Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Friday, 9 August 2019

Who Wants Trump to be Assassinated?

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:45 PM (17:45)

For starters, apparently Roger Demetrius Kaschak does, that’s who —

Digression here — I’m not a fan of Trump, considering his vocal support for the victim disarmament cause, but the “baby Trump” balloons are quite simply moronic, in my opinion.

For what it’s worth, Kaschak is a Biden supporter —

https://facebook.com/KASHMIR82/posts/2832382266777365

https://facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=2812116758803916&set=a.199974353351516&type=3


Sunday, 16 June 2019

Bernalillo County DA Raul Torrez, Idiot or Liar?

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:50 PM (15:50)

In light of the past six months, I think that it’s rather obvious that Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez is functioning as a rhetorical sock puppet for the Big Victim Disarmament machine, with the hands of George Soros and Michael Bloomberg up his rear making his lips move —

Sock puppets — which one is Raúl Torrez?

On Monday, 10 June 2019, the Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office posted a bit of idiocy or fearmongering on Facebook —

Monday, 10 June 2019 at 1:16 PM

An Albuquerque teen arrested for selling the deadly drug fentanyl and military grade weapons on social media now being prosecuted federally.

Here are some photos from that post, with my own commentary in red.

Kid with FRNs fanned

Here El Chapo Jr shows off the fruits of his alleged business activities.

Oh, my — pills!

Beretta 92 type pistol with magazines

Yes, the M9 was and is patterned after the Beretta 92 series of pistols. That’s because Fabbrica d’Armi Pietro Beretta introduced it into the U.S. Armed Forces’ trials to replace the M1911, and the M9 was selected in 1985 as the winner of those trials.

Never mind that the Beretta 92 series has been available on the American civilian market since it was first made available by Beretta in 1975. And also disregard the non-Beretta clones of the Model 92 series available to American civilians — the Taurus PT-92, for example.

Similarly, there have been numerous civilian clones of the M1911 available on the American market for decades.

And recently, the SIG Sauer P320 was adopted as the U.S. military’s M17, with a civilian version of the M17 (“SIG Sauer P320 M17”) being offered by SIG Sauer.

And of course there’s the Glock, which gained notoriety after being adopted by the Austrian military and police as their service pistol in 1982, and has been subsequently adopted by quite a few other military and law enforcement agencies. (Disclaimer — I own two (2) Glocks myself, a G17 and a G22)

But wait, there’s more! (Apologies to Billy Mays and Anthony Sullivan) — Torrez & Co. want us to follow them deeper down their taxpayer-subsidized, Bloomberg- and Soros-directed rathole and swim with them in their sewer of hoplophobic insanity and idiocy: here’s more “evidence” of “military grade” “assault weapons” “on the street” —

Pic from behind AR-15 pistol (blurry)

My request for clear, in-focus pictures, of course, appears to have gone unheeded.

AR-15 pistol with drum mag in car (dated Wednesday, 5 June)

Here’s a picture from the related press conference, dated Wednesday, 5 June 2019 at 12:28 PM

Of course, the Albuquerque Journal added its no-charge PR help reporting (the KRQE “News” “team” was also complicit) of Torrez’s rhetorical regurgitation —

“Make no mistake about it, this young man had in his possession a weapon of war,” Torrez stated. The AR-15 pistol is small enough to be concealed on a person’s body and can be fired with just one hand.

But “seriously” (as if these idiots and liars should actually be taken seriously?!) — “weapon of war” ?

Maybe Torrez mistook the AR-15 pistol pictured here for an M231 Firing Point Weapon[1] . . . ?

Maybe the next item on El Chapo Jr’s shopping list was a Bradley Fighting Vehicle of some sort?

But seriously (for real, this time) —

What military or law-enforcement agency actually uses AR-15 pistols as pictured above?

Why would they use such neutered knock-offs when they can get AR-15-pattern weapons with similar-length barrels (this one appears to be about 10 inches) AND attached shoulder stocks (suppressors, too!) without having to fill out any Form 4s or pay the 200-per-weapon transfer tax.

That’s what the AR-15 pistols with exposed buffer tubes like that are — neutered knock-offs.

They’re marketed to those who want an AR-15 with a barrel shorter than 16 inches without having to complete a Form 4, pay the transfer tax, get fingerprinted and photographed, then wait six months to a year wondering if their federal weapon permit will be approved.

What Torrez and his fellow Political Classholes need is a reminder that the Founders wanted America’s private-sector civilians to have actual weapons of war in their personal possession, as opposed to neutered knock-offs —

The power of the sword, say the minority . . . , is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans.
Tench Coxe, Letter to the Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

What Torrez and others of his ilk either forget or willfully disregard is that the Founders wanted America’s civilian population to have at least military parity with, if not supremacy over, the federal government, and probably the state governments, as well.

What is the specific war that we need such military weapons for, exactly?

Why, it’s the perpetual war for human freedom, of course.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Ian McCollum at Forgotten Weapons on the M231 Firing Point Weapon — Website / YouTube

    Wikipedia — M231 Firing Point Weapon

    Soldier Systems — “M231 Firing Port Weapon”

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,025: 16 June 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Facebook / Twitter
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

Wednesday, 24 April 2019

The Former Soviet Union as a Force for Good?!

Filed under: History, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 2:43 AM (02:43)

Just when you thought there was no one left to advocate for the former Soviet Union —

No, that wasn’t posted by some 90-year-old veteran of the Great Patriotic War.

That picture of “Captain USSR” was most likely posted by an American twentysomething or thirtysomething, and then was “re-tweeted” by another American thirtysomething, one Matt Kuehnel, who had previously fronted for the “Libertarian Socialist Caucus” in the Libertarian Party.

No, I’m NOT making any of this up.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Gab / Liberty.Me / Minds / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress

Thursday, 24 January 2019

Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Filed under: Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 6:47 PM (18:47)

From: Mike Blessing
To: Elizabeth “Liz” Thomson (D-24), Representative Andrea Romero (D-46), Representative Candy Spence Ezzell (R-58), Representative Angelica Rubio (D-35), Representative Gregg Schmedes (R-22) [1]
CC: Representative Antonio Maestas (D-16) [2], Representative Patricia Roybal Caballero (D-13), Representative Debra M. Sariñana (D-21), Representative Miguel P. Garcia (D-14), Representative Joy Garratt (D-29), Representative Daymon Ely (D-23), Representative Deborah A. Armstrong (D-17), Representative Linda M. Trujillo (D-48)
Date: Thursday, January 24, 2019, 12:00 PM MST
Subject: Comments on the “Rocket Docket” of Victim Disarmament Legislation

Honored Members of the Committee:

First, I am writing to say that some of the legislation under consideration by the committee is not properly labelled as “gun control.” Gun control constitutes the safe, proficient, and proper use of a firearm — the four safety rules, stance, grip, sight alignment and picture, breathing, trigger operation, target selection, etc.

Rather, the legislation in question (HB 8, HB 40, HB 83, HB 87, HB 130) is more properly called “victim disarmament,” in that the people most likely to be affected by it are the people who have the most reason to own and carry firearms for self-defense — the little old lady or the paraplegic who lives alone in a bad neighborhood, the five-foot-nothing 100-pound woman being stalked by a six-foot 200-pound deranged ex-boyfriend.

The bad people (the criminals, terrorists, and violence-inclined mental defectives) whom the proponents of this legislation say will be disarmed by it most likely will not be affected in the least. If they want access to a firearm, they will have it, by hook or by crook.

You see, the bad guys have found this massive loophole in the existing restrictions on private civilians’ rights to own and carry weapons called “breaking the law.”

There are already 20,000 to 25,000 existing restrictions upon the pre-existing individual, civil, Constitutional, human right to own and carry weapons, which are supposed to be guaranteed against State infringement by the Second Amendment and Article 2, Section 6 of the State Constitution. None of these anti-liberty statutes has stopped a bad guy from obtaining a firearm when they want it.

Laws already exist that prohibit felons, domestic abusers, foreign terrorists, incurable drug abusers and alcoholics, and mental defectives from obtaining, owning or carrying firearms.

Laws already exist that prohibit the use of firearms (and other objects) to harm other people (murder, assault with a deadly weapon, etc.).

I think it’s safe to say that all these laws have done is keep honest people honest, the same way locks on doors do.

Those who propose further infringements upon individual liberty aren’t truly looking to improve the human condition at all, but seeking more power over others for whatever reasons. No good will come from these infringements — no good has ever come from these sorts of laws, and no good ever will.

Specifically —

House Bill 8[3], so-called “universal background check” legislation sponsored by Representative Debra Sarinana, would ban all private firearms sales between law-abiding individuals. Gun owners will be forced to pay undetermined fees and obtain government approval before selling firearms to family members, friends, neighbors and co-workers, or fellow hunters, competitive shooters and gun club members. This proposal will have no impact on crime and is unenforceable without gun registration. [4]

House Bill 40[5], by Representative Miguel Garcia, would require criminal records checks on private firearms sales at gun shows — a perennial target of the gun control crowd, even though studies show that these events are not a source of crime guns.[6]

House Bill 83[7], extreme risk protection order or “red flag” legislation sponsored by Representative Damon Ely, would authorize the seizure of firearms and ammunition from individuals without due process. Unchallenged statements made by a petitioner before a judge, alleging that someone is a danger to themselves or others in an ex parte proceeding — prior to any formal court hearing at which the respondent can be represented by counsel and present counter evidence — would be sufficient for law enforcement to enter that person’s home and confiscate their private property.[8]

House Bill 87[9] by Representative Deborah Armstrong expands the state’s “prohibited person” firearm law by purportedly incorporating federal firearm disqualifications. The bill would prohibit individuals convicted of certain domestic violence misdemeanor crimes or who are subject to a domestic violence protective order from purchasing or possessing a firearm, with violations being a criminal offense. However, the bill goes beyond the prohibited categories in federal law in several significant ways. The state law definition of “household member” — unlike federal law — specifically includes a person who is or has been a continuing personal relationship, which applies to dating or intimate partners who have never lived together. The bill would include, as firearm-prohibiting offenses, nonviolent misdemeanors with no physical contact between the parties (like harassment by telephone or email, or criminal damage to the property or jointly owned property of a “household member”). Unlike federal law, this bill would require anyone subject to a protective order to surrender any firearms they own, possess, or control to law enforcement within 48 hours of the order. Not only does this bill impose a mandatory surrender, it authorizes law enforcement to seize any guns that are in plain sight or are discovered pursuant to a lawful search. Similar legislation had passed the Legislature in 2017 but was vetoed by Gov. Susana Martinez. Significantly, the 2017 legislation contained other options for affected parties to comply with the firearm surrender requirement, including storing their guns with licensed firearm dealers, or transferring the guns to a qualified third party. These key alternatives are not contained in this bill.[10]

House Bill 130[11], sponsored by Representative Linda Trujillo, would make gun owners criminally and civilly liable if a child gains unsupervised access to an unsecured firearm. New Mexico already has a first degree felony child abuse statute on the books to hold adults accountable for putting children’s lives or health at risk in any manner. The tools exist to charge and prosecute parents or guardians in appropriate cases. Education is the key to protecting gun owners and their kids, not a state mandate on how one stores a firearm in his or her home.[12]

If you truly want to stop violent crime and terrorism, find out what motivates criminals and terrorists to hurt others, and address those concerns.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee — The committee in which this legislation is sitting at present.
  2. I presently reside in House District 16, of which Antonio “Moe” Maestas is the present State Representative.
  3. HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES, sponsored by Debra M. Sariñana and Patricia Roybal Caballero
  4. NMSSA commentary about HB 8
  5. HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS, sponsored by Miguel P. Garcia
  6. NMSSA commentary about HB 40
  7. HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT, sponsored by Daymon Ely and Joy Garratt
  8. NMSSA commentary about HB 83
  9. HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION, sponsored by Deborah A. Armstrong
  10. NMSSA commentary about HB 87
  11. HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES, sponsored by Linda M. Trujillo
  12. NMSSA commentary about HB 130

NOTES

  1. Published at The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 1,005, 27 January 2019
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Twitter / VK
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com
    3. Absurdist Discordian Party of New Mexico Facebook page
    4. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    5. KCUF Media Facebook page
    6. New Mexico Dissent and Expose Facebook page
    7. Vote Dumpster Fire Facebook page
    8. Vote the Air Facebook page
    9. Wood Chipper Facebook page
    10. A Bias Toward Liberty Facebook group
    11. Freedom Rally Point New Mexico Facebook group
    12. Gun Owners of New Mexico Facebook group
    13. Independent Insights Facebook group
    14. New Mexico Gun Rights Facebook group
    15. New Mexico Lest We Forget (voters remorse) Facebook group
    16. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    17. Pink Pistols – Albuquerque Facebook group
    18. Sons and Daughters of Liberty New Mexico Facebook group

Monday, 7 January 2019

A Partial List of Pre-Filed Legislation [2019]

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 1:17 AM (01:17)

List of pre-filed legislative bills

Two things about this list page —

  1. To populate the list page, you have to click the blue “GO” button on the left after the page is done loading.
  2. What follows below this paragraph is a PARTIAL list, just to give you an idea of what it’s like. To see the full, current list, go to the actual official page.

HB 8 BACKGROUND CHECK FOR FIREARM SALES

HB 35 FIREARMS LICENSEE STOLEN GUN CHECKS

HB 40 BACKGROUND CHECKS AT GUN SHOWS

HB 83 EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER ACT

HB 85 UNION SECURITY AGREEMENTS

HB 87 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE & FIREARM POSSESSION

HB 101 NO FINGERPRINTS TO RENEW CONCEALED CARRY

HB 105 ENHANCED PENALTY FOR FIREARM USED IN CRIME

HB 112 DOUBLE VEHICLE INSURANCE MINIMUM COVERAGE

HB 129 SCHOOL SECURITY PERSONNEL & DEADLY WEAPONS

HB 130 ADDITIONAL FIREARM CRIMES & PENALTIES

SB 8 FIREARM SALE BACKGROUND CHECK

SB 59 PROHIBIT CERTAIN LEGAL DEFENSES

SB 79 ISSUANCE OF LIQUOR DISPENSER’S LICENSES

SB 148 FORMER OFFICERS AS SCHOOL SAFETY PERSONNEL

SB 159 PROHIBIT CERTAIN LEGAL DEFENSES


Sunday, 25 November 2018

Paul Krugman, Instructor on Masterclass

Filed under: Economics, Humor, Politics — Tags: , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:52 PM (15:52)

Scrolling through my “News Feed” on Cuckerbergbook, I recently came across this little gem —

<sarc>
Yes, YOU TOO can add to your economics edumication for the low, one-time price of 180!
</sarc>

But seriously, folks, why not simply cut to the chase on this?

<sarc>If we’re going to live the Krugman way, why not go all-out?

Let’s have our friends in the U.S. Air Force and U.S. Navy (and their foreign counterparts around the world) light off all of their special toys? You know, the ones that give us results like this —

That way, we can all cash in and get rich!</sarc>


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Economic Policy Journal [EPJ] by Robert Wenzel — Paul Krugman Economics on Gilligan’s Island

    Free Advice by Robert P. Murphy — Gilligan Is Disabused of the Treasury View

NOTES

  1. Published at / in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 999 – 2 December 2018
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook / Freedom Vine / Friendica / Gab / Google Plus / Liberty.Me / Minds / Oneway / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK

Tuesday, 24 April 2018

Victim Disarmament Advocate Commits Act of Bare-Handed Violence at Kent State

Filed under: Education, Politics, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:08 AM (05:08)

Next Friday (4 May) marks the 38th anniversary of the Kent State shootings.

Gun Control Advocate Assaults Student for Supporting 2nd Amendment (full video)

Help Assaulted Student Get New DSLR

Liberty Hangout: Gun Control Advocate Assaults Student for Supporting the 2nd Amendment, by Justin Moldow

Campus Reform: Conservative student assaulted during ‘change my mind’ event, by Ezry Bennett, The Kent Conservative

The Kent Conservative: Conservative student assaulted during ‘change my mind’ event, by Ezry Bennett


Wednesday, 12 October 2016

“Mine” vs. “Yours”

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:27 AM (00:27)

From what I’ve seen in thirty years of being involved on the public scene, there seem to be two basic mindsets towards life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, money, time, effort, you name it, where politics is concerned.

First is the “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours” way of thinking. This is the dominant mindset amongst libertarians. Some conservatives subscribe to it, as well.

But not the neo-conservatives and social conservatives, who seem to be perfectly OK with government at every level getting bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, just so long as they approve of the ways it gets bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The issues of abortion, same-sex relations, gambling, drugs and prostitution are examples of this.

Or said “conservatives” are concerned with getting “their fair share” of time at the public trough – contracts for the various social-welfare programs, construction contracts, and such.

Which brings me to the other prevailing mindset on the political scene, that of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours in negotiable (and ultimately mine).”

These are the people who get all kinds of pissed off when their money or personal property is damaged or taken without their consent. Yet if yours is similarly taken or damaged, especially when done by governmental edict, well, it’s your job to “suck it up for the common good.” Or “for the children,” “for the Earth,” or whatever.

For example, this picture of someone complaining that her Bernie 2016 sticker was stolen:

Seriously, folks, since when has Bernie Sanders EVER supported the rights of private property owners?

I would assume that anyone supporting his failed presidential bid would be in line with his views of “let’s take from the rich.” Am I out of line by suggesting that?

Another point – despite Bernie’s rather “strident” rhetoric about “soaking the rich,” he didn’t have any problem plunking down 575,000-600,000 for a lakefront dacha in Lake Hero, Vermont.

Does anyone care to guess what will happen to any vagrants who should wander onto the property?

You mean he won’t put them up in the guest bedroom for a few days, til they’re ready to move on?

What do you mean, his protective detail from the Vermont State Police will have said vagrant taken away in handcuffs?

Another instance of this:

Back in January 2013, Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNowNM Executive Director Pat Davis[1] supported “assault weapon” bans of various kinds, and then campaigned for the State of New Mexico to recognize same-sex marriages as legal[2].

So according to Bushee and Davis, my individual, pre-existing right to own and carry weapons isn’t really a right at all, merely a government-granted privilege, revokable upon the whim of a bureaucrat (the “yours” of this instance). At the same time, they insist that the rights they cherish (same-sex marriage — the “mine” here) to be taken as sacrosanct.

Well, America, which mindset do you prefer? Pick one and stick to it, please.


NOTES

  1. Bushee is no longer a City Councilor in Santa Fe, while Davis is currently “representing” District 6 on the Albuquerque City Council. No doubt that Bushee has been replaced with someone equally looney.
  2. Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

    Not that such an ordinance would have actually survived a court challenge, as New Mexico has a pre-emption clause in Article II, Section 6 of the State Constitution:

    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

    But Bushee had to have her warm fuzzy (and no-charge advertising media coverage) for the moment that she “got something done” and “made a difference,” so she sponsored the ban anyway.

  3. Approximate reading level – 13.4
  4. Published in The Libertarian EnterpriseNumber 894, 16 October 2016
  5. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Diaspora* / Facebook [page / profile] / Google Plus / seen.life / Tea Party Community / Twitter / VK / WordPress.com
    2. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Twitter / WordPress.com

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Saturday, 10 October 2015

[ABQ Journal] ABQ mayor’s marijuana veto survives challenge

ABQ mayor’s marijuana veto survives challenge

By Dan McKay / Journal Staff Writer
Published: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 7:26pm
Updated: Wednesday, October 7th, 2015 at 11:09pm

Mayor Richard Berry’s veto of a marijuana decriminalization bill withstood a challenge from Albuquerque city councilors on Wednesday.

Democrats on the City Council failed to persuade one of their Republican colleagues to change positions and join them in favor of a veto override.

But no one changed positions. The override attempt failed on a 5-4 vote along party lines.

It takes six of nine councilors to override a mayoral veto.

About a half-dozen speakers urged councilors to override the veto and enact the legislation – which called for making it a civil offense, not a criminal violation, under city law to possess an ounce or less of marijuana.

A companion bill sought to make marijuana a low priority for law enforcement.

Berry, a Republican, vetoed both proposals. He said they conflicted with state and federal law.

Councilors Isaac Benton and Rey Garduño, who co-sponsored the legislation, said cities have authority to set their own penalties for marijuana possession. That gives police officers discretion to cite people under either a local ordinance or under state law, they said.

Furthermore, the two argued, local voters already support reducing marijuana penalties.

“We don’t have to wait for the federal government or the state of New Mexico to tell us how to govern our own community, or respond to the voice of the community,” Benton said as he read a joint statement.

About 60 percent of Bernalillo County voters last year expressed support for decriminalizing possession of small amounts of marijuana. That was in response to a nonbinding question on the general-election ballot.

None of the council’s four Republicans spoke about the veto Wednesday. But they’ve previously said they don’t view city government as the right venue for changing drug laws.

That didn’t stop people from trying to change their minds.

Mike Blessing of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico told councilors they were supporting organized crime if they refuse to change the law. Support for an override, however, means “you’re standing up for free markets,” Blessing said.

Other supporters said that a marijuana conviction can make it hard to find a job and that enforcement draws resources away from more-serious crimes.

“The war on drugs has been a terrible failure,” Garduño said. “We know this isn’t working.”

In New Mexico, marijuana use is legal only for medical purposes.

Supporting the override were Benton, Garduño, Ken Sanchez, Diane Gibson and Klarissa Peña, all Democrats.

Republicans Brad Winter, Dan Lewis, Trudy Jones and Don Harris voted “no.”


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. City Council on 2015-10-07 5:00 PM – TWENTY-FIRST COUNCIL – FORTY-NINTH MEETING
  2. DPA Statement: Albuquerque Mayor Berry’s Veto of Marijuana Decriminalization Lags Behind History and the Public’s Will

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.6
  2. Original article — http://abqjournal.com/656288/news/abq-mayors-marijuana-veto-stands.html
    Archived here — https://archive.is/3NWiF
  3. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – App.net / Diaspora* / Ello / Facebook page / Facebook profile / FetLife / Google Plus / tsu / Twitter / WordPress
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoBlog / Facebook page / Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoBlog / Facebook page / Facebook group
    3. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    4. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    5. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Google Plus / Twitter / WordPress

Copyright © 2015 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with KWrite.

Monday, 9 March 2015

[LPNM] Does “Everybody” Truly Support Laws Against “Predatory” Lending? (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Economics, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 3:39 AM (03:39)

Subject: Does “Everybody” Truly Support Laws Against “Predatory” Lending?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:50 -0700
From: Mike Blessing
To: Albuquerque Journal

Ms. Nathalie Martin recently wrote in a guest column titled “Remember who votes against cap on loan interest rates” that

“The bottom line is that everybody favors the cap, except the legislators who have lined their pockets with industry funds.”

I for one do not favor the proposed cap, as it pushes those who can’t qualify for loans from businesses that meet with Ms. Martin’s approval to the extra-legal market — the gangs, Mafia remnants and such.

I submit that losing a car title for nonpayment is much less stressful than having your fingers or leg broken. But maybe that’s just me?

Still, I don’t remember being directly polled on this issue in any way, shape or form, so I have to ask — what sort of polling did Ms. Martin undertake?

To which polling firm was this contracted out?

What was the sample size? What was the demographic breakdown of the respondents? What was the poll format — telephone, direct mail, via the web, or face-to-face?

Another loaded line from the article:

“One-thousand percent interest loans hurt New Mexicans, and we unquestionably need to destroy these high-cost lenders before they destroy us.”

One easy way to avoid being “destroyed” by high-interest lenders is to simply not do business with them. I’ve gotten offers through the mail from such outfits in the past, and never been close to being “destroyed” — I simply put the mailings into the shredder.


Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should — you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer — what’s the question?

“Government is the disease that masquerades as its own cure.”
— Robert LeFevre

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
— Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 9
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs and micro-blogs – Ello / Facebook / Google Plus / Twitter
    2. LPUSA / LPNM
      1. Libertarian Party of New Mexico – Blog / Facebook group / Facebook page
      2. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    3. The Weekly SeditionFacebook / Google Plus / Twitter / WordPress
    4. Albuquerque Journal article (Copied to Facebook)
  3. Viewing – Predestination

Copyright © 2015 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Older Posts »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: