Caffeinated Thoughts

We Need to Stand Our Ground on “Stand Your Ground”
NOW Continues the Left’s Inept Attacks on Ann Romney
The Untold Story About Iowa’s Regent Universities

We Need to Stand Our Ground on “Stand Your Ground”

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 09:30 PM PDT

I don't want to comment on the particulars of Trayvon Martin case. I don't want to opine on whether or not George Zimmerman is innocent or guilty of 2nd degree murder. I do believe that there is intense political pressure in this case, and I also believe that people have taken advantage of this tragedy to push their agenda – whether it is to incite racial tension or to push anti-2nd Amendment legislation. I agree with Tony Beam who earlier wrote a few days ago that the shooting has been shamelessly exploited and with Dean Butterfield who wrote last month that people are jumping to conclusions.

Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, ABC News wrote last month, is under new scrutiny as a result of this shooting. Reuters reports that the killing puts the spotlight on the "Gunshine" state. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg whose anti-gun mindset has *surely* led to a decrease of homicides in his city is on a crusade against "stand your ground" laws. Not surprisingly gun control activists are jumping on this tragedy to target Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law, as well as, similar laws in other states.

People are complaining that the law is confusing that people are not sure when they can legally discharge their firearms in self-defense. Twenty-nine states have either a castle doctrine law or something similar that would state basically if someone invades your home you have the right to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family and any guest you have in your home. You must legally be in the residence and the intruder must be there illegally. Generally speaking most laws require that you believe the intruder intends to do serious harm. You must believe they intend to commit a felony. You can't provoke the intruder. Some states require that you announce your presence and intent to retaliate. Some states include your workplace and car within their "Castle Doctrine" laws. Some state also give full immunity even from civil suits.

That is the basic law that outlines when you can legally use deadly force. However carry permits allow you to carry pretty much anywhere in the state unless state law or city ordinance says otherwise (like in schools, etc.). If the "Stand Your Ground" law is confusing I think states that enforce a "duty to retreat" law would make things even worse. When can I discharge my weapon without fear of reprisal. How far do I have to retreat? What if retreating puts me into further danger?

"Stand Your Ground" clears that up. You don't have to retreat. If you are being attacked or a reasonable belief of a threat you can use deadly force. There is no requirement to retreat. The Castle Doctrine makes that clear within the home, there is no duty to retreat. Some states go further and say you have no duty to retreat anywhere.

If you have a reasonable belief of a threat or if you are being attacked you can shoot. That is pretty clear cut. In the case of Trayvon Martin's shooting, we'll wait to see the facts play out, but what "Stand Your Ground" doesn't allow. It doesn't allow you to be a vigilante, it doesn't allow you to hunt somebody down, it doesn't allow you to provoke people, and it doesn't allow you to go looking for trouble.

The law isn't the problem, people who don't follow it are. But there are far, far more people who legally carry who don't discharge their weapons than the minuscule number of those who are alleged to have done so improperly.

NOW Continues the Left’s Inept Attacks on Ann Romney

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 04:40 PM PDT

Last night Allahpundit of Hot Air wrote regarding the Hilary Rosen attack on Ann Romney, wondering if the Right’s fun was over:

Is there anything left of this story to milk for traffic? The Twitter supernova has begun to fade and the opportunistic campaign merchandise has already been rolled out. Can an intrepid, content-hungry blogger find some other wrinkle to exploit?

He needn’t to have feared, because the National Organization for Women President Terry O’Neill was ready to double down:

TERRY O'NEILL: What would we be saying if Hillary Clinton had said this: that Ann Romney has never, has not worked for pay outside the home a day in her life? That's my understanding that's an accurate statement, and that raises the exact issue that Hilary Rosen was trying to get to, which is do Mr. & Mrs. Romney have the kind of life experience and if not, the imagination, to really understand what most American families are going through right now? I think that that was what Hilary was getting out, and so she left out the words "for pay outside the home."

No, it doesn’t make it any better. It’s still attacking stay at home motherhood and saying that if you’re a stay at home mom. And does working somehow make you more understanding of the trials of the poor? Hillary Clinton and Michelle Obama may have been working mothers, but their two-earner household incomes were far greater than the average person. The State Senator married to the Hospital Executive or the Governor married to a law firm partner aren’t going to relate well to the problems of the waitress married to a guy who works at Wal-Mart.

If Hilary Rosen wanted to go for the cheap shot on Ann Romney, it would have been easy to say, “You know most American women don’t drive two Cadillacs.” No one would have even noticed cared. Instead, we’ve spent the better part of two days with the Democrats on the wrong side of a cultural issue and undercutting the value of stay at home moms.

President Obama to his credit has come out against going after Mrs. Romney saying he doesn’t have patience for commentary about the candidates wives. Good for him. His problem? The message isn’t getting heard above the din of his own party’s base.

This is perhaps the first sign of some trouble for the President. In many ways 2012 has many similarities to 1996. You had a lackluster Republican Candidate running against a well-organized Democratic incumbent. The big difference here is that Clinton’s team was able to master the news cycle and take control of the narrative. Thanks to Hillary Rosen, the media coverage has been about attacks on the likable and gracious wife of the candidate rather than the candidate himself.

Of course, it’s six and a half months before the elections, so this incident will be long forgotten by then unless Romney follows it up with other efforts that help unite the party behind him. However, if the Obama campaign isn’t able to seize control of the narrative, this election could be far closer than anyone may think right now.

The Untold Story About Iowa’s Regent Universities

Posted: 13 Apr 2012 07:30 AM PDT

By State Senator Brad Zaun

The Senate debated education reform legislation last week. So what did I learn? The Regents Universities have a set aside scholarship program. Big deal? Starting in the late 1980s the University of Iowa, Iowa State University and the University of Northern Iowa implemented a practice of setting aside a portion of tuition payments to offer as scholarships to other students. In September 2004 the State Board of Regents formalized the practice by approving a policy. The policy requires the three public universities to set aside a minimum of 15% of gross tuition proceeds for student financial aid. Each university establishes the amount of tuition set aside for scholarships of other students. The percentage and amounts vary between each school, undergraduate, graduate, resident, and nonresident tuition. My understanding is the following percentages of resident tuition are set aside for each institution – Iowa 24%, Iowa State University 18.6%, and University of Northern Iowa 15.3%.

For undergraduate resident students the current effect of the policy is that $1864 of the $7,765 tuition bill at the University of Iowa is used to offset scholarships for other students. At Iowa State University $1392 of the $7,486 tuition bill goes to other students. At University of Northern Iowa $980 of the $6,408 tuition bill is applied to other students' scholarships rather than the direct costs of the paying student.

If an individual family saved or borrowed to send a student to an Iowa Public University, a significant (21.3% average) portion of the tuition went to other students. Even if your student received an award from a local service club, a percentage of that award went to some other student. In fiscal year 2011 approximately $150 million of tuition proceeds was set aside and awarded to other students as need based or merit based aid. That was YOUR money, intended for students in your family, which went to someone else.

The regents' universities probably feel they have done proper public disclosure. But I bet if you wrote a tuition check you didn't realize where the money was going. You probably thought you were paying the education expense for your student. If you are about to send a student to one of Iowa's three public universities, please have school officials clarify how much of your check is being set aside for some other student.

I believe this policy is wrong. Especially wrong for a state where student loan debt is considered unacceptably high. The cost of these scholarships should not be borne on the backs of Iowa families who choose to send their children and grandchildren to the regents' universities. The tuition rate should be reduced sooner not later. Iowans deserve better from their state government. As a parent of a son that attends the University of Northern Iowa I am outraged.

I am told, with considerable emphasis, that the Board of Regents is addressing this issue and no legislative action is required. I will be watching closely.

State Senator Brad Zaun (R-Urbandale) represents Iowa Senate District 32

Horoscop

sâmbătă, 14 aprilie 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: