Archive for the ‘Gun Control’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Big Green verses CNBC

October 25, 2010

This week, CNBC aired an hour-long attack on the Remington 700 rifle, rehashing decades-old allegations about the popular rifle’s trigger system.  (Interestingly, the network’s “10-month investigation” aired just a few months after a press release went out from a Kansas City law firm that has sued Remington in the past, seeking plaintiffs for new cases against the gun maker.)  While CNBC and plaintiffs’ lawyers claim the rifle will fire without the trigger being pulled, Remington says that neither the company nor the plaintiffs’ expert witnesses have ever been able to cause such a discharge in a properly maintained, unaltered rifle.

The program also repeated the gun ban lobby’s longstanding complaint that the Consumer Product Safety Commission doesn’t have the power to order recalls of firearms and ammunition.  Congress’s wisdom in refusing to give CPSC that power was proven in the 1990s, when CPSC staff told the Clinton White House the agency “would love to get into the gun regulation business” and anti-gun Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) introduced legislation to remove the restriction.

The NRA is second to no one in supporting and promoting firearm safety, and NRA publications have regularly published announcements of voluntary recalls by gun and ammunition manufacturers.   Yet since long before “Dateline NBC” used rocket motors to blow up pickup trucks in staged collisions, gun owners have rightly been skeptical of the mainstream media’s ability to report fairly and accurately on firearms issues.  These attacks on Remington are far from over, and NRA members who want to hear the company’s side of the story can visit Remington’s new website on the issue at www.remington700.tv.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Hunting Fishing and the Great Outdoors, Law, mysandry, News, Non Compos Mentis, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | 1 Comment »

So just who is left to blame now..?

October 19, 2010

“So, who’s left to demonize? The Girl Scouts? Rotary Clubs maybe? We’re running out of devils to distract us. Then again, the Obama administration’s preposterous attack on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce does nothing to help Democrats and everything to reinforce the moderate voter’s perception that the president’s party has gone bonkers. A recent ad by Democrats makes the charge — dutifully echoed through the blogosphere and by talking heads — that the chamber was part of a cabal out to ‘steal our democracy,’ accepting foreign cash and then using the funds to campaign against candidates on the Left. Though, admittedly, they have no proof of any wrongdoing, Democrats have threatened that investigations will soon uncover this reprehensible criminal activity. Inquiry to come post-election, no doubt. ‘Stealing democracy,’ as you may know, loosely translated, means: Holy crap, Republicans are going to win an election. You’ll also notice that the insidious sway of outside political money always seems to blossom into a critical threat to the future of democracy about the time misguided conservatives start to get the upper hand on Democrats. … But let’s face it; no one is really buying the argument. Though, a perceptive voter might ask himself this: If the United States Chamber of Commerce — composed of some of the most moderate, milquetoast, government-friendly saps in the country — is now on the enemies list, who exactly does the president think is reasonable? If the crony capitalists aren’t good enough for Barack Obama, who is?” –columnist David Harsanyi

“Back in January, the president attacked the Supreme Court for ruling that corporations and unions have First Amendment speech rights and pointed to the possibility that foreigners might try to influence American election outcomes. Now he and his spokesmen on the campaign trail and on Sunday interview programs are charging that outfits like the Chamber of Commerce are smuggling foreign money into the campaign. Their evidence? Well, there isn’t much…. But Obama uberadviser David Axelrod says it’s up to the chamber to prove it’s innocent. … There are a couple of odd things here. One is that the 2008 Obama campaign, by deliberately not using the address verification software most enterprises use to determine it’s really your credit card, took in a lot more illegal foreign money than its rivals. The Obama folks may be projecting their own sins on their opponents. The other is that this charge of foreign money doesn’t fit into any familiar political narrative. At least when the Obamaites attack evil rich people, some voters think of 19th-century caricatures of fat cats (and ignore the fact that Obama carried voters with incomes over $200,000 in 2008). … I seem to remember that it was candidate Barack Obama (not John McCain or Hillary Clinton) who gave a big election year speech in the Tiergarten in Berlin. It was Obama cheerleaders who told us that foreigners would love us once again if we sent George W. Bush back to Texas and installed their multicultural champion in the White House. Back in 2008, we were supposed to vote for the candidate foreigners loved. Now, in 2010, we are supposed to vote against the party foreigners support.” –political analyst Michael Barone

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Of Tapeworms, Liberals, and parasites in General

October 19, 2010

“The political success of liberalism is parasitic, feeding off order and prosperity that the implementation of liberal policies couldn’t possibly create. Bill Clinton’s recent bragging on the campaign trail about the budgets that he balanced in the 1990s is an illustration of this: Where did those budgets come from? Not from the policies of liberalism. Take away the significant reductions in defense spending that came from Ronald Reagan winning the Cold War, the wealth from an entrepreneurial economy that an era of tax cuts generated, and the check on Democratic spending schemes from Newt Gingrich’s Congress, and those budgets would never have been balanced. In his first term, Clinton had every intention of busting the budget with HillaryCare, but he just couldn’t get away it. If Clinton is a ‘successful’ president, as pundits these days insist, that’s because his agenda failed where Obama’s succeeded. By passing ObamaCare and a raft of other bad bills, the Democrats have made it possible for voters to measure liberal rhetoric against the grim realities it produces. The parasite got fat enough to eat the conservative host whole, and now it is dying. … Liberalism normally enjoys the demagogic advantage of appealing to emotion over reason. But in moments of crisis, people want reason over emotion.” –columnist George Neumayr

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

The Ruling Class — Past and Present

October 18, 2010

Defenders of the idea that only the ruling class should be able to make decisions for everybody else desperately try to put lipstick on the tyrannical pigs of history and today.

One common argument – in both Russia and in the West – is the defense of Lenin as a well-intentioned guy whose good work was cut short by his premature death. Then that bad old Stalin took over and tyranny sprang up like flowers after a rain in the desert.

Robert Gellately in Lenin, Stalin and Hitler has examined this notion and has totally destroyed its claim to veracity from first-hand accounts. His conclusion is that Lenin was “a heartless and ambitious individual who was self-righteous in claiming to know what was good for humanity, brutal in his attempt to subject his own people to radical social transformation, and convinced he held the key to the eventual overthrow of global capitalism and the establishment of world Communism.”

The picture Gellately paints of Stalin and Hitler shows that Lenin’s character flaws were shared by them as well.

Gellately describes Lenin in terms that disturbingly fit Saul Alinsky, President Obama’s intellectual inspiration. Both men wrote that the current system needs to be collapsed. While Alinsky argued that it should be collapsed from within, Lenin sought the same goal by deliberately provoking a civil war which would then be followed with murder and terror as an official regime policy. Lenin was successful, and as a result of the war, he emerged in total control of the country at a cost of two million dead. Of course, he and his disciple Stalin killed many tens of millions more in the years following.

Larry Grathwol was the FBI agent who infiltrated close-Obama-friend Bill Ayers’ terrorist Weather Underground. He testified that he had a conversation with Ayers in which the terrorist said that after taking power it would probably be necessary to kill 25,000,000 Americans who could not be reeducated to accept the new communist system.

Grathwol reported that Ayers made that statement in a room of some twenty-five people, most of whom had graduate degrees. Gellately found that the leaders of the death squads in Hitler’s Nazi regime were also similarly well-educated. This information certainly adds perspective to the detrimental value afforded by a liberal arts education in most universities of the United States.

All three of these mass murderers followed the Alinsky prescription faithfully, namely, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” When we look at President Obama’s method of operation, we can see that he learned this lesson well. (Indeed, Obama taught Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals for two years at the University of Chicago School of Law).

He picks targets for smearing (banks, insurance companies, Republicans, etc.). He then goes on to freeze his target, to personalize it (greedy executives, House Minority Leader John Boehner) and then to polarize. Polarizing is part of the acid used by the 20th Century’s tyrants as well as Saul Alinsky and his followers.

While we are not yet where Germany and Russia ended up,, the end game of polarizing the population against a personalized enemy led to the destruction of Jews and foreigners under the Nazis. And in the Soviet Union, it led to the destruction of the nobility, the educated, and the clergy, as well as businesses and farm owners. As Rahm Emmanuel, the president’s close friend and former White House Chief of Staff has put it, you never let a good crisis go to waste. The crisis allows the implementation of the Alinsky formula, creating an enemy that must be fought. In order to fight the enemy, the tyrant demands that all power be handed over to him.

According to Rep. Michelle Bachmann, Obama now controls seventy percent of the private sector in the United States. This takeover has been carried off by a constant rush from one crisis to another. “The time for talking is over. The time for action is now.”

Well, Mr. Obama, the time for voting is coming. The time for the arrogance of power is over.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

President Obama’s voting puppets: GOA strikes back

October 18, 2010

On the Campaign Trail in Arkansas

Gun Owners of America Political Victory Fund endorsed three candidates in Arkansas for the November elections: Richard Crawford in the First Congressional District, Tim Griffin in the Second, and John Boozman for Senate. 

All three are campaigning vigorously, and their hard work is paying off in recent polls.

Arkansas First Congressional

According to a poll released this week by The Hill, a Washington, D.C. political news organization, Rick Crawford is leading his Democrat opponent in the First Congressional District.

Crawford, a small business owner and constitutional conservative, is forthright in his support for the Second Amendment.  His commitment to protecting the right to keep and bear arms earned him an “A” rating from GOA. 

Tim Macy, Roger HedgecockGOA Vice-Chariman Tim Macy (left) with nationally syndicated talk show host Roger Hedgecock on the campaign trail in Arkansas 

His rival, a staffer for the retiring Congressman in the district, did not return a GOA survey even though he was given two opportunities to do so in the past few months.  This is usually a sign that the candidate is hiding anti-gun views.

Learn more about Rick http://www.meetrickcrawford.com.

Arkansas Second Congressional

In the Second District, Tim Griffin leads his opponent by 17 points.

A fifth generation Arkansan, Tim is a staunch supporter of the Second Amendment and is committed not only to opposing the anti-gun schemes of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but he will also work to roll back the unconstitutional gun laws already on the books.

His opponent, “F” rated by GOA, will be just another vote for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her radical, anti-gun agenda.

Tim’s website is http://www.timgriffinforcongress.com.

Arkansas Senate

In the race for one of Arkansas’ U.S. Senate seat, Rep. John Boozman holds a double-digit lead over incumbent Sen. Blanche Lincoln.

In the U.S. House, Rep. Boozman has been a champion for the Second Amendment, one of only six House members to earn an “A+” from GOA.  In addition to holding a perfect voting record, Rep. Boozman is the author of the “Secure Access to Firearms Enhancement (SAFE) Act,” a bill which would allow concealed carry licenses to be recognized while traveling across state lines.

He also recently took the lead in opposing President Obama’s efforts to block the importation of—or even destroy—nearly one million M1 Garand rifles from South Korea.  The firearms are lawful for Americans to own, and Rep. Boozman continues to work on this issue even as the congressional session winds down.

His opponent has proven to be one of President Obama’s voting puppets.  Sen. Lincoln voted for a slew of anti-gun nominees put forward by the President, including two anti-Second Amendment Supreme Court Justices and a U.S. Attorney General who would like to reinstate the semi-auto ban of 1994.

The polls indicate that voters have had enough of Sen. Lincoln marching in lockstep with the President and his anti-gun agenda.  Rep. John Boozman is a proven leader and a consistent friend of gun owners both across the state of Arkansas and across the country.

Visit John Boozman on the web at http://www.boozmanforarkansas.com.

The elections in Arkansas are crucial for the makeup of the new Congress.  Not only are pro-gunners leading in Districts 1 and 2, but both seats also stand to flip from Pelosi-supporting anti-gun puppets to strong Constitutional leaders.

And in the Senate, John Boozman will be one less vote for anti-gun Majority Leader Harry Reid, and one less vote for the devastating Obama agenda.

Although their hard work is paying off with great polling numbers, none of these candidates are taking anything for granted. They are campaigning hard right up to Election Day, so if you can help out any of these campaigns with volunteer efforts or a financial contribution, please visit their websites.

SOURCE

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

New York: Imitating California, as in going full blown stupid..?

October 18, 2010

 

Andrew Cuomo and the Gunmaker Litigation

Posted by Walter Olson

There are many reasons to be glum about the impending coronation of dynastic heir Andrew Cuomo, now leading in the New York governor’s race against a GOP opponent (Carl Paladino) who at first polled decently but has since stumbled. Some fret about the Democrat’s reputation for political hardball: former governor Eliot Spitzer (Eliot Spitzer!) last month called Cuomo the “dirtiest, nastiest political player out there,” which is like being called overdressed by Lady Gaga. Others find Cuomo too much of a camera-chaser as attorney general in Albany, and almost everyone is queasy over his role (as Clinton-era housing secretary) in encouraging risk-taking by federally backed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, leading by direct steps to today’s ongoing mortgage crisis. (For background, see Wayne Barrett’s famous 2008 Village Voice article.)

I have a different reason for cringing at the idea that voters would ever elevate Andrew Cuomo to higher office, and it’s also based on memories of his tenure as housing secretary. Not the Fannie-Freddie-subprime end of it, although I concede that in a strictly economic sense those were the most damaging things he did. No, what I find permanently hard to forgive is the way Cuomo threw himself into the role of chief national cheerleader for the municipal anti-gun litigation of the 1990s and early 2000s.

Because that litigation mostly fizzled out, it is now only half remembered and doesn’t much feature in Cuomo profiles. At the time, though, it was a close-fought battle and a big story. More than 30 cities and counties sued firearms makers, alleging that courts should hold them financially responsible for the costs of urban shootings. The cry was to make guns the “next tobacco,” following the successful litigation campaign against tobacco companies that extracted hundreds of billions of dollars for the benefit of state coffers (and private lawyers).

Of course there are enormous differences between the tobacco and gun businesses. One is that while major tobacco makers had billion-dollar revenue streams to share as part of a settlement, most gunmakers are smallish enterprises, often family-owned. And this in fact was a conscious element of the strategy for the lawyers who promoted the suits: because gunmakers were too thinly capitalized to withstand the costs of years of legal defense, it was thought they’d fold their hands and yield to “gun control through litigation” (explicitly couched as an end run against a then-Republican Congress resistant to gun control proposals). Smith and Wesson actually did yield to a settlement on this rationale, which soon collapsed following a public outcry from gun owners and others outraged by the use of extortive litigation to achieve gun control objectives. The gamble having failed, the suits eventually reached judges and were generally thrown out, but not before imposing huge and uncompensated costs on many small companies that had violated no laws. Some were bankrupted.

Mindful of traditional tenets of legal ethics that forbid lawyers from using the cost of legal process as a bludgeon, most backers of the suits prudently refrained from any hint that imposing unsustainable legal costs was part of the plan. One exception was Cuomo, who warned gunmakers that unless they cooperated, they’d suffer “death by a thousand cuts.” And another was then-New-York-AG Spitzer, who reportedly warned an executive of holdout Glock: “If you do not sign, your bankruptcy lawyers will be knocking at your door.”

I think Spitzer and Cuomo deserve each other, really. What I can’t figure out is why the good citizens of New York would want either of them.

SOURCE

Tags:, , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Second Amendment Foundation Defends an American Veteran!

October 17, 2010

Alright… I like the Second Amendment Foundation, what they do, and why they do what they do. What makes me sick though is the never ending begging for bucks that they engage in. Want to donate? Fine, I’ll plug in a link at the end.

Now, the meat of this is a theme often addressed here. That being life time bans of inalienable rights for less than felonious deeds. Indeed, since the treasonous and un-Constitutional Lautenberg Abomination that made ex post fact law the national norm? Things have only become worse, due to hot button political correctness. The Second Amendment Foundation is taking this head on. Playing follow the leader is not always a bad thing, as Gun Owners of America have been on top of this from day one. While the NRA, sat back, and collected dues…

SAF Sues Eric Holder, FBI Over
Misdemeanor Gun Rights Denial

Acting on behalf of a Georgia resident and honorably discharged Vietnam War veteran, the Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation over enforcement of a federal statute that can deny gun rights to someone with a simple misdemeanor conviction on his record.

The lawsuit was filed in United States District Court for the District of Columbia. SAF and co-plaintiff Jefferson Wayne Schrader of Cleveland, GA are represented by attorney Alan Gura, who successfully argued both the Heller and McDonald cases before the U.S. Supreme Court.

MILITARY VETERAN ACTING IN SELF-DEFENSE DENIED RIGHT TO OWN A GUN

In July 1968, Schrader, then 21, was found guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery relating to a fight involving a man who had previously assaulted him in Annapolis, MD. The altercation was observed by a police officer, who arrested Schrader, then an enlisted man in the Navy, stationed in Annapolis. The man he fought with was in a street gang that had attacked him for entering their “territory,” according to the complaint.

FBI THREATENS TO CONFISCATE SCHRADER’S FIREARMS

Schrader was ordered to pay a $100 fine and $9 court cost. He subsequently served a tour of duty in Vietnam and was eventually honorably discharged. However, in 2008 and again in 2009, Mr. Schrader was denied the opportunity to receive a shotgun as a gift, or to purchase a handgun for personal protection. He was advised by the FBI to dispose of or surrender any firearms he might have or face criminal prosecution.

FELONS GIVEN MORE RIGHTS THAN HONORABLE SERVICEMAN

“Schrader’s dilemma,” explained SAF Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “is that until recently, Maryland law did not set forth a maximum sentence for the crime of misdemeanor assault. Because of that, he is now being treated like a felon and his gun rights have been denied.

“No fair-minded person can tolerate gun control laws being applied this way,” he added. “Mr. Schrader’s case is a great example of why gun owners cannot trust government bureaucrats to enforce gun laws.”

Now, more than ever, we need your commitment to fight the war against unlawful gun enforcement. The lawyer’s bills are mounting. Fighting for freedom is not inexpensive. Help us raise the amount we need to stop the anti-gunners dead in their tracks.

Support from patriots like you will help us make sure what happened to Jefferson Wayne Schrader doesn’t happen to you.

YOU CANT PUT A PRICE ON THE VALUE OF YOUR LIFE

The Second Amendment Foundation (www.SAF.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group focusing on the Constitutional right and heritage to privately own and possess firearms.  Founded in 1974, The Foundation has grown to more than 650,000 members and supporters and conducts many programs designed to better inform the public about the consequences of gun control.

DO NOT BE SILENCED – MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

For our projects to be successful, we must count on the voluntary financial support from individuals like you who care.

We need your financial support today to ensure we have the resources to beat back anti-gunners who will stop at nothing to take away our right and ability to defend ourselves and our families.

Here is the obligatory link…

Tags:, , , , , , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, News, Politics, States Rights, Uncategorized, Wordpress Political Blogs | 2 Comments »

Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

October 16, 2010

As directed by the Libertarian Party of Colorado Constitution, the Board of Directors has reviewed the 2010 amendments and propositions on the ballot for voter consideration.  There are seven proposed amendments to the Colorado Constitution and two propositions to change the Revised Statutes.

For the 2010 election, the Colorado “Blue Book” contains succinct summaries of each of these.  There are also pro and con websites and other information being provided in numerous information media outlets.
The Libertarian Party of Colorado consists of free thinkers and responsible voters who seek as much information as possible about the pros and cons of every voting decision they will make.  We believe every libertarian and other voters will make up their own minds based on their careful review of the issues.
The following are the Libertarian Party of Colorado positions concerning each of the 2010 Colorado initiatives.
Amendment P –Regulation of Games of Chance. The LPCO takes no position either way on this amendment.
Moves bingo and raffle licensing from Sec State to Dept of Revenue (or other designated by the state legislature).  In addition to time, energy, and money already expended on this change to existing law, there will be a onetime $116,000 expenditure from bingo and raffle license fees.
The amendment makes no significant changes to the Colorado Constitution or the long term financial situation of the State Government-
Amendment Q –Temp Location of State Seat of Government.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Currently there is no provision in the Colorado Constitution for convening of the State Government if a major disaster emergency were to make Denver unusable.  This amendment provides direction for the Governor and the Legislature to designate a temporary location for the seat of government.
Amendment R –Exempt Possessory Interests in Real Property.  The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Eliminates property taxes for individuals and businesses that use government-owned property for a private benefit worth $6,000 or less in market value.
The fiscal effects of this amendment are relatively minor, but should increase the efficiency of local governments by reducing the costs of assessing and collecting minor amounts of property taxes from numerous small assessments.
Ammendment 60 –Concerning Property Taxes. The LPCO recommends a YES vote on this amendment.
Strengthens TABOR by adding a new section (10) to Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution.
-Requires audit and enforcement of this section.
-All owners of real property would be entitled to vote on all proposed property taxes affecting their property.
-Voters may petition to lower property taxes
-Property tax issues shall have November election notices separate from debt issues
-Property Tax bills list only property taxes and late charges
-Enterprise and authorities shall pay property taxes.  Lower mil-levy rates to offset income to taxing dist
-10 year expiration on property tax rate increases
-Extending expiring property taxes, is a tax increase
-Prior actions to keep excess property tax revenue are expired; future actions are tax increases expiring in 4 years.  Local governments and enterprises will have to make serious adjustments to their budgets and seek direct voter approval of property taxes on at least a four-year cycle.
-by 2020, non-college school districts phase out ½ of their 2011 property tax rate for operating expenses.  State aid replaces the revenue.  Shifts school operating costs to State general fund from local resources.
Amendment 61 –Limit State and Local Government Borrowing. The LPCO recommends YES on this amendment.
-Repeals existing Article XI Section 3 and re-enacts the original 1876 version of this section to read, “The state shall not contract any debt in any form.”
-Repeals Article XI Sections 4, 5, 6(2), and 6(3) as obsolete and superceded.
-Repeals and re-enacts Article XI Section 6(1) to require voter approval for local governments to contract debt.  Also requires ballot title to be specific.
-Adds further specific requirements concerning debt to Article X section 20(4)
–November Ballot approval
–10 year limit on new local debt
–borrowing can’t exceed 10% of assessed valuation
–Tax Rates must be reduced when borrowing is repaid
Amendment 62 Application of Term Person. The LPCO recommends NO on this amendment.
Would define person as at the beginning of biological development and entitled to full protection of Colorado law.
This is an effort to insert the State into the intensely personal decisions concerning the beginning of human life.  It would only further complicate already difficult decisions.
Amendment 63 -Health Care Choice. The LPCO recommends Yes on this amendment.
Adds Article II section 32 to make health care choice a constitutional right.  Prohibits the state from requiring a person to participate in health plans.  Restricts the state from limiting a person’s ability to make or receive direct payments for health services.  Exempts emergency treatment and Workers’ Compensation from this new right.
This is in response to the recently enacted Federal health care decrees.  It is unfortunately now necessary for Colorado to take a stand to protect individual and state rights associated with US Constitution Article I and Amendments 9 and 10.
Proposition 101 -Income, Vehicle, and Telecommunication Taxes and Fees.  The LPCO recommends YES on this Proposition.
-Reduces state income tax rate from 4.63% to 4.5% in 2011 and then over time to 3.5%.
-reduces and eliminates vehicle taxes and fees over next 4 years.
-eliminates all state and local taxes on telecommunications service, except 911 fees
-requires voter approval to for future vehicle and telecomm fees.
–Proposition 102 –Criteria for Release to Pretrial Services Programs.  The LPCO recommends NO on this proposition.
Adds requirements to Colorado Statutes to prohibit release of a defendant on an unsecured bond to pretrial services program unless it is a first offense and is nonviolent misdemeanor.
If passed this measure will reduce the ability of Judges to release those accused of crimes while awaiting trial.  Those unable to afford additional bonding expenses would remain in custody.  Additional total costs to the State are estimated at $2.8 million.
Retention of Colorado Supreme Court Judges.
For the 2010 November election, voters are asked to consider retention/non-retention of a number of Judges.  The LPCO encourages all voters to carefully consider each judge.
Several of the Citizen initiated amendments on the 2010 November Ballot are in response to Supreme Court decisions contrary to the intent of existing constitutional provisions.  The activist nature of the recent Colorado Supreme Court and it’s decisions appears to be more focused on predetermined outcomes rather than the Rule of Law.
-The LPCO recommends NO on each of the 3 Supreme Court Judges to be considered.
SOURCE:
Date: 12 Oct 10
From: LPCO Board of Directors
To:   Colorado Libertarians and interested Voters
Subj:  Libertarian Party of Colorado Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives.

Perhaps the LPCO has regained some semblance of sanity? Time will tell.

Tags:, , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Economics, Editorial, Opinion, Education, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Colorado, mysandry, News, Politics, States Rights, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Colorado Election : Positions concerning 2010 Statewide Ballot Initiatives

Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!* sort of…

October 16, 2010

 

Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!*

(*Well, sort of…  one editor (of 5 total), endorsing 2 out of 3 recommendations plus all of the analysis, pretty much adds up to one endorsement.  Fun with fractions!)

Contact Matt Arnold: director@clearthebenchcolorado.org or 303.995.5533.

 

On Wednesday October 13th, the Denver Post, in what is the closest thing to an official position on the three Colorado Supreme Court incumbents (justices Michael Bender, Alex Martinez, and Nancy Rice) seeking an additional 10-year term on this year’s ballot the newspaper is likely to take, endorsed two of the three recommendations advanced by Clear The Bench Colorado.

The editorial (“No clean sweep of justices“) endorsed the “compelling indictment of Michael Bender and Alex Martinez” but differed with Clear The Bench Colorado’s recommendation on Justice Rice.

Reasonable people can disagree on whether Justice Rice deserves another 10 years on the bench (CTBC’s analysis of her opinions in key constitutional cases shows a split result, leaning narrowly towards non-retention; Attorney General John Suthers had also earlier endorsed a “retain” vote on Justice Rice while advocating a “do not retain” vote on Justice Michael Bender and Justice Alex Martinez, as well).

Most importantly, the Denver Post editorial strongly complimented the Clear The Bench Colorado Evaluations of Judicial Performance analysis as a superior resource to the sham “Blue Book” reviews:

“In every election, voters go to the polls with virtually no knowledge of the judges up for retention – thanks to the nearly useless evaluations issued by the state’s judicial performance commission. So voters do owe Clear the Bench Colorado their thanks for actually offering substantive analysis.”

 

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.

As a Citizen, you DO have the right to vote “NO” on these incumbent Colorado Supreme Court justices as they seek an additional 10-year term this November.  Clear The Bench Colorado urges Colorado voters to exercise their rights on the ballot this November.

Tags:, ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, Local Politics Colorado, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | Comments Off on Denver Post endorsesClear The Bench Colorado!* sort of…

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

Tags:, , ,
Posted in Editorial, Opinion, Education, Gun Control, Hoplophobia, Law, mysandry, News, Politics, Wordpress Political Blogs | 4 Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »