Archive for October, 2010

Why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

October 12, 2010

Why The Gun In Civilization

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force.

If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we’d be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger’s potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat — it has no validity when most of a mugger’s potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that’s the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there’s the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser. People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don’t constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that’s as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn’t work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn’t both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don’t do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I’m looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don’t carry it because I’m afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn’t limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation… and that’s why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

SOURCE

NRA Endorsements: Single issue organization fallacy

October 12, 2010

The National Rifle Association recently released it’s political endorsements for the upcoming elections. There is an excellent discussion about this HERE. Be sure to read through the comments as they are a bot more than enlightening. I had planned on an in depth posting on the subject, however Dave Kopel really beat me to it! 🙂

Now, speaking as a Life Member I have one thing to say about the NRA being a “single issue” organization. BOVINE FECES Mister Cox and Mister LaPierre. I seem to remember something about “It’s not about hunting ducks.” Yet, the NRA has an entire division devoted to hunting. Let’s not forget about the various marksmanship  and safety programs that are offered. Single issue? Hardly! Stop the hypocrisy, please!

Then we have the NRA rolling over time and time again; The NRA supported ex post facto law. The NRA has supported so-called “reasonable” restrictions on your Second Amendment rights on so many occasions that I won’t bother with citation.

Now, I happen to like many of the programs noted above, and believe that they are quite valuable resources. Just stop playing the game that, for all appearances, looks to simply be more pandering to high dollar donors. While at the same time going into damage control mode when the membership decides to take you to the wood shed over yet another action that is so clearly against their (the membership’s) wishes. And or dealing in appeasement politics.

Who will truly protect your rights on a national level? Gun Owners of America does. As does the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Association for Gun Rights. There are also regional and state organizations that refuse to kow tow to along the lines of the NRA. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, and Wyoming Gun Owners come to mind, and there are others out there that I am not familiar with.

Sure, vote freedom first! Just make sure that is actually what you are doing, and support those organizations that truly defend your rights!

The Stolen Valor Act

October 11, 2010

The Stolen Valor Act was written with, and for the express purpose of punishing those people that make false claims about their military service, particularly such claims that claim combat decoration.

The law has been challenged, supposedly based upon free speech rights. I think that the real reason is that the damned posers that were convicted are not man enough to do the time for their crime.

Poser’s, don’t do anyone any good. I don’t care if you are an academic poser, such as those that use mail order degrees in order to gain an edge in employment. A Public Service poser, such as the idiots that claim to have been a Paramedic but in fact, barely passed Advanced First Aid… Then, we have those that embellish their actual service. Sometimes even when they did have a very good past in the military, but sullied it by making false claims. A Navel Veteran, that actually was a “River Rat” made claims that he had been a SEAL. Then, there are the real con artists. People that were never even near a military base but make all sorts of claims…

I think that all of the above, are dishonorable, and despicable, and, if used for social or monetary gain criminal.

Well, the Stolen Valor Act is going before the SCOTUS.

Read about that HERE.

Income Redistribution: A Stimulating Look at Utopian Economics

October 9, 2010

Albert Einstein purportedly stated, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” Apparently, the Obama administration disagrees, especially in light of its new report claiming that the spending-upon-spending “stimulus” plan is on-time, under budget and relatively fraud- and abuse-free — other than sending $18 million to dead people, anyway. Moreover, the measure worked as planned, and the economy is back on track. No doubt it’ll be even more robust after even more government spending.

Silly us for believing that double-digit unemployment, depressed markets and unprecedented budget deficits are all indicators of an economy nowhere close to being “back on track.” Our mistake, it seems, was neglecting to use the “jobs-saved” new math that has been the hallmark of the Chosen Administration since its inception. White House officials touted the relatively small number of complaints — less than 2 percent in over 200,000 contract awards — as evidence of the success of the drunken-sailor spending program. We would like to offer a different explanation as to the paucity of complaints, namely, that few complain when a gift horse (read: big government) is throwing billions of dollars at them. Independent of the degree to which spending is “fraud-free,” it’s still spending.

On a completely unrelated note, tens of thousands of workers have just been shown the door, courtesy of the termination of stimulus-subsidized employment programs. A $5 billion program, “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” is drawing to an end, and with it approximately 250,000 more will hit the streets and unemployment lines, highlighting yet again that government does not produce jobs. Any jobs it claims to “produce” will both cost more and be less sustainable than would otherwise be true in the free market. Meanwhile, in September, another 95,000 jobs were lost.

In contrast, Jared Bernstein, Vice President Joe Biden’s Pollyanna-ish chief economist, stated that the report on stimulus spending affirms that “the recovery act has accomplished much of what it set out to do.” Sadly, we must agree: Hamstringing the free market while redistributing wealth to Democrat constituency groups? Check. Helping the economy to actually recover? Not so much.

And then we have;

The Transportation Department and Environmental Protection Agency announced last Friday that they are considering regulating fuel mileage for vehicles even further — to an eye-popping 62 mpg by 2025 — so that CO2 emissions per mile might possibly be reduced by 3 to 6 percent. The Associated Press reports, “The government envisions gas-electric hybrids making up about half the lineup of new vehicles under the most aggressive standards, while electrics and plug-ins would comprise about 10 percent of the fleet.” These changes would add about $3,500 to the price of every vehicle, though the government claims owners would save $7,400 over the vehicle’s lifetime.

Meanwhile, in the government’s version of Wile E. Coyote trying to catch the Roadrunner, the Obama administration appears to be simultaneously trying to “stimulate” interest in higher mileage vehicles by choking off oil supplies through dragging out its offshore drilling ban, which artificially drives up gas prices. We can only hope this scheme will blow up in the their face too. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is “reviewing” the moratorium just as Europe’s energy chief is considering putting a ban in place.

In other oil news, the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling released a report on the federal response to April’s oil spill and, not surprisingly, the administration comes in for criticism. The report said, “The federal government created the impression that it was either not fully competent to handle the spill or not fully candid with the American people about the scope of the problem.” That, in a nutshell, is the essence of Hope ‘n’ Change.

SOURCE

New & Notable Legislation

October 9, 2010

Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) introduced legislation for the lame-duck session that would repeal right-to-work laws in 22 states. Currently, workers in those states employed in unionized companies can choose whether to join the union and pay dues. In the other 28 states, known as “forced dues” states, it’s legal for unions to mandate that all workers pay union dues and to fire workers who don’t comply. This is a blatantly obvious power grab by unions and their minions in the Democrat Party. Sherman disguises it as an attempt to level the playing field for “forced dues” states like his native California that “have to compete with the race to the bottom as our companies have to compete with those where the workers would like better wages, working conditions and benefits but are unable to organize to get them.”

Sherman is either incorrect or just plain lying about the fact that workers in right-to-work states don’t have the right to unionize. Nothing prevents unionizing in these states other than workers’ votes. Furthermore, while he’s correct that California businesses are losing out to right-to-work states, that’s because unions have put such a squeeze on companies to enrich their own bank accounts that many choose not to set up shop there. Others have simply moved to other states.

Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) introduced legislation that would require the president to deploy a minimum of 10,000 National Guard troops to the southern border in an effort to stem the tide of illegal immigration. “The uniqueness of this,” said Poe, is that the troops “would be paid by the federal government, because everybody says it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the border. So the federal government will use the resources it already has to pay for those 10,000 National Guard troops, but they will be supervised by the governors of the four states on the border.”

In other news, the House is waiting on the Senate to take action on some 420 bills it has passed since January 2009. We never thought we’d say it, but we’re thankful for the 111th Senate.

SOURCE

ObamaCare — Would You Like Fries With That Exemption?

October 9, 2010

A silver lining of the Democrat hegemony in Washington has been the massive resurgence of conservative thinking and action among the general public. It certainly would have been nice two or four years sooner, but better late than never.

Given that Republicans can’t possibly win a veto-proof majority in the Senate, the job of cleaning up government will take more than one election cycle. One of the biggest messes is ObamaCare. It remains to be seen whether the GOP has the fortitude to follow through on their pledge to “repeal and replace,” but the resounding defeats this primary season of several incumbent RINOs certainly serve as a motivation.

Democrats up for re-election in three weeks are running from the issue like the plague, and little wonder. This week, it was revealed that 30 companies and organizations received exemptions from the federal requirement to increase the minimum annual benefits for low-cost health plans. Unless they were granted exemptions, McDonald’s and other companies that offer so-called mini-med plans threatened to drop their health plans altogether — leaving employees on the government dole. The biggest waiver was granted to the United Federation of Teachers Welfare Fund, which is a union in New York City that provides health coverage for city teachers.

According to USA Today, “Without waivers, [these] companies would have had to provide a minimum of $750,000 in [medical insurance] coverage next year, increasing to $1.25 million in 2012, $2 million in 2013 and unlimited in 2014.” Of course, all this was predicted by those of us who understand basic free-market economics.

Meanwhile, in keeping with the “radical” notion that the federal government cannot force people to purchase things, voters in three states will decide this fall whether to tell the federal government to stay out of their health care decisions. If passed, the initiatives in Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma will allow those states to opt out of ObamaCare. A similar initiative already passed in Missouri with an impressive 71 percent of the vote.

Naysayers, such as Oklahoma’s Democrat Gov. Brad Henry, call the initiative fruitless, saying that even if it “passes by 100 percent,” the feds could overturn it because federal law trumps state law. In effect, the governor is saying that ObamaCare is inevitable, so we shouldn’t even bother to fight. But this isn’t true. According to what Jon Caldara of Colorado’s Independence Institute calls that “pesky 10th Amendment,” there are several instances in which the federal government is required to yield to the will of the sovereign states. The attorneys general of 20 other states are suing on that principle.

Other opponents of the initiative argue that this collective lawsuit makes the ballots redundant and not worth the costly legal battle that’s sure to follow. However, Caldara and others fighting for health care choice point out that even if this multi-state lawsuit is successful, the federal government could then pressure states to adopt programs similar to the one in Massachusetts. The problems with that system, and its parallels with ObamaCare, are well documented.

The road to repeal hit another major roadblock Thursday when U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh, a Clinton appointee, rejected the argument that the individual mandate to buy health insurance is unconstitutional. According to Steeh, the interstate commerce clause really does cover everything.

Quote of the Week

“[ObamaCare’s] march to the sea is only beginning and the trail of destruction will grow. The last six months have seen 2011 premium increases as high as 9% due to ObamaCare; multibillion-dollar corporate writedowns by Verizon, AT&T, Caterpillar and others; disruption in the insurance markets leading to the erasure of child-only policies and other types of specialty coverage as shown in the McDonald’s imbroglio; the Administration beginning to impose price controls on premiums; insurers withdrawing private options from Medicare Advantage; and Democratic protection of a 1099 tax reporting mandate that will slam small businesses. Republicans should be repeating all of these tangible harms in a litany, while predicting the damage to come.” —The Wall Street Journal

SOURCE

Epic Fail obama: American Civilian Gunned Down In Cold Blood On Mexican Border

October 8, 2010

Obama has still not responded to the heartbreaking and shocking news of last week’s murder of American civilian David Hartley. “How many more American citizens have to die?” said Texas Governor Rick Perry as he challenged Washington to get its act together.

Hartley and his wife Tiffany were jet skiing on Falcon Lake, which straddles the Texas border between the U.S. and Mexico. While they were sight-seeing they were savagely ambushed and attacked without provocation by Mexican pirates. The pirates swooped in mercilessly on speed boats and gunned down David Hartley in cold blood. Tiffany was unable to recover her husband’s body after he was shot in the head, and she fled the attackers back to the U.S side of the lake in order to get help.

Tell The Congress No Amnesty – Secure the Border NOW!
SELECT HERE – Stop Amnesty – Defend Arizona

The pirates are believed to be a part of Mexican drug cartels which are notoriously active in the area. Cartel violence and the entire U.S.-Mexico border are so out of control now that the Mexican government has finally dispatched its military to deal with the gangs. However, the Mexican military seems to have no effect on the brutal cartels.

What has Obama done about escalating U.S. losses? Nothing but post signs telling Americans to stay away from border areas on U.S. soil and RUN AWAY from killers in our own backyard!!! Well, I guess even a jet ski is just not fast enough.

This savage killing is just another tragic result of the Obama administration not securing the border and leaving U.S. citizens defenseless to completely unacceptable and totally avoidable murders known to be perpetrated by ruthless Mexican drug runners.

Just last spring Rancher Robert Krentz was killed by an illegal alien believed to have ties to the drug cartels on his own land. Krentz’ murder was the flashpoint which ignited the controversial Arizona immigration enforcement legislation signed into law by the Governor of AZ and promptly stayed by the Obama Justice Department. The outrage over the open border has only grown since then. Americans want the border sealed and the flow of illegal criminals, thugs and drugs pouring over the border stopped!

However, the Obama administration has done nothing to combat this crisis. The safety of American citizens relies on signs posted 70 miles inside the border saying that American soil is no longer safe and AMERICAN CITIZENS are not allowed on their own land. This is an unprecedented act of cowardice, ceding sovereign U.S. territory to alien banditry, and Obama is the first American President to ever passively and preemptively concede American land to foreign terrorists.

Governor Perry is right to be outraged! He is doing everything he can to make sure the body of David Hartley is recovered. Mexican authorities aren’t allowing U.S. officials to enter the Mexican waters of Falcon Lake to aid the search. Mexico City district attorney Marco Antonio Guerrero Carrixales said recently that they, “are not certain that incident happened the way that they are telling us.” Tiffany Hartley is convinced, as are many others, that Obama could bring more pressure on the Mexican government to exert itself against the cartels to recover the body. Governor Perry responded by saying, “I find it really reprehensible for anyone, U.S. or Mexican, to speak otherwise” about Tiffany’s claims.

Perry has again beseeched Washington for more troops and support on the border. He spoke to Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano’s chief of staff on Tuesday and made a request for 1,000 National Guard troops for the Texan-Mexican border — a request that was promptly denied.

Washington cares more about its political standing with a country that can’t even police itself than for the safety and security of its own citizens. They should be ashamed of themselves. How many innocent Americans have to be murdered before Obama acts? In any other time these killings and invasions would constitute an act of war. All American citizens ask for is a closed and secure border, so we can safeguard the people of this country.

Obama and the Democrats have already put the Amnesty wheels in motion as orders are out to scuttle ICE raids of companies hiring illegal workers, remove key elements of 287G policies that give local law enforcement the ability to arrest illegal aliens, and to set the stage for the in-take processing of millions of illegal aliens so as to grant mass AMNESTY TO ILLEGALS.

Obama lied to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ in the Oval Office. Obama committed to present details within two weeks of meeting Gov. Brewer, regarding his plans for sending National Guard troops to the Arizona border and spending $500 million on border security.

Well, time’s been up for MONTHS, Obama did nothing, and CONGRESS in fear of facing their constituents at home passed a head-fake border security “beef-up” bill that will wallow in bureaucratic limbo. Gov. Brewer is not waiting for Obama to do the job. And neither are the rank-and-file officers and employees of ICE Enforcement and Removal — who have passed a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in their Obama- appointed Director, John Morton! Obama’s biggest action has been in retreat — in surrender to the Mexican Invasion he put up new Federal border signs warning Americans to stay away, as he cannot protect them if they travel within southern Arizona. More signs will no doubt be shipping into Texas, next!

AZ and TX need your help – do not leave them to defend the border alone!

Gov. Brewer has stated, “We need action from the federal government, not signs ceding sovereign U.S. territory to international drug cartels and human smugglers.” Brewer sent a letter to Obama outlining her Four-Point Border Action Surge Strategy. This strategy contains most actions advised in the 2005 Norwood Minuteman Report, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Project has been calling for these vital actions to be implemented for 5 years — and whole-heartedly supports them TODAY. As Gov. Brewer enumerated in her Four-Point Strategy to Obama:

  1. National Guard Personnel and Aviation
  2. Border Fence
  3. Enforce Federal Law and Appropriately Fund the Effort
  4. Reimburse States for the Additional Burden of Illegal Immigration

We Say, “Defend AMERICA” — Obama And Feds Do Nothing but Sue AZ!

The tragedy is that the escalating violence in our southern sector could have been prevented years ago, and countless innocent American lives saved, if the federal government had responded to our warnings and recommendations, and had acted decisively for a secure border patrolled by the National Guard and a border fence! The level of accelerating violence and social chaos that has the President of the United States now ceding our territory to international bandits is the direct responsibility of the United States Government, and its gross dereliction of its duty under the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama Administration was and still is grossly negligent in their sworn oaths of office to protect the sovereignty of the United States. The government did not do its job and was complicit in the act when foreign nationals invade American soil and killed innocent U.S. citizens! And now the situation only worsens, as Obama plays politics with border security, and his Justice Department STOPS Arizona for acting to save American lives, property and sovereignty!

Why is Washington’s response to try to SUPPRESS Arizona’s proper and Constitutional defense of our people and lands from foreign invasion? The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sounded the alarm 5 years ago and this border crisis could have been prevented if the federal government had done its job!

Support Brewer – DO NOT LET Obama Put More Americans at Risk.

Obama lied to Governor Jan Brewer of AZ in the Oval Office. Obama committed to present details within two weeks of meeting Gov. Brewer, regarding his plans for sending National Guard troops to the Arizona border and spending $500 million on border security.

Well, time’s been up for MONTHS, Obama did nothing, and CONGRESS in fear of facing their constituents at home passed a head-fake border security “beef-up” bill that will wallow in bureaucratic limbo. Gov. Brewer is not waiting for Obama to do the job. And neither are the rank-and-file officers and employees of ICE Enforcement and Removal — who have passed a unanimous “Vote of No Confidence” in their Obama- appointed Director, John Morton! Obama’s biggest action has been in retreat — in surrender to the Mexican Invasion he put up new Federal border signs warning Americans to stay away, as he cannot protect them if they travel within southern Arizona. More signs will no doubt be shipping into Texas, next!

AZ and TX need your help – do not leave them to defend the border alone!

Gov. Brewer has stated, “We need action from the federal government, not signs ceding sovereign U.S. territory to international drug cartels and human smugglers.” Brewer sent a letter to Obama outlining her Four-Point Border Action Surge Strategy. This strategy contains most actions advised in the 2005 Norwood Minuteman Report, and the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps Project has been calling for these vital actions to be implemented for 5 years — and whole-heartedly supports them TODAY. As Gov. Brewer enumerated in her Four-Point Strategy to Obama:

  1. National Guard Personnel and Aviation
  2. Border Fence
  3. Enforce Federal Law and Appropriately Fund the Effort
  4. Reimburse States for the Additional Burden of Illegal Immigration

We Say, “Defend AMERICA” — Obama And Feds Do Nothing but Sue AZ!

The tragedy is that the escalating violence in our southern sector could have been prevented years ago, and countless innocent American lives saved, if the federal government had responded to our warnings and recommendations, and had acted decisively for a secure border patrolled by the National Guard and a border fence! The level of accelerating violence and social chaos that has the President of the United States now ceding our territory to international bandits is the direct responsibility of the United States Government, and its gross dereliction of its duty under the U.S. Constitution.

The Obama Administration was and still is grossly negligent in their sworn oaths of office to protect the sovereignty of the United States. The government did not do its job and was complicit in the act when foreign nationals invade American soil and killed innocent U.S. citizens! And now the situation only worsens, as Obama plays politics with border security, and his Justice Department STOPS Arizona for acting to save American lives, property and sovereignty!

Why is Washington’s response to try to SUPPRESS Arizona’s proper and Constitutional defense of our people and lands from foreign invasion? The Minuteman Civil Defense Corps sounded the alarm 5 years ago and this border crisis could have been prevented if the federal government had done its job!

Support Brewer – DO NOT LET Obama Put More Americans at Risk.

But please, remember what is at stake — the security, the safety, the sovereignty — very possibly the very survival of not just Americans, but America herself.

For more information go to www.MinutemanHQ.com

Edited to cut out the spam, and constant begging for bucks. Which made up for a lot of the story!

Clear the Bench Colorado Press Release

October 7, 2010

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303-995-5533

Clear The Bench Colorado invites comparison: our Evaluations vs. the ‘Commission on Judicial Performance’ “reviews”

Colorado voters are being subjected to a barrage of big-money, special-interest advertising on judicial retention elections this year – as decried in editorials from the New York Times and other media sources across the country, as well as in other news coverage statewide.Special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars attempting to influence Coloradans to vote their way on the question of whether to retain incumbent judges (including three incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices facing “stiff opposition” as they seek an additional 10-year term in office).

There’s just one problem with this narrative – and why you haven’t heard about it in the mass media.

All of this special-interest money is being spent in Colorado to prop up the judicial incumbents

Legal establishment special-interest groups are spending tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of dollars to convince Colorado voters that “all is well” with state courts – promoting the farcical rubber-stamp “reviews” conducted and published by the commissions on judicial “performance.”

Why are the “reviews” not a reliable source of information on judicial performance?

1. The “reviews” do not distinguish between good and bad judicial performance – and almost ALWAYS recommend a “retain” vote for the judges ‘reviewed.’ Colorado Commission on Judicial Performance Evaluations (CCJPE) Executive Director Jane Howell confirms that, over the decades-long history of the review process, Colorado Supreme Court justices “reviewed” by the commissions have received a “retain” vote 100% of the time.

(Similarly, Court of Appeals judges have also received a 100% “retain” recommendation, while all judges at other levels have received “retain” recommendations 99% of the time).

Even Fidel Castro and the late Saddam Hussein didn’t receive that level of “retain” votes!

(Although Colorado has plenty of good judges, at many levels – they’re not all that good.)

2. The “reviews” – published as a 5-paragraph narrative, only one paragraph of which even pretends to address actual judicial “performance” – provide very little substantive information on which to base an informed decision. The review criteria are shallow (“timeliness”, ‘orderliness’ and “demeanor”) rather than substantive and performance-based. The level of “evaluation” is more like a kindergarten report card (“Benny is punctual, keeps his area neat & tidy, and plays well with others” ) rather than a serious look at judicial performance.

A Denver Post guest commentary written by a former State Judicial Performance Commissioner provided an insightful critique of the current process several months ago.

3. The “reviews” provide NO information on how the justices actually voted in important constitutional cases – rulings which have had a tremendous (and highly negative) impact on Colorado citizens.

Where can voters get substantive analysis of the performance of Colorado Supreme Court justices?

Clear The Bench Colorado has conducted an exhaustive analysis of Colorado Supreme Court decisions addressing important constitutional issues of interest to the greatest number of Colorado voters.

We invite voters to compare and contrast our  Evaluations of judicial performance with the “reviews” perpetrated by the ‘performance’ commissions (and foisted upon voters, at great taxpayer expense and without opposing views, as is otherwise required by law for other ballot questions) in the “Blue Book.”

We are confident that discerning voters will find our  Evaluations of much greater value.

Voters deserve to be provided with more extensive, informative, and useful information on which to base their voting decisions.  “The high marks received by each justice through the system of evaluation in place” are NOT an endorsement of the justices, but rather  an indictment of the weakness and inadequacy of the judicial performance review process.  Despite the genuinely hard work and good intentions of the majority of the judicial performance review commissioners, the process (and end-products) are perhaps endemically flawed.

There has been a failure of real performance evaluation and a lack of analytical content in the write-ups for the voters.  If narratives provide meaningful information about how a justice has decided cases, there will be accountability and the system will work as it is designed to do.  Too often in the past, narratives have amounted to complimentary resumes instead of job performance evaluations.  Some commentators and observers have denigrated the narratives as a “rubber stamp” exercise for retaining judges.

The ultimate responsibility – and authority – rests with the voters.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges all Colorado citizens to become informed about how the Colorado Supreme Court has aided and abetted assaults on their rights (and wallets!) with a consistent pattern of not following the Constitution where it doesn’t agree with their own personal agenda – and drawing the necessary and logical conclusions.

 

Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs?

October 7, 2010

Deceptive Blue Dogs Prop up Pelosi
Over fifty Democrats in Congress—so-called Blue Dogs—claim to be pro-gun, but can any member who votes to retain Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House really be considered a defender of the Second Amendment?

Most of the Blue Dog members voted with Pelosi as she crammed the anti-gun ObamaCare bill down the throats of the American people. Most voted against protecting gun rights in national parks. And, not surprisingly given their anti-gun voting records, they stood with Pelosi to silence groups like GOA by supporting the so-called DISCLOSE Act.

So, are they Blue Dogs, or Pelosi Lap Dogs? Read more HERE.

SOURCE

Now, contrast what is revealed in the linked story with this from the National Rifle Association;

So far this year, the NRA has endorsed 58 incumbent House Democrats, including more than a dozen in seats that both parties view as critical to winning a majority. The endorsements aren’t the result of a sudden love for a party with which the NRA is often at odds. Rather, the powerful group adheres to what it calls “an incumbent friendly” policy, which holds that if two candidates are equally supportive of gun rights, the incumbent gets the nod.

Read About It: The Washington Post

On liberal ideology, and more

October 7, 2010

“What [Harry] Reid and his counterpart in the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, are hoping is that Democrats who lose their seats in the election will be willing to pass legislation in a lame duck session that they know the voting public doesn’t support. In Reid’s logic, they will be free to vote their liberal ideology. And it won’t matter because they will have already lost their jobs. But it is precisely this kind of arrogance that has Democrats in such poor shape heading into the mid-term elections.” –columnist Linda Chavez

“American presidents have advanced redistributionist policies before, but none has used Marxist class-war rhetoric as routinely as Barack Obama. Obama has used the words ‘millionaire’ and ‘billionaire’ in just about every political speech he has made since August — and although Obama himself is a millionaire, he never uses those words except pejoratively. ‘Millionaires and billionaires’ in Obama’s lexicon are people who should be taxed more and held up as objects for public antipathy.” –columnist Terrence Jeffrey

“What about the politician who tells us that he’s not going to raise taxes on the middle class; instead, he’s going to raise corporate income taxes as means to get rich corporations to pay their rightful share of government? If a tax is levied on a corporation, and if it is to survive, it will have one of three responses, or some combination thereof. One response is to raise the price of its product, so who bears the burden? Another response is to lower dividends; again, who bears the burden? Yet another response is to lay off workers. In each case, it is people, not some legal fiction called a corporation, who bear the burden of the tax.” –economist Walter E. Williams

“The Obama administration has fewer people with real world experience in the private sector than any other administration in years. Maybe if they had more people with practical experience in the economy, we wouldn’t be in the mess that politicians created.” –economist Thomas Sowell

“If more politicians were faithful to the Constitution, the government would be restrained. And restraining government is ‘weird,’ ‘wacky’ and ‘dangerous’ to so many liberals today.” –columnist Jonah Goldberg

SOURCE