Republican's Sweep South

            As Election Day has come and gone this year, the shock of the losing candidates still lingers.  In the past, Democrats are known for sweeping the wins across the south, but they got to comfortable with that.  A turn of events occurred this year, leaving the candidates baffled and the nation in shock.  Republicans had won the majority of the south, leaving only a few Democrats remaining.  This process has been changing slowly over the last decade, but made a fast change this election season.

             Even Senator Mary Landrieu lost her re-election bid.  She was a well loved Democratic Senator in the south that came from a political family, who has been representing the state since 1997.  She is “the departure of the last white Democrat to represent the Deep South in Congress.”[1]  Along with Mary Landrieu many other democrats were ousted, Ms. Nunn, Ms. Hagan, and Ms. Grimes.  Jason Carter, former President Jimmy Carter’s grandson, was also among the many Democrats that lost.    

            Why did the Republicans do so well in this election, especially in the south?  The majority of the Democratic Party is made up of liberal politicians, from the Pacific Coast, Northeast and Metropolitan areas.  The politician’s interests, priorities, and values have very little appeal to southerners.  Many people in the south are conservative Christian’s who are against gay marriage and abortion, which the Democratic Party welcomes.  Over the years the Democratic Party has become more and more secular while the southern voters have remained Christian’s.  There is no easy way for the Democrats to dig their way out of the hole they have created for themselves in the South.  Without the help of the south it will be hard for the Democrats to win back the House and even harder for the Senate.  The only way to win the votes back is by changing their political stance, because as the south has already proved, they will not change their stance.

---

[1] http://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-democrats-lost-the-deep-south/ 

Facts in Ferguson

            

            Lately, Ferguson Missouri seems to make the news almost nightly.  This is because Michael Brown an unarmed eighteen year old African American man was fatally shot and killed by a white police officer in August of this year.  Now three months later a Grand Jury has decided there is not enough evidence to indict Officer Darren Wilson.  This decision brings a lot of controversy, rioting, and unnecessary problems.

            A Grand Jury is, “a jury, at common law, of 12 to 23 persons, designated to inquire into alleged violations of the law in order to ascertain whether the evidence is sufficient to warrant trial.”[1]  Grand jurors are chosen from the same pool as those who are chosen for trial jurors.  They are usually made up of individuals who are retired or work from home.  Grand juries sit a lot longer than trial juries; on average sitting 18 months.  Grand jurors do not meet everyday, but only when needed.  [2]“The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. The grand jury operates in secrecy and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor runs the proceedings and a judge is not present.”

            Michael Brown had just robbed a convenience store when Officer Darren Wilson approached him.  Brown would not follow the officer’s directions and began to charge towards the officer.  Brown even tried to grab Officer Wilson’s gun.  Officer Wilson began to shoot at Brown until he backed off, then when Brown began to charge again, Officer Wilson began shooting again.  These shots proved to be fatal to Michael Brown.  

            The grand juries decision not to indict Officer Wilson came a little over a week ago, along with some very strong opinions.  Many wonder why he had to shoot Michael Brown so many times, or why he could not just shoot him in the knee to stop him from charging.  When a police officer shoots his gun it is not to wound someone, but it is to kill the person. They are specifically trained to shoot to kill.  You also have to remember that Officer Wilson had to make split second decisions, and did not have time to think through the whole scenario.  When Darren Wilson was interviewed, after the grand jury decided not to indict him, he stated that there was nothing he would have done differently.  This made a lot of people mad, but I think the question that should be asked is “what could have Michael Brown done differently?”  If the roles were reversed, and Michael Brown was the cop, his parents and many others might see a little more of Darren Wilson’s side.

            I have a unique perspective and very strong opinion on this whole tragedy.  My dad was a police officer for over twenty-five years, and I can not imagine him being placed in this situation.  My dad went out to protect and help others each day just like Officer Darren Wilson set out to do on August ninth.  How would I feel if some unruly teenager tried to attack my dad, all because he thought he did not need to obey the law?  Darren Wilson was doing his job, and when his life was endangered, he did what he was trained to do, protect it.  Now that he protected his life, he is never going to be able to really “live” again.  He will always be looking over his shoulder, and will not be able to work as a police officer again.  There is only one person that could have changed the whole outcome, and that person is Michael Brown. 

---

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/grand%20jury?s=t 

[2] grandjuryresistance.org/grandjuries.html