Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

An excellent essay dealing with the times that we live in.

October 16, 2010

Every so often, someone, somewhere writes so eloquently that it is difficult to comprehend just how they did it. What follows are snips, be sure to follow the link to the entire essay.

FULL STORY HERE.

On Feb. 7, 2009, the cover of Newsweek magazine proclaimed, “We Are All Socialists Now.” Since then, much has transpired, including the sale of Newsweek (the business entity) to the highest bidder for $1. Now, 1 1/2 years later, a more poignant cover story might be “We Are All Tea Partiers Now.”

The Tea Party is the leading edge of a “Great Awakening” in America. In many ways, it appears to have the force and vitality of one of the religious awakenings that have occurred throughout our nation’s history. It is more than a populist movement. It is more than a reactionary group expressing voter dissatisfaction and anger. It can’t be boiled down to election results. It will not be co-opted neatly by the Republican Party. It is something much, much bigger.

The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.

~snip~

The Tea Party movement represents a resounding declaration of the end of big, overreaching government.

Our nation is in the grip of an overwhelming, seemingly inescapable malaise, not because our government hasn’t done enough for us, but because it has tried to do too much. Over the decades, “government” has mutated into “big government,” and its weight is killing us. Recent massive efforts to stimulate the economy or save certain sectors of it through increased government intervention and spending, far from helping us, have only added to the fog of uncertainty and oppression.

Washington’s presumed role of always knowing what is best for every aspect of our lives is over. One by one, people are waking up and realizing that perhaps they know what is best for themselves, their families, their local communities and their states. The Tea Party movement is not just an expression of disfavor with how things get done in government. It is the promise of a tectonic shift of decentralization and reduction of government.

~snip~

For more than 200 years, the United States has been a repository of the most incredible truth in the world about man’s desire for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and how to secure these as a nation. In some ways, this truth has been in a deep freeze just as a steak might safely be saved in your freezer at home. If you offer a frozen steak to a hungry guest, it’s of no practical use to him. But if you put that steak on the grill with a fire under it, suddenly the fat starts to sizzle, the juices begin to run, and you begin to smell the aroma of the roasting meat. That steak becomes enticing to the hungry person. The Tea Party movement is the vehicle, the tiny match, by which the fire is lit under old truths so that even those who have never given a thought to their unalienable personal rights and the role of government now have a voracious hunger to experience these truths in their own lives.

~snip~

Many people now see that our nation is at a crossroads: Our personal liberties, economic prosperity and the place of the United States within the world are at risk. Their eyes have been opened to the reckless stewardship of the political class in Washington, which, by creating an ever-growing government with massive, unsustainable entitlements, sweeping unintelligible legislative reforms and volume after volume of free-market-choking regulations, has charted this ill-fated course toward its progressive vision for America.

~snip~

For the past year and a half, the media and other detractors have dedicated themselves to snuffing out the Tea Party movement through tactics of mockery, dismissiveness and false accusations. From Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi insinuating that grass-roots protesters at town-hall meetings last summer were Nazis to President Obama using mocking sexual innuendo, calling the Tea Partiers “tea baggers”; from the unsubstantiated claims of Tea Party violence and racism during health care reform protests on Capitol Hill in March to the NAACP’s unwarranted charge of Tea Party racism to the constant drone of politicos and pundits about Tea Party extremism during the primary elections, the assault on the Tea Party has been relentless. If Tea Partiers were a protected class rather than a targeted one, most of the media, academia and political intelligentsia would be on trial for hate crimes.

~snip~

The Tea Party is more than an angry political movement, as it is frequently described. Something much deeper is going on here. It is a living expression of bedrock truth about humanity’s rights and our own human nature – that men and women have a yearning to be free and to self-govern while participating in and enjoying civil society.

My hats off in appreciation to Doug Manwaring.

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.

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.

 

Mayor Bloomberg blasts Tea Party, describes it as often irrational, ‘not a political movement’

October 2, 2010

Mayor Bloomberg blasts Tea Party, describes it as often irrational, ‘not a political movement’.

Colorado tosses out it’s own Constitution!

September 30, 2010

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

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

Judge’s ruling against judicial reform group Clear The Bench Colorado undermines transparency, accountability in judicial retention vote

Judge’s ruling favors entrenched incumbents and big-money special interests

Late last Friday afternoon, Clear The Bench Colorado was stunned by the news that Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer (as an executive branch employee, answerable to the governor and not subject to a retention vote himself) set aside the documentary evidence, testimony by Clear The Bench Colorado Director Matt Arnold along with the Elections Division director at the Colorado Secretary of State’s office AND the clear letter of the law to rule in favor of “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) in what the same judge had earlier characterized as a “frivolous, groundless, & vexatious” attack (er, “campaign finance complaint”).

Despite reliance on over a year’s worth of guidance issued by the office of Secretary of State (as confirmed in numerous documents and in witness testimony provided in hearings on 15 September) reached after “numerous” internal policy meetings and much research that Clear The Bench Colorado was, is, and ought to be properly characterized as an “Issue Committee” under campaign finance rules; CTBC’s scrupulous compliance with all rules, regulations, and reporting requirements for over a year; and dismissal of CEW’s earlier complaint as “frivolous, groundless, and vexatious” – the judge changed course and found for CEW in their latest round of attacks, changing the rules in the final quarter of play.

Changing the rules at such a late date – mail ballots go out at the same time Clear The Bench Colorado has been directed to re-file as a political committee – and in direct contravention of the guidance upon which CTBC has relied for well over a year makes a mockery of the process of citizen civic engagement.  As noted by Clear The Bench Colorado lead attorney Scott Gessler,

“That’s just crazy, that ruling,” said Gessler. “What kind of crazy system is that, when you can’t trust what the Secretary of State tells you? [This ruling] means you have to hire a lawyer to do anything- to get involved at all in the political process.” (Colorado Independent, 9/25/2010)

From documentation provided by the office of Secretary of State:

Colorado campaign finance and Judicial retention

While judges are considered “candidates” for the purpose of campaign finance law in Art. XXVIII Sec. 2(2) of the Colorado Constitution, the question of the retention of a judge is a yes-or-no question.  Therefore, a committee organized for the purpose of advocating the retention or removal of a judge is advocating for a yes or no vote on that question, rather than advocating for the election or defeat of a candidate.  A committee organized for such a purpose is akin to a committee advocating for (or against) the recall of an elected official, which would register an issue committee under 1-45-108(6), C.R.S.  To that end, a committee established for the purpose of supporting or opposing the retention of a judge or judges is properly registered as an issue committee for campaign finance purposes.  Such an entity would not be considered a political committee, because political committees are established for the purpose of “support[ing] or oppos[ing] the nomination or election of one or more candidates” (Art. XXVII Sec. 2(12)(a)).  [emphasis added]

Adding insult to injury, the judge’s ruling is granting “Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) more time to pay Clear The Bench Colorado what they’ve owed since July than time for Clear The Bench Colorado to re-file under “political committee” status or to appeal the ruling.

Naturally, Colorado Ethics Watch” (CEW, pronounced “sue” – it’s what they do) is trumpeting the ruling as a great victory, declaring in a press release Friday:

“The law does not permit a wealthy few to unduly influence the judicial retention process through large contributions against judges and justices whose rulings they don’t like.  Ethics Watch prevailed today in setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”

Ironically, the ruling “achieves” the exact opposite: big-money special interests will now be more prone to attempt to influence judicial retention elections behind the scenes, using vehicles other than the open and accountable “Issue Committee” organization types such as Clear The Bench Colorado.

In fact, big-money legal establishment special-interest groups are already active this year in promoting a “retain” vote for judicial incumbents (including, prominently, the three Colorado Supreme Court justices appearing on the ballot this year).  They’re just significantly less honest about their intentions…

In a campaign that has been conspicuous for its LACK of big-money interests and “large contributions” (Toro is whining about two – TWO! – contributions exceeding $500), acting with complete transparency and absolute accountability to educate voters as to their right to hold judicial incumbents accountable for their performance in office, and to shed light on the records of judicial incumbents at the highest levels in order to provide substantive information on which voters can base an informed decision, CEW’s attacks (and the judge’s ruling in this case) do the Colorado electorate a great disservice.

CEW’s Toro is right about one thing: “Judges are… subject to corruption” via the influence of big-money special interests keeping them in office.

The expenditure of tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) by legal establishment special-interest groups comprised of the very lawyers appearing before the judges they are supporting in office is much more likely to exert “undue influence” and raise the potential for “quid pro quo” corruption.

The Colorado Bar Association (COBAR) has already spent over $50,000 this last month (by their own admission) joining three other legal establishment special-interest groups (likely spending a similar amount, although the exact figures have not been made publicly available) in mounting an “education” campaign (electioneering without using the “magic words” of “vote yes” or “vote NO“) to prop up incumbent judges and justices.   In one month alone, they’ve spent more than CTBC has in a year.  Combined, these special interests are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars in television, radio, and print ads providing “nonpartisan information about the performance of judges seeking retention” that, curiously, ALL supports a “retain” vote.

Another effort, sponsored by prominent Democrat attorney Mark Grueskin and other partisan attorneys (the “Colorado Judiciary Project”) is also spending large amounts (again, because this group formed as a “social welfare organization” their expenditures are NOT publicly available) supporting the judicial incumbents before whom they argue cases.  Conflict of interest?  Nah!

Ironically, these legal special-interest efforts come on top of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars used to produce and distribute the one-sided and shallow “evaluations” perpetrated by the (taxpayer-funded) commissions on judicial performance evaluation – which, again, advocate 100% of the time to “retain” Colorado Supreme Court justices in office.

NONE of these expenditures – hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the retention of judicial incumbents in office – are transparent and accountable to the public.

Did Friday’s ruling really succeed in “setting precedent to keep big money out of judicial elections…”?

Hardly.   It just provided cover for the big money that’s already comfortably ensconced in the process – erecting additional roadblocks to shedding light on the fact, and restoring accountability to the judiciary.

Clear The Bench Colorado has been consistently open, honest, and above-board in educating the public, and has scrupulously followed the rules under Colorado campaign finance laws for well over a year.  Forcing CTBC to re-file under a different set of rules – changed in the final quarter – makes a mockery of justice.

Yet another reason that now more than ever – it’s time to Clear The Bench, Colorado!

http://www.clearthebenchcolorado.org/

Range Report: Shooting minute of Elk

September 30, 2010

Today was sight in day at our local range, and, I just happened to have put together some Elk fodder for the Marlin XL7. Now, 270 Winchesters are known for fine accurate and for being pretty picky when it comes to what you feed them. The brand doesn’t seem to matter, you just have to hunt for the right load combination and or factory ammunition. Which can get pretty expensive.

To add to the confusion, brands that you think would match up sometimes don’t really function all that well. I’ve owned several Remington rifles, and, for an example; none of them shot Remington ammunition worth a hoot! They all shot extremely well using Federal products though.

My Marlin has been not to kind to Nosler bullets, which I happen to really like. But Sierra? They all seem to shoot like a dream. Since I don’t have a lot of time to work up an Elk load, I popped open the Sierra loading manual, and had a go at it. Please note that what follows is safe in my rifle, but may not be in yours. Work up loads cautiously, and never exceed maximum loads. Also, this was not really a reloading situation, as this was new unfired Remington brass.

Components are as follows. Brass, as noted above, was new unfired Remington, fully prepped including deburring the flash holes, and sizing the primer pockets. Cases were full length sized using an RCBS X-Die.

Primers were Federal Large Rifle, and the chosen bullet was the Sierra GameKing 150 grain. Cartridge overall length was set at 3.316 inches, and the powder used was Reloader 22.

My particular rifle has a history of shooting better with the hotter loads, but I also had not tried any 150 grain bullets in it yet, so I stuck with the book recommendations. The best accuracy load was listed at 53.7 grains of powder, with the hunting load at 55.2 grains. I used Remington Core-Lokt 150 grain ammunition as a control.

The range was pretty crowded with people waiting for a shooting station, so this had to be brief. Allowing the barrel to completely cool just was not possible.

Range, 100 yards for all loads, with the temperature in the upper 70’s and the humidity was right around 50 percent according to The Weather Channel. Winds were variable, but nothing really serious, maybe an occasional gust at 10 mph. All shots were from a bench using rests, and I had the luxury of a spotter this day. 🙂

Control group: 5 rounds of Remington Core-Lokt 150 grain. After a fouling round had been shot. 1.5 inches.

The lighter Accuracy recommended load of 53.7 grains of R 22 powder came in at just under 1 inch. 🙂

The heavier charge , same bullet and powder. Came in at 1/2 inch! I am sighted three inches high at one hundred yards, and should be able to shoot using no adjustment out to 250 yards.

That friends, is minute of Elk, and then some!

Oh give me a F**king Break! : Judge clears way for California’s first execution since 2006

September 24, 2010

I sat on a jury, way back in the day. I was still in California and a proud citizen of said state at that time.

At the time I was an auto Mechanic, with a basic Associates degree, and an ASS in Automotive Technology. Somehow, I ended up the Jury Foreman.

We deliberated long, and hard. Our Jury was in fact multiracial, with a slight bias toward Asian’s. It wasn’t the verdict, but the penalty that caused us to deliberate for so long… One Juror, was a devout Catholic that was very opposed to any harsh penalty. Another just didn’t trust the government. But, after a week, we, the people, decided that this miscreant that we were Judging? Needed to die…

Two years later, USSC decided that they, knew better than we the people…

This total miscreant, “fell” from a tier in a California State Prison. I am no fan of the Aryan Brotherhood, but hey guys? Ya’ got that one right! Broken Clock Justice perhaps..?

READ ON


Remembering: The day the earth stood still 9/11

September 10, 2010

Remembering  this day… I think that perhaps the best way to honor the thirteen men that I knew, trained, and worked with might be best served by simply not posting. That is why this is an hour and fifteen minutes early. Our attention, rather, should be guided toward remembrance of those that died that day. The professionals that did their duty, and paid the ultimate price, as well as the overt victim’s.

America, as in the United States of America. Is not about bowing, even a head nod, to those that wish the destruction of Freedom and Liberty.

The “American Dream” is not about owning a home. It is not about being overpaid for the work that you do. It is not about gaining personal power. It is about having the ability to actually do those things!

Read the Declaration of Independence.

Read the Constitution.

Read the Bill of Rights.

Think about it… Being an American, philosophically is a Natural Human Right!

Time is up. I’ll post links tomorrow.

Tuesday’s Primaries and the Core Debate

August 28, 2010

Tuesday’s primaries in Arizona and Alaska pitted well funded and entrenched incumbent Republicans against upstart Tea Party-backed challengers. The Arizona incumbent survived, but the Alaska incumbent is left hoping to make up ground in absentee ballots.

First Arizona. Sen. John McCain, the GOP’s 2008 presidential nominee, faced the fight of his political career against former congressman J.D. Hayworth. Unfortunately, Hayworth turned out to be a weak candidate and McCain’s $21 million media blitz was too much for him to overcome. In the end, the race wasn’t even close, with McCain outspending Hayworth 7-1 and winning nearly 2-1.

Hayworth, now a radio talk-show host, staffed his campaign with Tea Party activists and tried to run to the right of McCain. While in Congress, however, Hayworth had a penchant for earmarks and, after losing re-election in 2006, he participated as a pitchman in a video offering advice on how to get “free money grants” from the federal government. One could argue that earmarks are just part of the game and congressman should fight to get their constituents’ money directed to their own district, but after numerous silly projects have been highlighted over the years, voters are souring on the idea. And pitching “free money”? Not exactly the Tea Party’s core message.

McCain successfully countered Hayworth by running to the right himself. He has been remarkably frugal on earmarks through the years, offsetting any advantage Hayworth might have had on fiscal issues. The senator also moved right on immigration, going so far as to do a commercial along the border in which he called on the federal government to “complete the danged fence.” Of course, McCain’s lifetime American Conservative Union (ACU) rating of 82 is nothing to write home about, and now he’ll be in the Senate for another six years.

In Alaska, incumbent Sen. Lisa Murkowski trailed upstart Joe Miller by more than 1,600 votes as we went to press. Several thousand absentee ballots remain uncounted, but those are mostly military voters who may lean to Miller. The count may stretch into September.

The Murkowski family has dominated Alaska politics for decades. Lisa’s father, Frank, held one of Alaska’s Senate seats for three terms before winning the governor’s mansion. He then appointed his daughter to fill his seat. Joe Miller, the heavily outspent challenger, is a West Point grad, decorated Gulf War vet and a federal magistrate backed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin. If he pulls off the upset, it would count as the second major knockout of the Murkowski clan for Palin, who beat Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary for governor in 2006.

To put it in generous terms, Murkowski is a moderate. Her lifetime ACU rating is a paltry 70 and 2009 only brought that lower. She half-heartedly opposed ObamaCare but refused to rule out a government-run system. She declared in a debate with Miller that the nation could suffer if the government funded only those things enumerated in the Constitution.

That sums up the debate: Are we a nation under the Rule of Law, or the rule of men? Is government limited by the Constitution, or can it, in the words of Rep. Pete Stark, “do most anything in this country.” We know that the debate is over in the Democrat party — to them, government can do anything a majority can pass. Republicans like Lisa Murkowski and John McCain all too often agree. This primary season and the upcoming election, however, provide an opportunity for constitutional conservatives to begin righting the ship.

SOURCE