Nemo Me Impune Lacessit

Thursday, 21 March 2013

[LPNM] Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT Cause

Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNow New Mexico’s Executive Director Pat Davis will tell you that they are all in favor of expanding the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people. In reality, they are ultimately hindering the LGBT cause, as opposed to helping it.

“How so?” you might ask. After all, both of them have been rather outspoken in support of same-sex marriage.

In today’s Albuquerque Journal, Bushee was quoted (and her hand photographed) as “urging county clerks to start issuing same-sex marriage licenses.”[1]

And ProgressNow New Mexico joined in yesterday with an email blast and Facebook posting.[2]

Now remember that in 2005, Democrat Attorney General Patsy Madrid filed litigation against same-sex marriage licenses issued by Victoria Dunlap. Those with good memories for the political scene will note that Dunlap was the Republican County Clerk in Sandoval County at the time. After Dunlap left office, Patsy dropped the lawsuit she filed against Dunlap’s actions.

The lesson to be learned from this is the Democrats will treat people of the LGBT persuasion as a political soccer ball, to be kicked around at a whim. Why shouldn’t they, as LGBT people will vote overwhelmingly for the Democrat regardless of what Democrats do between elections?

And it should also be noted that both Bushee and Davis regard the rights of others not in their political circle as soccer balls, to be kicked around at their leisure. If not as flies to be swatted.

On the latter, I’m referring to one issue in particular, specifically the individual right of private civilians to own and carry weapons, for the purpose of self-defense.

On 20 December 2012, Bushee said that she would sponsor a ban on civilian possession of “assault weapons” – military-pattern semiautomatic rifles – within the city limits of Santa Fe[3]. Warbling in tune with Bushee, ProgressNow NM has kept up a steady flow of strident, hoplophobic catcalls on behalf of the victim disarmament cause[4].

Consider that since it was founded in 1971, the Libertarian Party has supported the rights of LGBT people to live their lives free from coercion just the same as we libertarians support the rights of conservatives to live free from coercion.

How many conservative-type people in New Mexico really care per se about LGBT people being of the LGBT persuasion? Probably not many. So when I bring up to them the idea that LGBT should be just as free as they are to live without coercion, my case is undermined by Davis, Bushee and their ilk clamoring to infringe upon other, equally-cherished rights. “Why should I care about their rights when they don’t care about mine?” goes the question.

In short, if Bushee and Davis want their cherished freedom to be LGBT to be upheld, it would behoove them to respect the rights of others to own and carry weapons, among other rights.


NOTES

  1. Albuquerque Journal: 20 March 2013 – City Attorney: Same-sex marriage OK
    Santa Fe New Mexican: 19 March 2013 – Santa Fe leaders ask county clerks to honor same-sex marriage
  2. ProgressNow New Mexico – Facebook page post and email blast
  3. Albuquerque Journal: 20 December 2012 – Assault Weapons Ban?, 14 January 2013 – Coss Headlines Santa Fe Gun Control Press Conference
  4. http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488185797897738
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/488015187914799
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487840961265555
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487719194611065
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487713881278263
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/526701757382247
    http://progressnownewmexico.pnstate.org/site/MessageViewer?em_id=81426.0
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487208071328844
    http://facebook.com/progressnownm/posts/487207284662256
  5. Original article
  6. Links to this post
  7. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs – WordPress / Yahoo!
    2. The Weekly SeditionWordPress / Yahoo!
    3. Duke City Fix

Copyright © 2013 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++.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Advertisements

Friday, 1 March 2013

[LPNM] City Oversteps Bounds in Attempting Minimum Wage Enforcement

Filed under: Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 10:26 PM (22:26)

CITY OVERSTEPS BOUNDS IN ATTEMPTING MINIMUM WAGE ENFORCEMENT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (3/1/13)
Contact: Mike Blessing, State Chair
Alternate: Elizabeth Hanes, Press Secretary

[ALBUQUERQUE] – The Libertarian Party of New Mexico (LPNM) strongly condemns the decision by Albuquerque Mayor Richard J. Berry and City Attorney David Tourek to pursue legal action against Route 66 Malt Shop regarding wages allegedly not paid to an employee under Albuquerque’s minimum wage law.

“It’s not the city’s job to enforce wage and hour law,” said LPNM State Chair Mike Blessing. “This responsibility falls to the New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions. In fact, the DWS website provides clear guidelines on how to file a claim. Why isn’t the city attorney directing the complaining employee to these proper resources?”

In various statements made to the media, Tourek has claimed the city flip-flopped on the issue of representing former employee Kevin O’Leary in an action against Route 66 Malt Shop because “no one was coming forward to help him.” Tourek had previously stated the city should not intervene in the dispute and that O’Leary’s only recourse was to “hire a private attorney.”

“The assertion that O’Leary – or any employee – with a wage and hour claim needs to ‘hire a private attorney’ in order to resolve the issue is patently false,” Blessing said. “First of all, the DWS provides a wage claim procedure specifically available to ‘any employee who cannot afford an attorney, and has not been paid his/her earned wages.’[i] Not only does DWS spell out on its website the exact procedure to be followed to make a wage claim, it provides a specific form for Albuquerque employees[ii]. Furthermore, any claimant can represent him– or herself pro se in an action against the employer in Metropolitan Court.”

Tourek claims the city’s decision to represent O’Leary is “an exception.”

“We can only ask ourselves why O’Leary should receive assistance from the powerful resources of the City Attorney’s office when so many other Albuquerque employees are denied such assistance,” Blessing said. “The bottom line is the city has no business intervening in a wage dispute, period, let alone doing so selectively – presumably based on the high-profile nature of the case.”

The LPNM opposes any mandatory minimum wage law as being contrary to the principles of free market economics.

-30-

ABOUT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW MEXICO

Established in 1971, LPNM is the third-largest political party in the state. LPNM seeks to preserve personal liberty and freedom by opposing new or more restrictive laws, new or more expensive spending programs, and new or higher taxes. Guided by the Non-Aggression Principle, which opposes the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals, Libertarians promote peace, personal freedom, and unfettered capitalism.

[i] http://www.dws.state.nm.us/Mobile/Business/Resources/WageClaimProcedures

[ii] http://www.dws.state.nm.us/Portals/0/DM/Business/Wage_Claim_Albuquerque.pdf


NOTES

  1. Original article
  2. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs – Xanga / Yahoo!
    2. LPUSA / LPNMLPBC Blog / [LPNM-discuss] Yahoo! group
    3. The Weekly SeditionWordPress / Yahoo!
    4. Duke City Fix / Tea Party Nation

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Monday, 25 February 2013

LPNM Press Release — HB402 “Assault Weapon” Ban Tabled

 

LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW MEXICO APPLAUDS TABLING OF ‘ASSAULT WEAPONS’ BAN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (2/23/13)

Contact: Mike Blessing, State Chair – 505-249-1248

[ALBUQUERQUE] – The Libertarian Party of New Mexico (LPNM) applauds the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee decision to table House Bill 402, which would have made it illegal for most New Mexicans to own an “assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition feeding device.”

“This was a surprisingly sensible decision by committee members, given there’s no clear definition of what an ‘assault weapon’ actually is and because gun bans only serve to disarm the law-abiding public,” said LPNM State Chair Mike Blessing. “Furthermore, the ridiculous wording of the proposed law made it virtually unenforceable.”

The ban would have exempted several groups of individuals, including law enforcement officers and military personnel. More problematic, the bill would have exempted “a person [who] possesses an assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition-feeding device for use exclusively at a firing range owned and operated by a gun dealer licensed in New Mexico and the assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition-feeding device is located on the premises of the firing range.”

“You have to ask what the point of banning ‘assault weapons’ is if a person is still allowed to own one as long as they claim they’re only going to use it at a firing range,” Blessing added. “It’s idiotic to think this clause could possibly be enforced. If a police officer stopped you while you were initially transporting your so-called assault weapon to the firing range, would you be fined or jailed? And who would be tasked with ensuring people who own ‘assault weapons’ were keeping them at a firing range at all times? It’s ridiculous.”

The term “assault weapon” currently enjoys no singular legal definition. It’s normally used to refer to the cosmetic features of semi-automatic firearms and can refer to firearms of any caliber. For example, a “military style” semi-automatic .22 caliber rifle may be designated an “assault weapon,” whereas a common semi-automatic .22 caliber “hunting style” rifle would not be considered an “assault weapon.”

“The LPNM opposes gun control laws at any level and considers them unconstitutional,” Blessing added. “The LPNM will continue to vigorously fight to protect the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico citizens.”

-30-

ABOUT THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY OF NEW MEXICO

Established in 1972 by Margaret Mathers in Farmington, LPNM is the third-largest political party in the state. LPNM seeks to preserve personal liberty and freedom by opposing new or more restrictive laws, new or more expensive spending programs, and new or higher taxes. Guided by the Non-Aggression Principle, which opposes the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals, Libertarians promote peace, personal freedom, and unfettered capitalism.

Official LPNM website: http://lpnm.us

Thanks to Maureen Johnson for putting together this press release.


NOTES

  1. Original article
  2. Reposted –
    1. Sent by email to 181 people by emai.
    2. Personal blogs – Xanga / Yahoo!
    3. The Weekly SeditionWordPress / Yahoo!
    4. Duke City Fix / nmpolitics.org / Tea Party Nation

Copyright © 2013 Libertarian Party of New Mexico, Maureen Johnson and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.This blog entry created with gedit Notepad++.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Tuesday, 7 September 2010

LP Monday Message: High Unemployment on Labor Day

Filed under: Economics, Media, Politics — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 7:47 PM (19:47)

September 6, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

It’s hard to celebrate Labor Day when unemployment is 9.6 percent.

Government interference is the single biggest cause of unemployment. Minimum wage laws, OSHA, ADA, etc., etc., make it difficult both to hire and to fire workers. (And when it’s difficult to fire workers, it’s much less likely that they will be hired in the first place.) To reduce unemployment, we need to start repealing laws!

Section 2.7 of the Libertarian Party platform states: “We support repeal of all laws which impede the ability of any person to find employment. We oppose government-fostered forced retirement. We support the right of free persons to associate or not associate in labor unions, and an employer should have the right to recognize or refuse to recognize a union. We oppose government interference in bargaining, such as compulsory arbitration or imposing an obligation to bargain.”

I read today that President Obama wants another $50 billion in Keynesian stimulus spending. Stimulus supporters think that government spending creates jobs. What they don’t seem to understand is that the money is taken out of the private sector, which decreases private sector spending and investment, and that destroys jobs. I believe that stimulus spending destroys more jobs than it creates. We’d be much better off with the laissez-faire policies advocated by Austrian economic theory.

It makes me mad to think of all the ways the Republican and Democratic congresses, and presidents Bush and Obama, have hurt the private sector with all their stimulus and bailout programs. (Remember George W. Bush’s 2008 “Economic Stimulus Act” with all the $600 “rebate” checks?)

If you’d like to help fight them, please participate in Quiz Across America.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.


NOTES

  1. Reposted —
    1. KCUF Media
    2. New Mexico Liberty / The LPNM Blog
    3. Yahoo! Groups — [LPNM-discuss] / Personal email archive

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

How to handle Ronald Reagan? [LP Monday Message]

Filed under: Media, Philosophy, Politics — Tags: , — mikewb1971 @ 10:16 AM (10:16)

August 23, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

As the 2010 election approaches, a lot of Republican politicians are trying to posture as government-cutters, and they often hold up Ronald Reagan as an example.

But although Reagan often talked about supporting smaller government, most Libertarians know that in practice he did exactly the opposite. For example:

  • Reagan boosted import tariffs and trade restrictions.
  • Reagan cut marginal income tax rates, but he also raised Social Security taxes.
  • Reagan increased farm subsidies.
  • Reagan sent the federal debt through the roof.
  • Federal spending under Reagan grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion.
  • Reagan set the record for the highest average spending as a percent of GDP over his administration. (Obama may beat him.)

Many people are complaining right now about unemployment under Barack Obama. In the first 18 months of Obama’s presidency, unemployment has increased from 7.7 percent to 9.5 percent.

Did you know that during the first 18 months of Reagan’s presidency, unemployment increased from 7.5 percent to 9.8 percent? That’s even worse, but I don’t hear a lot of Republicans mentioning it.

Many Republican politicians, operatives and talk show hosts like to talk positively about Reagan and try to portray him as delivering smaller government. They don’t say that about George W. Bush. I presume that’s to try and convince voters that Bush was bad in some ways, and we should all try to be more like Reagan.

Some polls show Reagan is reasonably well-respected these days. I think the positive reactions are often based on misconceptions, and that brings up an interesting point: how should Libertarians deal with the Ronald Reagan myth?

To address that question, we put up a new poll today. Please share your opinion.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

P.S. If you have not already done so, please join the Libertarian Party. We are the only political party dedicated to free markets and civil liberties. You can also renew your membership. Or, you can make a contribution separate from membership.


NOTES

  1. Original article
  2. Reposted —
    1. KCUF Media — Blogspot / Xanga
    2. New Mexico Liberty / The LPNM Blog

Sunday, 6 January 2008

Public Campaign Financing

At the Weekly Alibi’s story Best and Worst of 2007, I posted the following comment, as the Alibi is a staunch supporter of taxpayer-pays campaign financing

Maybe Re-Think the “Best” and “Worst” ? (GunsSaveLives) [ Sun Jan 6 2008 4:04 PM ]

[SNIP]

7. Supporters of public campaign financing need to be aware that they’re establishing a potential for black and hispanic voters to be taxed to support the Ku Klux Kandidate. Maybe other Alibi readers are OK with that, but there’s no way in Hell that I’ll sign off on that.

Am I the only one who remembers the 1992 gubernatorial election in Louisiana?

The Democrat was a guy by the name of Edwin Edwards, and was generally thought of as a crook.

There were two Republicans in the race, the incumbent (Buddy Roemer) and David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Roemer came in third, so Edwards and Duke went to a run-off election, where Duke was soundly defeated.

Remember that the population of Louisiana has a significant black (or “African-American,” if you prefer) component.

If Louisiana had been running a public-campaign financing scheme at the time, money would have been taxed away from those black voters and been given by the State of Louisiana to the Duke for Governor campaign coffers.

Back in September 1997, I was one of the co-hosts on Roundtable, a Crossfire-style round-robin show on Channel 27. Roundtable was produced by Richard Haley, who has since moved to California. I was one of the Libertarians who was featured, Milt Herman was representing the U.S. Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party), and Richard Damerow was there for the Reform Party.

John McCall was representing the Green Party at the time, and started the night’s show with a pitch for public campaign financing. I cut in and asked McCall, “Do you consider it morally acceptable for black and hispanic voters to be taxed to support the Aryan Nations or Ku Klux Klan candidate?”

His response? Not “let me think about it,” not “let me get back to you,” not “I hadn’t thought about that.”

His response was “Yeah — we need more voices in the debate.”

I was floored — how do you respond to that?

A few years later (December 2006), I was in the middle of a Central Committee meeting for the Libertarian Party of New Mexico[1] (as of now, I’ve been the Secretary since June 2005), and Joe Knight proposed a resolution opposing Wild Bill Richardson’s ethics proposals, when one of the committee members spoke up in support of limiting campaign contributions and public campaign financing, as it “could be good to get corporations out of the picture.”

Again, I asked if we should consider it acceptable to tax black and hispanic voters to provide funds for candidates fielded by the Aryan Nations or the Ku Klux Klan – again, the answer was in the affirmative — we “don’t want special interests (corporations) to take over the government.”

All of this assumes, of course, that once candidate qualify for the public cash, they’re going to get it, regardless of other considerations, such as their partisan affiliation, where they or their party stands on certain issues, how well they’re connected to election officials, that sort of thing. And we know (of course) that election officials would never display any kind of bias on these sort of issues, right?

Actually, the exact opposite is true — just in the last 200 years of American history, there have been plenty of cases where candidates were kept off the ballot on the basis of their partisan affiliation (both Democrat and Republican, not to mention Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, etc.), their race, gender, religion, nationality, etc. And that’s just the informal ballot-line exclusions I’m talking about here — some of the more inclined towards politically-correctness might end up on the board or commission that determines who gets the public cash, and use their powers of office to rule against those they don’t like.

In short, taxpayer-pays campaign financing is a boondoggle at best, an atrocity at worst, as it forces people to support via taxation candidates that they wouldn’t ordinarily touch with a ten-foot pole.


NOTES

  1. At present (6 January 2006) the domain name for the LPNM [www.lpnm.org] has expired due to issues over who has control of the domain account, so I linked above to the Myspace group.
  2. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – Xanga

Copyright © 2008 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Monday, 31 December 2007

And So It Begins (?)

Re: And So It Begins – Lakota Sioux Prove The Bravest and Best of America

Maybe Russell Means has turned over a new leaf?

I wasn’t too impressed with him back around “9-11” when he was the LP of New Mexico’s candidate for governor — ask him a question that he hasn’t had a chance to rehearse answering and you’ll see exactly what I mean — click here for an example — I can personally attest to this, from a conversation with him on 10 Sept 2001 (I can put you in touch with witnesses).

That, and Russell came across (to me, at least) as the Native-American version of David Duke — he can dial the racism in his pitch up and down like a rheostat in order to suit the audience of the moment. See this speech.

Support him at your own risk. Some of my colleagues in the LPNM were dropping 500-bucks-a-pop donations on him back in 2001, after he was nominated as our candidate for governor. Imagine their surprise when he bailed from the LPNM in Sept 2001 and gave that cash to the “Independent Coalition Party,” which imploded as an organization about six months after Russell gave them that eight grand.

As for Russell being a “committed libertarian,” I take it that you didn’t hear about his attempt to cordon off the Pine Ridge Reservation in 2006, trying to stop people from bringing alcohol in? What “libertarian” tries to reinstate Prohibition?

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

That’s what I posted as a comment to Kate’s article (linked to above at the top). I have no doubts about Kate’s commitment to the libertarian cause, she’s a hell of a writer, and the rest of her resume would fill out the CV’s of three people with stuff left over.

But I think that in this case, she’s been snookered by Russell and the Meanies.

My conversation with Russell on 10 Sept 2001 went like this —

Me — How would you as governor handle something like Waco if it happened in New Mexico or like what happened to Tom Moore in Alamogordo, where the feds show up out of nowhere and start doing their thing?

(Five to ten seconds go by, and Russell has this deer-in-the-headlights expression on his face — I can almost see the little wheels turning, the smoke coming out of his ears . . .)

Russell — There are no secrets in a free society.

(I’m thinking “WHAT the fuck?!”)

Me — When these people show up for a raid like Waco or like at Tom Moore’s place, they don’t tell anyone they’re coming — they just show up out of the blue with a hundred or so people and start tearing things apart. How would you handle this as Governor?

(Another five to ten seconds of Russell and his deer-in-the-headlights expression, smoke coming out of his ears . . .)

Russell — I’d let all of the non-violent people out of prison.

Basically, his schtick when cornered like I did to him then (and in general) is to throw out some mystical, profound-sounding bullshit and hope no one questions it. If you DO question it, then you’re a “racist” (especially if you’re Caucasian), or a “dupe” of Whitey. He’s been known to refer to black people who aren’t on his side as “house niggers,” for example.


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – Xanga

Copyright © 2007 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Wednesday, 23 August 2006

Tailgate Party, Anyone?

Current mood: mischievous

The day after the inauguration of a Libertarian Party or Boston Tea Party candidate as President of the United States, I’ll saw off a shotgun barrel to less than 18 inches in the parking lot of the local F-Troop (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) office.

I’ll probably make a tailgate party out of it.

Date — 21 January 20__

Place3rd and Marquette NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Mike Blessing,
Executive Heretic,
KCUF Media


NOTES

  1. Reposted –
    1. Personal blogs – Myspace / Xanga
    2. KCUF Media – Myspace

Copyright © 2006 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: