Libertarian Party of Bernalillo County, New Mexico: 2015

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

More Hoplophobia and Victim Disarmament from Michelle Lujan Grisham

Lujan-Grisham's original text is in italics, my comments are in bold.

Say you believe that now is the time to act on reducing gun violence in America by adding your name to our petition today.

Show me a responsible gun owner who actually approves of "gun violence," OK?

Dear Mike,

During my time in Congress, I've participated in more moments of silence to honor the victims of gun violence than policy debates about how to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous individuals. It's unacceptable.

Never mind that the phrase "gun violence" is intended to provoke an anti-firearm emotional state. Notice how the hoplophobes never talk about "knife violence" or "baseball bat violence" or "beer bottle violence" ?

Just look at what our community in New Mexico is coping with right now: -- the tragic murder of an ADP police officer -- the fatal road rage shooting of a 4-year-old girl in Albuquerque -- and another incident just this week in Española where a brawl turned into something worse when a man pulled out a gun and shot an 8-year-old boy

With dangerous weapons killing an average of 36 people every day, it's only a matter of time until another community in New Mexico has to suffer.

These incidents bring to bare that many communities -- that every single community across the country -- are suffering from gun violence, and other public safety issues. In Washington, there is a growing sense that we are failing to act as policy makers, yet action continues to be stalled. And these recent shootings are a reminder of how unacceptable that has become.

Politicians are always the last people we should look to in order to solve any problem.

Duh.

Sign this petition to stand with me in tackling gun violence -- we can no longer afford to wait to act on gun violence. The time is now.

I'm already taking specific steps to address this crisis in Washington.

First, I'm co-sponsoring the bipartisan^[1] King-Thompson bill^[2], which expands existing background checks to cover all commercial firearm sales. On top of that, I'm aggressively supporting the Gun Violence Research Act^[3], which will repeal the ban on CDC gun violence research.

And how many 20-25 year-old criminals will be labeled as "teen-agers? How many instances of justifiable self-defense using firearms will be lumped in as "gun violence" ?

Neither of these Acts has a real chance of passing the Republican-led U.S. House, which has to at least pay lip service to respecting the right of private civilians to own and carry weapons, as gauranteed by the Second Amendment. Even most Democrats pay that lip service, in the same breath as they propose to rewrite the Second into oblivion.

I feel strongly that everyone has the right to safety in their community. It is fundamental to the American dream, and that's why it is imperative that we act on gun violence before it's too late. Will you stand with me today?

It's always "imperative," isn't it?

Add your name to our gun violence petition right here, right now

Best wishes,

Michelle Lujan Grisham

P.S. And just this past week, I was interviewed on KOB4 in Albuquerque to talk about the recent gun violence in New Mexico. You can watch it here.

http://kob.com/article/stories/S3950289.shtml

Never shy for the media, is she?

This email was sent to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. If you want to unsubscribe then you can here: http://go.michellelujangrisham.com/unsubscribe

PAID FOR BY FRIENDS OF MICHELLE

This email was sent to XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

If you believe we need a Congresswoman who will fight to give everyone a chance to live the American Dream, then follow Michelle Lujan Grisham on Facebook / Twitter

Should you want to unsubscribe then you can click here.

Join Michelle Lujan Grisham in building a stronger community and country by making a contribution to our campaign here.

Of course she's all about enhancing the cash flow.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

The Republican sponsoring this bit of hoplophobic nonsense is none other than the cretinous Peter King from Long Island, New York.
HR 1217 – "Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act of 2015"
HR 3926 – "Gun Violence Research Act"

NOTES

Approximate reading level – 12.2

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

[Garrison Center] Arbitration Isn't The Problem

Arbitration Isn't The Problem

November 5, 2015 — Thomas L. Knapp

English: First 4 digits of a credit card

Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Robert Gebeloff of the New York Times claim to have discovered "a far-reaching power play orchestrated by American corporations" ("Arbitration Everywhere, Stacking the Deck of Justice," October 31^[1]). They're missing the forest for the trees. Arbitration is not the problem.

Corporate preference for private arbitration instead of litigation in government courts is nothing new. The twist in the Times expose is that arbitration clauses have evolved to make it more difficult for dissatisfied customers to band together and bring particular types of suits: "Class actions" in which numerous complaints are bundled together, reducing the plaintiffs' costs and resulting in huge potential aggregated damage awards.

In recent years, arbitration clauses have begun specifying individual arbitration. Corporate attorneys know that most customers won't spend hundreds or thousands of dollars arbitrating $10 complaints. If the complaints can't be aggregated, they're not worth pursuing from a financial standpoint. A win for the corporations, a loss for consumers whose complaints don't pass the financial test.

What Silver-Greenberg and Gebeloff leave out are two important consumer tools: Information and choice.

Their story opens with reference to "a clause that most customers probably miss" on "page 5 of a credit card contract."

The reason most customers probably miss that clause is that most customers don't bother to read contracts pertaining to small-money matters, or have them reviewed by attorneys, before signing them. That's a choice. So is the decision to sign something one hasn't read.

The Times piece quotes F. Paul Bland Jr. of Public Justice, a "national consumer advocate group." Bland claims that "[c]orporations are allowed to strip people of their constitutional right to go to court." No, people are allowed to voluntarily waive their right to go to court, in return for valuable considerations. If they do so from voluntary ignorance, that's their fault and no one else's.

It's not that complicated:

If you don't want to commit to arbitration in general, or to individual arbitration in particular, don't sign contracts committing yourself to those things.

If you consider reading and understanding a contract before you sign it to be too much work, don't complain when your decision to remain ignorant comes back to bite you.

If you really, really want something, but the only way to get it is to accept an arbitration clause, then make your choice. Do without that thing or to accept the clause. Nobody owes you a smart phone or a credit card or whatever. Take the deal or don’t take the deal. Don't blame arbitration itself, which is as good in some cases, and better in most, than resort to government courts. Remember, it was government that made the corporations so powerful in the first place.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

http://nytimes.com/2015/11/01/business/dealbook/arbitration-everywhere-stacking-the-deck-of-justice.html

NOTES

Approximate reading level – 12.3
Original article

Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

Saturday, October 10, 2015

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

ABQ mayor's marijuana veto survives challenge

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

NOTES

Approximate reading level – 13.6
Original article — http://abqjournal.com/656288/news/abq-mayors-marijuana-veto-stands.html
Archived here — https://archive.is/3NWiF

Monday, April 6, 2015

2015 LPNM Annual State Convention

Libertarian Party of New Mexico

2015 Annual State Convention

Venue – UNM School of Law, Room 2403 – 1117 Stanford Street NE, Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106

Saturday, 18 April 2015, 10 AM — 5 PM

Contact Mike Blessing – 505-448-9976 for details

A donation of $15 is requested to offset the cost of the use of facilities.

See the Convention's event page on Facebook for updates

Convention Schedule

10:00 – 10:30	Registration

10:30 – 10:45	Welcome and Introduction by Mike Blessing, Chair, LPNM

10:45 – 11:30	Keynote address by Marita Noon, Energy Makes America Great

11:30 – 12:15	Marisa Salazar, New Mexico State Chair at Young Americans for Liberty and Campus Coordinator at Students For Liberty

12:15 – 1:30	Lunch Break

1:30 – 2:15	Kerry Adams, Mere Liberty, Rio Rancho Observer

2:15 – 2:45	Scott Lieberman, Libertarian National Committee

2:45 – 4:45	LPNM Business Meeting

	All who are registered to vote with the State of New Mexico as Libertarians ("LIB" on the voter registration card) can vote during nominations for public office. Only Caucus Members can vote during LPNM business and internal LPNM elections. Visitors do not vote in any actions or activities. Central Committee meeting after close of the LPNM Business Meeting.
5:00 PM	Convention closes

Speakers and Candidates Addressing the Convention Membership

Speakers will have 30–45 minutes to make their case, then should be open to questions from the audience. Audience members are requested to ask questions of the speaker as opposed to making statements. All speakers will be considered to have consented to being recorded, including but not limited to audio or video devices, for posting to the internet (YouTube, etc.).

Handouts for Distribution

The LPNM membership reserves the right to disavow any handouts (handbills, brochures, CDs, DVDs, etc.) offered for distribution to convention membership, as well as the person(s) doing the distributing.

Nominations for Candidates for Public Office

Anyone wanting to vote to nominate candidates for public office needs to make sure that they're registered to vote as "Libertarian" or "LIB" as the Secretary of State prints on the voter registration cards before they show up for the Convention.

So make sure to bring your voter registration card.

Participating in LPNM Internal Business

All you have to do to participate in the LPNM's internal business (changes to the Constitution and Bylaws, internal nominations, etc.) is to do the following (all steps are necessary, regardless of order completed):

Register to vote as "Libertarian" so that your voter registration card reads "LIB" in the spot marked "PARTY" (lower right-hand corner).
Sign up as what the LPNM refers to as a "Caucus Member." Basically, this means that you've signed the Non-Aggression Pledge and paid $25 in dues. You can do this at the Convention itself, as we'll have the necessary paperwork on hand.
Pay the required amount for a convention membership.

Out-of-State Visitors

All national-level candidates (for President, National Chair, LNC spots, etc.) are responsible for covering their own expenses, including but not limited to travel, meals, and lodging. They are, of course, free to solicit financial or other support from individual LPNM members, but the LPNM will not expend organizational resources for this purpose.
The LPNM as an organization will NOT endorse candidates for any office until they have been officially nominated by an accredited affiliate of the Libertarian Party.