political system and to work with them to show them that, by and large, we are the party who represents their interests," House Republican leader John Boehner told CNN on Sunday, arguing that there's "a political rebellion" taking place in the country.
Others are more blunt.
"Right now there's no central Republican leader to turn to, and there's no central Republican message," conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh told Fox News on Sunday. "The Republican message is sort of muddied. What do they stand for? Right now it's opposition to Obama."
A debate is waging over whether that's enough — or whether the party has to be for something, anything really, to be able to claw its way back to the top. Similar hand-wringing happened in the GOP ahead of the 1994 midterms. Just weeks before those elections, Republicans came up with the Contract with America — and ended up taking control of Congress.

Boehner was one of the screw-ups when he backed the bailout. Remember his talk about the "crap sandwich?" This political rebellion that he talked about is against crap sandwiches like that which you supported, and which Obama is pushing right now with 1800 page (anything 1800 pages is bad) health care bills that the Congressional Budget Office is estimating at a trillion bucks. If the bailout was a crap sandwich, which it was, why vote for it? This is why so many conservatives have become independents and have no loyalty to the GOP. They've had enough with both parties and are dropping out, which showed in the 2008 massacre.

There does need to be a return to the Contract with America. I've been saying that for years. That aside, Rush's quote about no central leader sounds like a complaint, but I don't see it as a bad thing. The problem with most people is that we look for leaders. Don't look for leaders. Be the leader. Conservatives and their close libertarian cousins are independent thinkers and that is a big reason why there's always infighting of some sort. The premise at the core of the matter is generally less government and more freedom. Nobody likes to be dictated too, and that will initiate a conflict.

Here's some major league bullshit.

Heading into the 2010 elections, the GOP also faces a very real split between conservatives who want to focus on social issues — which tend to work best during peaceful, prosperous times — and the rest of the party, which generally wants a broader vision, particularly given recession.
Proof of a divide is in the special election in New York's 23rd Congressional District. Potential 2012 presidential hopefuls trying to solidify their conservative credentials, Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty, endorsed Hoffman, a conservative third-party upstart, over the GOP-chosen candidate, moderate Dierdre Scozzafava. Badly trailing in polls, she ended up dropping out and — in a slap at the GOP — endorsing Democrat Bill Owens

First off, Scozzafava is no moderate. John McHugh, who vacated the seat was more of a moderate (Socially conservative, economics in the middle). Scozzafava is a leftist. She's tied to Acorn through one of the third parties in New York, the "Working Families" Party. She's supportive of card checks, eliminating secret ballots with unions. She was endorsed by the teacher's union and the leader of Daily Kos, an extremely far leftist. In addition, she supported the stimulus packages. Now, I didn't even get to the social issues. Pro-abortion (dealbreaker) and supportive of gay marriage (don't agree with it, but not a dealbreaker issue with me). She is pro-gun, so there's one issue where she's mainstream. Take all of that combined, and you have a "Republican" to the left of most democrats, and not a dimes worth of difference between her and Bill Owens. She even endorsed Owens after dropping out of the race, which she had no reason to do outside of the fact that her own district rejected her.


Secondly, social issues aren't the big issue here. The AP has their head up their arses with this line of thought. The big issue is Obama's health care plan, the stimulus package, card check, ACORN, and fiscal leftism. Too much spending. More taxes. Small government. That's the big issue. The same thing is going on in the Florida primary between grass roots conservative Marco Rubio and establishment supported and stimulus package supporting Charlie Crist.

Adding to the party's woes: No one — or rather everyone — is speaking for the GOP.
Fiery talk show hosts like Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have become the angry white face of the party, filling a vacuum created by Bush's departure as the its standard-bearer and the lack of one single person to emerge as its next generation leader.

This site needs a eye-rolling icon picture for that pile of donkey crap. There's no elected position called spokesman for the GOP. Limbaugh speaks for himself. Beck speaks for himself. I speak for myself. That's it. Here in Michigan, we have elections and vote for candidates who speak for themselves. I don't worry about "central leader" because I'm nobody's follower. Got that AP. We vote for candidates. Want me to spell it out for you?

Also, the party's power center is mostly limited to the South, the one region McCain dominated last fall; Obama won almost everywhere else — including making inroads in emerging powerhouse regions like the West, although Republicans still solidly control several lightly populated states in the area.

Uhhhhhhhh.....we'll find out more on that tomorrow. Tomorrows big congressional race....New York. Also heavily Democrat New Jersey is up for grabs tomorrow. Virginia, which is mostly southern, but not the DC burbs (at least in culture) is up for election tomorrow too. The polls show it even in Fairfax County of all places. 08's over. Bush is off the ballot. Obama has shown himself to be just another politician who says one thing and does another.

And demographic, cultural and, perhaps, economic changes in America tilt in the Democrats' favor. Consider that Hispanics, a part of the Democratic base, are the nation's fastest growing minority group. Consider that more states than ever are permitting same-sex unions; Maine will vote Tuesday on whether to allow gay marriage. Consider that the emerging new industry — so-called "green jobs" — is focused on the environment, a core Democratic issue.

Right now in this economy, jobs period, green or not, is the big issue, and the dems are delivering jack and squat. Gay marriage? That's been on ballots for years. Nothing new. The gay obsessed media goes ape over it though. The gun issue has moved to the right more and more. Abortion is STILL moving more to the right than it was. Those are bigger than the gay issue. 

Still, Republicans sense opportunity — at least in the short term. The bloom is off the Obama rose, and the public is giving the Democratic-controlled Congress low ratings.
Economists say the recession is over but jobs aren't reappearing and unemployment is still expected to hit 10 percent. The war in Afghanistan continues, and the public is deeply divided over it. Obama's expansion of government and budget-busting spending isn't sitting well with most Americans. And independents are tilting away from Democrats.

If the jobs aren't appearing, than the recession is NOT over. It may be "technically" over in the minds of the economists, but nobody at home gives a damn about what they say. They care about working. Period.

On another note, I should mention a dark horse race I forgot to mention earlier. California Congressional district 10. The democrat is expected to win big here, because of the district. I forgot about it, and unfortunately, the GOP candidate here is on his own. David Harmer is facing Lt Governor John Garamendi. The district was last held by Ellen Tauscher. It's a San Francisco Bay area district and John Kerry won it by 20%, and Gore by 14%. It covers parts of Contra Costa, Solano, and Alameda Counties. If this one goes Republican, I'll be shocked. Garemendi is up in the polls by 10%, but this is a special election. If the GOP base goes out and the dems take it for granted, there will be a possible upset. If Garemendi works like it's too close for his liking, he'll win.

Media isn't leftist? Think again.

An interesting post over at Bill Nowling's site, Lunch Bucket Conservative.

Michigan Reporters Give To Liberal Candidates, Causes (Like that’s a shocker!)
(snip)
Dedman scoured online public campaign finance reports and found 144 journalists who contributed to political campaigns and causes between 2004 and now. Of that number (and I know loyal LBC readers will be shocked) 125 — or a whopping 87 percent — gave to Democrat or Left-leaning causes. (Three Michigan journalists made the list; more on that later.)

The MSNBC report also found that news organizations varied greatly in their policies dealing with the activism of their staff, ranging from strict prohibition to nothing at all. When I was hacking for a living, it was made pretty clear to me by my editors that I could not: date the interns, drink at my desk, use profanity in my stories, and participate in partisan causes.

I managed to play by those rules, mostly because they were common sense. “We cover the news; we don’t make it,” is the adage I and countless others heard coming up through the ranks. I didn’t need a written policy to know I shouldn’t give my money or time to a candidate, even if a paltry amount.

Now, if journalists think it is OK for them to give to political causes, they should publicly disclose that. I wonder how readers/viewers would react if they got to the end of the story and read or heard a disclaimer that went like this: “Oh, by the way, they guy I just wrote about, I gave him a $1,000 check last month”? I am pretty certain the public would take a dim view and hold such reporting in suspect. But that’s just me.

Now, back to the three Michigan hacks who ponied up…they are (Click here for complete list and lamo responses from 144 the journalists):

Susan Hall-Balduf, a Detroit Free Press copy editor, gave $300 to John Kerry in July 2004. Now editing news copy, she gave when she was in features. Here’s what she said:

“I was scolded,” Hall-Balduf said. “We did a story on how easy it was to look up these records on the Internet, and they were not happy to find a couple of our own people on the list. But I made the point that I worked only in features, and I never edited any stories that have to do the election. I was told not to do it again. I wouldn’t do it again. But at the time my job was focused on the doings of Britney Spears.”

Joel Thurtell, a Detroit Free Press reporter, gave $500 to the Michigan Democratic State Central Committee in September 2004. Here’s what he said:

“Whatever the Free Press policy is,” Thurtell said, “I actually have my own policy about that: I’m a citizen of the United States. I have a right to support whatever candidate I like.”

Thurtell said his political views don’t influence his reporting, as demonstrated by his role as a reporter on the stories disclosing the ways that Democratic Rep. John Conyers used his congressional staff to run personal errands and do campaign business.

“I got tons of e-mail from liberal-type people who likened me to Karl Rove. I have tried to be as honest as I possibly can as a reporter.”

Terry Judd, reporter and chief of the newspaper’s Grand Haven bureau for the Muskegon Chronicle, gave $1,900 to the Democratic National Committee in six contributions from 2004 through 2006; and $2,000 to John Kerry in March 2004. Judd let his editor do most of the talking:

“You caught me,” Judd said. “I guess I was just doing it on the side.”

The paper’s metropolitan editor, John Stephenson, said appearances of a conflict do matter. “We run letters all the time from people who say we’re right-wing this or left-wing that.” He checked with the paper’s senior editor and found that the paper has no written policy on donations, but he said it will consider one now.

“This information makes us want to think further and more deeply about what we encourage and discourage in reporters,” Stephenson said. “We have always historically said, ‘You guys can have any political beliefs you want, just don’t wear your hearts on your sleeve, or your bumper. Truthfully, this sort of thing may be the new bumper.’ Ten years ago, you may have to have waded through a mountain of paper to find this stuff. We are rethinking. It’s OK to do something if our readers don’t know it? Is it all about appearances, or is there more principle here? It’s an interesting question.”

Media jackals and guns

As the whole country knows, there was a large scale shooting in Virginia Tech yesterday. First off prayers to all of the students and families of the students and others in Blacksburg, VA.

That said; leave it to a shooting to bring the worst out in the media. Almost immediately, the gun grabbers in the media were dancing and celebrating this shooting and the jackals were released. That is how they operate. They insert their agenda, and I have no choice but to defend my safety, the safety of others, and my way of life against these jackals, even if it may be considered bad taste. They are starting this fight to take away our freedoms. As part of the gun lobby, I’m going to give them one. While the NRA is staying quiet currently and understandably so, they are more patient than I am.

In the beginning, the talking heads on TV were talking about “AK-47’s” and “M-16’s” I’m not a gun expert, but I do know the difference between a rifle and a pistol and the sound difference between them. But since AK-47 sounds sinister, they used that as much as possible. This shows the willful ignorance of the media in firearms measures.

Next, CBS comes out and speculates as fact that it was due to “easy access to guns” with this hit piece.

From CBS

Virginia Tech Killer Used Easy-To-Get Guns

“(CBS) A well-placed law enforcement source tells CBS News the weapons used in the massacre were a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun (Glock) and .22-caliber pistol.

Both are readily available in gun shops across the United States and particularly accessible in the commonwealth of Virginia, which recently earned a C-minus rating by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.””

9mm semi-automatics and .22 pistols (probably also semi-auto) are two of the most common types of firearms in this country. Semi-auto firearms sound scary, but they are no different than any other pistol. One pull of the trigger, one bullet is discharged. Glocks are one of the favorites of pistol shooters in general. They aren’t cheap.

“””That’s in part because there's no gun registration, no mandatory waiting period to purchase weapons. The only major restriction: a limit of one gun purchase per month.”””

Registration doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked in Detroit where there has been registration (“Safety inspection”) for 80 years.

“””But CBS News discovered there was a gun show just 25 miles from Blacksburg last weekend where 405 guns were sold. “”””

This is agenda “journalism” at its worst. What the F(udge) does that have to do with anything? CBS (BS is right) is renewing the media’s crusade against those “evil” gun shows. I’ve been to gun shows. I’ve bought at gun shows. Here’s the real facts. Anyone who buys a gun from a dealer must go through a background check, just as someone who buys at the local gun shop. There is no “gun show loophole.”

“”The magazine containing ammunition for the 9 mm handgun can carry between eight and 24 bullets, rapidly fired, and quickly reloaded.””

“Rapid Fire?” Just as any other pistol which is not class III, these “rapid fire” pistols work the same. One pull of the trigger, equals one bullet discharged for a gun. That goes for semi-automatics AND revolvers. “Rapid Fire” is another agenda term by the gun grabbers in the media.

ABC now gives us this gem as cited here. From Washington Times

“”For Brian Ross of ABC News, however, the Blacksburg massacre was an opportunity to promote irrelevant propaganda about the expiration of the so-called “assault weapons” ban:

High capacity ammo clips became widely available for sale when Congress failed to renew a law that banned assault weapons.

Web sites now advertise overnight UPS delivery of the clips, which carry up to 40 rounds for both semi-automatic rifles and handguns. …

[G]un experts say the number of shots fired indicate, at the very least, that the gunman had large quantities of ammunition.

“When you have a weapon that can shoot off 20, 30 rounds very quickly, you’re going to have a lot more injuries,” said Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence””.

-----
First off, you could get pre-ban magazines even when the ugly gun ban was in effect. I can change magazines (or speedloaders in revolvers) in under two seconds. Push button, eject magazine, enter new magazine. This goes whether it holds the basic 7 rounds in a 1911. Secondly, I have no idea what magazine was used. Most are 7 (1911) or 10 (Glocks).

Lastly, since the media and gun grabbers are making this a gun control thing, I’m going to counterclaim with the fact that while conceal carry is allowed in Virginia, it is not allowed on campus.

From Roanoke Times

“”A bill that would have given college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus died with nary a shot being fired in the General Assembly.

House Bill 1572 didn't get through the House Committee on Militia, Police and Public Safety. It died Monday in the subcommittee stage, the first of several hurdles bills must overcome before becoming laws.

The bill was proposed by Del. Todd Gilbert, R-Shenandoah County, on behalf of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. Gilbert was unavailable Monday and spokesman Gary Frink would not comment on the bill's defeat other than to say the issue was dead for this General Assembly session.

Virginia Tech spokesman Larry Hincker was happy to hear the bill was defeated. "I'm sure the university community is appreciative of the General Assembly's actions because this will help parents, students, faculty and visitors feel safe on our campus."””

If there was ONE CPL holder there, maybe, just maybe, we would not have had this disaster yesterday. We don’t know, but there would have been at least a chance.

EDITED - Apparently he was able to pass the background check as a resident alien (13 years in US) I edited that out of the post. I stand by the rest of the post. BATF form 4473 - background check form has the list. Permanant residing immigrants can buy firearms, non-resident aliens can not.

Detroit Media shows extreme ignorance on guns - AGAIN

We all probably have heard about the guy going postal in Troy. Anytime a white guy in the suburbs goes postal, it's big news, since it doesn't happen that often. For those who don't know, an employee was fired, got a shotgun, and shot up his workplace. There's a ton of coverage in the Detroit papers over this, some of it misleading.

We get this gem from John Wisely the Detroit Free Press.

LaCalamita had suffered from bipolar disorder for years and recently from depression, Fanego said. In the past two months, LaCalamita sought unsuccessfully to purchase a pistol permit. He was denied because of his previous mental condition, Fanego said.

Michigan law prohibits anyone from obtaining a license to buy a pistol if they have been deemed mentally ill and committed by a court, said State Police Sgt. Tom Deasy. A license is not needed to buy a shotgun.

That's extremely misleading. They made it sound like there is no background check which is BS. While a "license" is not required to buy a shotgun, I can not go to Target Sports (Where the shotgun was bought) and buy a shotgun without going through hoops. Anyone who buys from a gun dealer (FFL) must go through the hoops. I have first hand experience here.

1. This is BATF form 4473. Anyone who buys a rifle or shotgun must fill out this form. In most states, pistols use this form too. Look at line number 12f in particular. That disqualifies the perp.

2. After I fill out the form, the dealer then calls the FBI which runs a background check. After I was checked and cleared, I was able to legally buy the shotgun.

That's to spread a little reality upon the misleading article (either ignorance or intentional misleading) from the Free Press.