“To allow people to go into a riot while concealing a gun without a permit is the definition of insanity,” said Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri. “The bill is crazy. It’s absurd.”
And yet the Florida House approved a bill to do just that. Because what Florida law enforcement wants no longer matters when the NRA holds the puppet strings in Tallahassee. It's not enough that they demanded people be allowed to arm themselves during emergencies like hurricanes, so they expanded it to include riots:
HB 209 would allow people with clean criminal backgrounds to conceal firearms without a permit during emergencies — including riots and civil unrest like the 1996 racial disturbances that rocked St. Petersburg — declared by the governor or local officials.
Supporters of the bill say it's intended to give gun owners the opportunity to protect their property while they are evacuating from a disaster or crisis, such as hurricanes, floods or worse.
Lots of people have "clean criminal records" until they don't. Allowing people to carry weapons into emergency and heated situations like hurricanes and riots would be a real good way to acquire a criminal record, but by then it's a little late to say "You know, we probably shouldn't have let that guy carry a gun." But then I suppose the bigger picture is that the more laws like this the NRA can shove through, the easier it will be to get away with just about whatever you want.
By the way, for those of you keeping score, carrying a gun during a hurricane was the premise for the Florida Stand Your Ground laws in the first place. So I guess the legislature is making sure the Stand Your Ground Laws have their own Stand Your Ground Laws just in case there's any confusion about just legally shooting away when weather turns ugly.
When the Florida legislature's day job has pretty much become taking away people's rights that have historically led to things like civil unrest, I suppose this kind of thing shouldn't surprise anyone.
Remember back when the so-called "Tea Party" was manufactured, and a common rallying cry from it's "members" was "We want to take our country back"? And remember how many of us asked "take our country back to what, exactly?"
Yeah, well I think we're getting the answer to our questions right now.
It's bad enough that in November of 2008, the Republican Party made the decision to ignore the voters by blocking anything and everything that the President and Democrats tried to do, while repeating ad nauseum that they were doing so because "It was what Americans wanted." Never mind every other trick they've pulled out of their hats the last five years. Rather, let's just look at the most recent examples.
In the space of just a few weeks, the U. S. Supreme Court, which "formally" ended its history as an apolitical body when they ignored our votes and forced George W. Bush on us in 2000, has now become another wing of the Tea Party, thanks to their wing nut majority of justices, and took it upon themselves to butcher the Voting Rights Act. Worse, they did so while one member said that allowing black people to vote was a "racial entitlement" and another justified the ruling by saying racism no longer exists in this country, hence, no need for the now "quaint" Voting Rights Act. One would assume no one could actually pull that argument off when racism personified is but a chair or two away sitting on that same Court. But no, John Roberts is an ace at hypocrisy: Racism no longer exists because we have a black President, and because racism no longer exists, Republicans can now feel free to move about the country and prevent those "entitled ones" from voting.
This is what now constitutes logic in the highest court in the land.
Then of course, the abortion police in the states proceeded to pass more egregious abortion bills in the space of a couple weeks, adding to record numbers of legislation since the 2010 mid-terms, when gerrymandering Republicans took the House promising jobs, jobs, jobs.
That went well.
We've seen a Texas Democrat illustrate what an actual filibuster looks like when the GOP sought to force a bill through there. We saw elderly women protesters dragged away by police, and tampons, yes, tampons, confiscated from protesters out of fear they would be used as a weapon. In Texas. Where guns are not only carried and welcomed everywhere, but are also a fashion accessory. We saw lawmakers say it was OK to ban abortions, one reason being they would no longer be necessary because rape kits take care of all the pesky results and "particulars" down there afterwards. We heard the reasoning that eliminating women's health clinics in the name of abortion actually benefits a woman's health overall, in that there's no access to that health care..... and we've seen abortion provisions added to motorcycle safety bills, or any other legislation they could find.
The right would have you believe that a politician guarding and regulating one's uterus is in no way an intrusion by "big government" which they loathe. Nor is having to consult your local politician rather than your doctor to make health care decisions for yourself. And while guns should be available to all, (owning several, or a complete arsenal is even better!) a tampon becomes a weapon should it enter any venue where women dare to speak their minds about not wanting to wear a state-sanctioned chastity belt.
Then we come to the trial of a wannabe cop and self-proclaimed neighborhood watch superhero with a gun who "protected the neighborhood" by gunning down the son of a resident's girlfriend, and hence, one of the people he was supposed to be protecting. We are now actually told by those on the right that this is acceptable, because the victim was black.
Unbelievable.
When President Obama was elected, the white right proclaimed that we were now even. Racism was erased because "those people" scored themselves a President. And then they set about proving otherwise. There were many who felt free to let loose, and just went ahead and let their racist flags fly. Now, with the Trayvon Martin killing, eventual arrest of George Zimmerman, and the subsequent verdict of not innocent guilty, it's as if those same people and more are not only letting their racist flags fly, but they're saying "We're going to need a bigger, taller flagpole, and a flag large enough to see from space."
A teenager was gunned down because he was in a place he had every right to be, doing nothing more than walking home. He was black, wearing a hoodie, and walking on a dark night in the rain, in an area that had seen an uptick of burglaries. Enter the armed Neighborhood Watch vigilante who disobeyed the rules because he alone came to the conclusion that with the elements above combined, this child was black, and therefore must have been the responsible party. Trayvon Martin was targeted as the "a**hole" that wouldn't get away. So said George Zimmerman.
Zimmerman was found "not innocent guilty" by a jury of his peers, because it's Florida. And peers they were. (Don't just take my word for it. Go listen to the interview of one of them on CNN, or read her comments here.) This juror was not only his "peer" but sounds like the President of the George Zimmerman fan club. She calls Zimmerman George, but refers to Trayvon Martin as the "boy". To hear her speak is to assume that she believes the real victim in all this was poor George, who has learned his lesson. George, she says, indeed profiled Martin, but race had nothing to do with it. George went too far, but she would totally be comfortable having him on her Neighborhood Watch as long as he didn't go too far again. George, who she feels was "egged on" by the 911 operator who told him to stay in his car.
How she used this profound wisdom to find Zimmerman not guilty is beyond my comprehension.
Basically, Zimmerman's peers found that, though there was that whole inconvenience of the "killed Trayvon Martin" part, Martin was black, so one cancels the other out. Even Steven.
As if that weren't bad enough, it gets worse. It isn't only the jury, but those on the right who have made him their new best friend. They have seen him get away with killing an unarmed black teenager and that makes him a hero! Why, FOX made him one long ago with an exclusive interview where he told Sean Hannity that killing Martin was "all part of God's plan." (The jury must bust believe that too, as it was in evidence at trial.) Right wing radio blowhard Rush Limbaugh said basically, due to so many political wins by Democrats he's seen via hallucination, finally, FINALLY the right has a "win" in their corner for once. You read that right: A dead black child, not to mention a future ""racially entitled voter, goes into the record books as a win for him and his Republican-Tea-Party-Conservative-Bircher pals. Not to be outdone, professional troll Ann Coulter summed up that "win" by Tweeting "Hallelujah!" Saturday when the verdict was announced. (Book soon to be published on the topic no doubt.) Not to be left out, even left leaning journalist Jonathan Alter actually invoked the now common "both sides analogy" while explaining his views to Joy Reid on MSNBC this afternoon. (Joy didn't let that one go, however, and I can't be the only one who took satisfaction in watching her do so.) This is of course, a false equivalence, as always. There is no "both sides" to this one. There are none on the left who celebrate anything as egregious as the circumstances surrounding the death of a child. None.
In the farce that the right has turned America into, Zimmerman emerges the hero, he'll probably have no shortages of offers for book deals and movie rights, perhaps a position alongside that other right wing celebrity nut-bag and professional victim Sarah Palin over at FOX. Count me as unsurprised if there isn't some sort of reality TV deal coming down the road. Something in a how-to self defense, martial arts, vigilante justice kind of thing like "George Zimmerman Stands His Ground."
Then there are the jurors, the one above, who within just days of the verdict, sought out and signed on with a literary agent for a possible book deal. Sadly for her, in under 24 hours, she announced this, went on national television and did enough damage by opening her mouth that outrage ensued, and through Twitter activism, the agent dropped the juror as a client. One could take that to say there is still just a smidgen of justice left in the world. Conventional wisdom and pundits tell us we mustn't criticize the jury. They also say we must accept the verdict.
Really? I don't think so. Not this time.
As George Zimmerman's attorneys gloated and bragged on camera after the verdict, so too did Florida's Special Prosecutor Angela Corey, for reasons that still boggle my mind. Her loss was a win for the right, as well as for right wing Florida politicians, like Rick Scott who appointed her.
How did we get here?
Florida is the state where common sense, logic, and consequences for immoral actions and ethics go to die. For a majority of bad decisions, outcomes, and head-scratching stories that define the saying "truth is stranger than fiction" chances are that all roads will lead back to Florida. The 2000 election, electing a governor who was previously best known for running a company that scored the biggest Medicare fraud fine in history, and now has a state sanctioned, "shoot first, ask questions and fill in the blanks later" law that allowed George Zimmerman to profile, pursue and admittedly kill a black child, and walk away not only a free man, but one who may well live out his days profiting from it.
Only in Florida can you profile and stalk a child, and then claim you shot him in self defense when he did what children are told to do by their parents when strangers are coming after them: Get away. Run. Because this child was black, Zimmerman's defense said it was justified. Said their client was the victim, not Trayvon Martin. The defense turned the tables and when it was over, the outcome was as if Martin was tried and found guilty, and Zimmerman was the wrongful victim. The deceased Martin was demonized, the responsible party walked away, and he, his defense team, and many on the right from reporters, radio race baiters and bloggers, to the very Republican politicians who made this legal outcome possible, are now dancing on this child's grave.
This law that allows you to get away with murder as long as you kill the only witness was written by ALEC, and handed down to the good old boys in Tallahassee who were only to eager to enact it. Thank Jeb Bush who was governor at the time. Thank its proud sponsor Dennis Baxley, a funeral home owner who also conveniently walks hand in hand with the NRA. Thank Republicans who hold the majority in the legislature who allow it to remain law. Thank Rick Scott, who appointed the Special Prosecutor who acted as though she were accepting an award when she lost her case, also the one who sent a black woman to jail for firing a warning shot in the air under the same Stand Your Ground law. Thank Scott a second time for reluctantly, under pressure, finally calling for a task force to "investigate" the SYG law, which he filled with Baxley, and an entire group of gun friendly, NRA owned lawmakers. What did they find after their so-called investigation? Surprise! The law is just dandy the way it is!
Case closed. Move along.
Even after the verdict, Baxley stood by his SYG baby like a proud father. Why wouldn't he? Because the law allows just exactly what it was intended to. Having made guns more readily available than birth control, and easier to get than it is to vote in Florida, they wrote a law that protects someone like Zimmerman. Protects the sacred right of the gun owner. After all, if you put him in prison, he can't buy more guns, which means less campaign checks from the gun companies. That's the way they roll in Tallahassee. If a child or any other innocent victim happens to find themselves on the wrong end of a gun, so be it. Collateral damage.
This is what we've come to. This is what the right wants to "take the country back to." This is their idea of freedom and liberty. Guns for all, votes for whites only, and exerting power and control over minorities, women, taking away choice, protecting those in the womb, only to be cast aside as slackers and takers after they're born, forced to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps." Bootstraps they've legislated out of reach.
My heart aches for the loss of Trayvon Martin. It aches for his family. While we can't bring him back, we can change. We have to change. This is insanity. If there are those who seek to prevent a change for the better, they need to get out of the way.
We are better than this. Please tell me we are better than this.
Marco Rubio has so angered his Tea Party base on immigration reform that he's desperate for pander material. So in addition to his address to conservatives and the Tea Party last week, essentially telling them what they should think about his immigration reform plans, his disgust for same sex marriage and his love of discrimination gave him an easy way kill two birds with one press release.
Naturally he jumped at the chance to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court on their gay marriage decision: That the court "overstepped" and made a "serious mistake."
Yes Marco, we've heard you're really not a bigot, you just feel it's your right to tell Americans who they can and can not marry, just as you tell women they have no business using birth control or having an abortion based solely on your beliefs. We got the memo.
Regardless, here are some of the highlights from Rubio's statement catering to the Tea Party outrage machine who may be on the fence over his next electoral move:
“I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today when it overstepped its important, but limited role....
...“I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints. These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.
Rubio seems to feel that checks and balances are only necessary when that "balance" falls on his side. Someone really needs to give him a crash course in Democracy, because he seems really confused for a guy who aspires to be President some day:
“Rather than having courts redefine marriage for all Americans, my hope is that the American people, through their state legislatures and referendums, can continue to decide the definition of marriage. It is through debates like this that the brilliance of our constitutional system of democracy, and the inherit goodness of our people, is revealed.
Please tell us, Sen. Rubio, how do you suppose this all wound up in front of the Supreme Court in the first place? You see, this is how this whole Democracy thing works. Part of that "debate" was just settled whether you like it or not. Also, have a look at the polls. Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage these days. Take a step outside of that protective bubble of yours once in a while. It's not nearly as scary out here in the real world as it is inside of yours.
“My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay. It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots.”
Yes Marco, nothing says "I'm being respectful" like saying in so many words "You can have all the rights you want, unless you happen to be gay. Then all bets are off, in which case you, and your rights are dead to me. Have a nice day."
And here's another memo to Rubio: If you expect people to refrain from assailing you as a bigot, then show some actual respect for not only gay Americans, but women, minorities, and all people of color. In short, respect the rights of ALL Americans, not just the ones you think will vote for you or contribute to that pile of cash you earn from selling said bigotry.
And while we're on that subject, we can't help but notice that you haven't released a single word on the Supreme Court's decision striking key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Do you feel, as you do about the same-sex marriage rulings, that the court "overstepped" or made a "serious mistake" there too? More to the point, did you think they "overstepped" or made a "serious mistake" when they handed the election to George W. Bush in 2000 in spite of Americans choosing Al Gore? If the Court were to step in and turn back the clock on women's rights and overturn Roe v Wade, which the GOP are chipping away at and working towards as I write, would you say they were also "overstepping" there?
No. Of course you wouldn't. But being a "respectuful" lover of democracy and all, that wouldn't necessarily make you a bigot for having those views and forcing them on the rest of us regrdless of own views and beliefs. Nope. With all due respect, some might say that would also make you prejudiced, intolerant, homophobic, partisan, sexist, racist, and dogmatic.
On the same day when President Barack Obama unveiled the Rosa Parks statue in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., The Supreme Court heard arguments that could throw out the Voting Rights Act.
Scalia attributed the repeated renewal of Section 5 to a “perpetuation of racial entitlement.” He said, “Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”
Let that sink in for a moment.
A shocking statement to be sure, but considering the source, it shouldn't be.
(See the transcript here, and for context, see a more detailed discussion here.)
For weeks as the details of the shooting death of teenager Trayvon Martin in Sanford began to unfold, there was a deafening silence on the case coming from Tallahassee. Amid national public outcry for a statement, or merely an acknowledgement of the shooting itself, Florida Governor Rick Scott said nothing.
Instead 22 days passed.
Only now that the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI have gotten involved do we get a cookie cutter statement from Gov. Scott urging law enforcement "to provide any assistance necessary to fully investigate this matter."
"The circumstances surrounding the death of Trayvon Martin have caused significant concerns within the Sanford community and the state,'' Scott wrote to FDLE Commissioner Gerald Bailey. "I understand an investigation was initiated by the Sanford Police Department and referred to the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit State Attorney's Office. I believe it is appropriate that the Florida Department of Law Enforcement provide any assistance necessary to fully investigate this matter. Accordingly, please ensure that FDLE offers and provides the appropriate resources to the State Attorney's Office as they continue their investigation."
Not until it becomes a potential political hot potato does Scott weigh in, and then only with a generic "CYA" announcement urging law enforcement to basically "do their job." Way to go out on a limb there, governor.
"I share in the desire of the family and the community to accurately collect and evaluate all the facts surrounding the tragic death of Trayvon Martin," Wolfinger said in a news release.
Seminole County Grand Jury which will be called to session on Tuesday, April 10, 2012.
I suppose it isn't too surprising that Scott would take little time out from handing out tax breaks to businesses and working on behalf of special interests to defend a mere citizen of the state who himself became the victim of a law pushed by those same special interests.
Florida's "Stand Your Ground Law" was pushed through the legislature back in 2005 by the National Rifle Association and signed into law faster than you can say "the victim was 'armed' with nothing but Skittles and iced tea" by then Gov. Jeb Bush. At the time those opposed to the law feared that it would lead to shootouts in the streets in the name of self defense.
....your responses to our 2010 Questionnaire, in support of Second Amendment, self-defense, and anti-crime issues have earned you the following ratings by our organizations.
Once again our governor illustrates exactly what ground he stands on when it comes to the citizens of this state:
Remember when Gov. Rick Scott unveiled those severe budget cuts last February? To justify those deep cuts, he said this:
"As long as 1.1 million Floridians are out of work, we can't afford a government that runs wild with taxes, regulations and excessive spending."
Then he proceeded to spend superfluous amounts of the state's money; the taxpayers money, on things that had nothing to do with the budget, but did have a common theme. It seems that no amount of money is too excessive when it comes to infringing on the rights of Floridians.
Scott is suing on your behalf, and on your dime, to block the Affordable Care Act.
He's suing on your behalf, and your dime, to block your voting rights.
Another way Scott chose to spend taxpayer money "wisely" was on mandatory drug testing for welfare recipients, apparently on the false premise that all the poor in need of public assistance are also drug addicts. Because they are presumed guilty until proven otherwise, those being tested must first spring for the cost of the test, and on the "rare" occasion that the test results are positive, the testee is not reimbursed by the taxpayer.
Luckily for those of us who prefer checks and balances, Scott is not quite the "Supreme Executive" that he purports to be, and the courts step in when needed, which is pretty often since Scott bought his way into power last January, and this case is no exception. Here the ACLU and the Florida Justice Institute stepped in, and the court ruled against Scott in favor of Luis Lebron, a Navy veteran who refused to take the mandatory drug test when he applied for temporary assistance to support his 4 year old son. Lebron qualified for benefits but refused to waive hes Fourth Amendment rights because he felt the law was wrong and unfair, and said "I defended the Constitution. Now I am asking the Constitution to defend me.” The judge agreed with Lebron and issued an injunction blocking the tests.
....Federal court Judge Mary Scriven put a halt to the tea party Republican's marquee plan, concluding that "the wholesale, suspicionless drug testing of all applicants" for Florida's Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) constituted an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th Amendment.
"Though the State speaks in generalities about the 'public health risk, as well as the crime risk, associated with drugs' being 'beyond dispute,'it provides no concrete evidence that those risks are any more present in TANF applicants than in the greater population," Scriven wrote in her ruling against Florida's government. "It is not enough to simply recite a governmental interest without any evidence of a concrete threat that would be mitigated through drug testing."
Apparently Judge Mary Scriven was unaware of Rick Scott's own job description:
Governor: "Simply reciting a Governor's interest without any evidence."
