The Weekly Sedition

Tuesday, 11 October 2016

“Mine” vs. “Yours”

Filed under: Politics, Principles — Tags: , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:22 PM

 

From what I’ve seen in thirty years of being involved on the public scene, there seem to be two basic mindsets towards life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness, money, time, effort, you name it, where politics is concerned.

First is the “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours is yours” way of thinking. This is the dominant mindset amongst libertarians. Some conservatives subscribe to it, as well.

But not the neo-conservatives and social conservatives, who seem to be perfectly OK with government at every level getting bigger, more intrusive, more expensive, just so long as they approve of the ways it gets bigger, more intrusive, and more expensive. The issues of abortion, same-sex relations, gambling, drugs and prostitution are examples of this.

Or said “conservatives” are concerned with getting “their fair share” of time at the public trough – contracts for the various social-welfare programs, construction contracts, and such.

Which brings me to the other prevailing mindset on the political scene, that of “what’s mine is mine, what’s yours in negotiable (and ultimately mine).”

These are the people who get all kinds of pissed off when their money or personal property is damaged or taken without their consent. Yet if yours is similarly taken or damaged, especially when done by governmental edict, well, it’s your job to “suck it up for the common good.” Or “for the children,” “for the Earth,” or whatever.

For example, this picture of someone complaining that her Bernie 2016 sticker was stolen:

Seriously, folks, since when has Bernie Sanders EVER supported the rights of private property owners?

I would assume that anyone supporting his failed presidential bid would be in line with his views of “let’s take from the rich.” Am I out of line by suggesting that?

Another point – despite Bernie’s rather “strident” rhetoric about “soaking the rich,” he didn’t have any problem plunking down 575,000-600,000 for a lakefront dacha in Lake Hero, Vermont.

Does anyone care to guess what will happen to any vagrants who should wander onto the property?

You mean he won’t put them up in the guest bedroom for a few days, til they’re ready to move on?

What do you mean, his protective detail from the Vermont State Police will have said vagrant taken away in handcuffs?

Another instance of this:

Back in January 2013, Santa Fe City Councilor Patti Bushee and ProgressNowNM Executive Director Pat Davis[1] supported “assault weapon” bans of various kinds, and then campaigned for the State of New Mexico to recognize same-sex marriages as legal[2].

So according to Bushee and Davis, my individual, pre-existing right to own and carry weapons isn’t really a right at all, merely a government-granted privilege, revokable upon the whim of a bureaucrat (the “yours” of this instance). At the same time, they insist that the rights they cherish (same-sex marriage — the “mine” here) to be taken as sacrosanct.

Well, America, which mindset do you prefer? Pick one and stick to it, please.


NOTES

  1. Bushee is no longer a City Councilor in Santa Fe, while Davis is currently “representing” District 6 on the Albuquerque City Council. No doubt that Bushee has been replaced with someone equally looney.
  • Patti Bushee and Pat Davis Hinder, Not Help, the LGBT CauseNot that such an ordinance would have actually survived a court challenge, as New Mexico has a pre-emption clause in Article II, Section 6 of the State Constitution:

    No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be\ held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.)

    But Bushee had to have her warm fuzzy (and no-charge advertising media coverage) for the moment that she “got something done” and “made a difference,” so she sponsored the ban anyway.

  • Approximate reading level – 13.4

Copyright © 2016 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

 

Monday, 18 July 2016

Obama: “It’s easier to get a Glock than a book . . . .”

When addressing the assembled mourners in Dallas, Barry Obama said the following[1]:

It’s easier for a teenager to get his hands on a Glock than a computer . . . or even a book.

First, there’s these places called libraries that will let you read books without going through any paperwork at all. Quite a few of these . . . libraries . . . will let you check out books and — wait for it — take them home without so much as a simple background check.

Nor do the librarians make you fill out federally-mandated paperwork asking you if you’re a convicted felon, fugitve from justice, illegal immigrant, been dishonorably discharged from the military, have been adjudicated as mentally unfit to read, have any domestic violence convictions, or if you’ve renounced your U.S. citizenship.

And if you want to keep the book, you don’t go to a library, but to another place called a bookstore, where you can hand over some of your cash and take the book home with you. No background check, no waiting period, just pay for your book, take it and go. Nor do you have to be at least 21 years old to purchase small, easily-carried books.

Why, they even let you buy or borrow multiple books without additional paperwork. WOW!

Nor do the feds require bookstore owners to get a federal license to sell books across state lines.

Now, what about prices?

Let’s see:

A mass-market paperback of the kind that I bought most of my books as ran at 2.50 (plus tax) back in the early 1980s. Now they’re up to ∅7.99-8.99.

Trade paperbacks in the 6″ x 9″ format usually run ∅9.99-19.99, depending on how many pages, the publisher, etc.

Hardbacks are pricier — they’re usually over ∅20, most likely in the ∅22-27 range (it does pay at times to check the remainder tables!).

How about computers, then?

You can get a used desktop (such as the one I’m typing this article on) for about ∅100-200 (I paid ∅90 to a place that was going out of business).

Used laptops are in the same price range.

And as with books, there’s no need to fill out any federally-mandated paperwork, no waiting periods, no required background check, no age requirement. You can get a computer, even a brand-new one, even if you’re a convicted felon, messed up between the ears, been dishonorably discharged, etc., etc.

As for the Glock, though, that’s a bit different. Brand-new, a Glock will run you about ∅500. Used, they can go for more or less, depending on condition and after-market modifications. A factory-model Glock in decent condition will cost you about ∅300.

On top of that, if you’re a convicted felon, don’t get caught possessing that Glock by the cops — the feds love to throw people in prison for ten-year stretches for that.

That federally-mandated paperwork and background check I linked to above? That’s the sort of thing you have to go through to purchase a firearms from a federally-licensed dealer. In order to sell firearms across state lines and on any sort of commercial basis, the feds require that the dealer get a Federal Firearms License [FFL].

So much for Obama’s comment in Dallas.

Here’s the really bad part about Obama’s comment:

He’s got advisors from the Cabinet secretaries and agency directors on down who could have offered up the correct information for his Dallas speech. It’s already bad taste to use a memorial service to score political points. On top of that, he used nonsensical comments to score those points? Come one, now.


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Ixquick search / DuckDuckGo search / Startpage search / Qwant search / Encrypted Google search

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 9.2

Copyright © 2016 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 medit and Notepad++.

Wednesday, 6 July 2016

Happy Independence Day — From a 21st Century Tory

Filed under: Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:17 PM

My inbox is always bursting with spam —

From: Michelle Lujan Grisham via bounce.bluestatedigital.com
To: Mike Blessing
Date: Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 3:46 PM
Subject: Happy Independence Day!

What’s amusing about this is that Michelle Lujan Grisham is the 21st century New Mexico equivalent of an 18th century British Tory.

A little histoy lesson here — the Tories were the British political party who were opposed to the American Revolution of 1776. They were whom the Declaration of Independence was a series of complaints against when it was signed at Independence Hall (then the Pennsylvania State House).

In short, they were the Big Government party of the United Kingdom of the 1760s and 1770s.

Doesn’t Big Government neatly summarize the political career of Michelle Lujan Grisham? When has she EVER supported making government smaller, less intrusive, less expensive? Not much that we here in New Mexico have seen.

Grisham has little to no respect for the individual right to own and carry weapons, she’s always in favor of expanding the welfare state, and she signs off on Democrat-sponsored corporate welfare while complaining about corporations being under-regulated. If you’re a farmer or rancher, she doesn’t seem to care if your land is seized out from under you by the BLM, Forest Service, Fish & Wildlife, EPA, or whoever else, just so long as it fits the current Democrat narrative.

What’s also amusing is that today’s British Tories (the Conservative Party, by their own name) are the “across-the-pond” equivalent of America’s Republicans — they advertise themselves as moderate libertarians during the campaign season, then govern as moderate Democrats (Labour Party for the UK Conservatives).

If you want the real deal, then go with actual, brand-name Libertarians here in the States. For the UK, I would suggest either the Libertarian Party UK [LPUK] or UK Independence Party [UKIP]


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 22.2
  2. Reposted –
    1. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 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 medit and Notepad++.

Monday, 20 June 2016

“No One Wants to Take Away Your Guns” [2]

Well, it’s Hoplophobia Season again, as your friendly (in appearance only) politicians scramble to stand atop the fifty-some bodies of those killed at Pulse Orlando. As usual, their media friends will say “no one wants to take your guns,” even as they say explicitly that they do want to disarm you. Here are some examples:

The first is an old one, from August of last year, from science fiction, fantasy and comic book writer Peter David, which is a shame, as David can be a good writer when he wants to be. Still, at least he’s honest and up-front about his desire to disarm America’s population, which is more than I can say for most hoplophobes and victim disarmers.

[Click on the pictures to go the article]

Amitai Etzioni, a current proponent of what’s called “communitarianism,” wrote the next piece in The Huffington Post yesterday, and suggests that they probably will need to be sneaky about disarming the American population:

[Click on the pictures to go the article]


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Wikipedia page on Peter David
  2. Wikipedia page on Amitai Etzioni
  3. Wikipedia page on Communitarianism

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 15.9
  2. Reposted –
    1. Extropy UnboundFacebook / WordPress.com
    2. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 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 medit and Notepad++.

Tuesday, 3 May 2016

So the Catholic Church Says “Spend More” ?

Filed under: Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:15 PM

Today’s Albuquerque Journal ran an article on page C1 (“Metro & New NM”) — PullTogether kicks off, faces funding skepticism

From the article —

In a separate and somewhat dueling news conference, Archbishop of Santa Fe John C. Wester said he wants state leaders to do more than “sing a jingle,” and to find new revenue sources to pay for programs such as state-assisted child care and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or food stamps.

Now if the IRS were to yank the Archdiocese of Santa Fe’s 501(c)(3) non-profit status so that donations are no longer deductible on the donors’ 1040 (and PIT-1 ?) and the Church were subject to the same sorts of taxation as, say, the rest of us, how much could the State of New Mexico rake in from Wester and his buddies?

If Bishop Wester really cares about “the children” as much as he professes, why doesn’t he cut the check to the State for whatever amount he deems necessary right now?

Or he could directly help those he claims to care about so much — which is preferable from my viewpoint, as that doesn’t further increase the expenses and intrusiveness of Santa Fe, Washington DC, and One Civic Plaza.

Add to that the point that if those who profess to care about poor people so much would simply directly provide the help they say they is necessary instead of lobbying and agitating for a larger, more intrusive, more expensive welfare state, there wouldn’t be as much of an underclass in America needing that help.

Finally, to paraphrase a friend from years ago:

Poverty in the Third World is when there are flies crawling on your kids as they go through a trash heap, looking for whatever.

Poverty in America is when you get that letter from Comcast or DirecTV with “FINAL NOTICE” printed across the top in big letters.


NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 18.5
  2. Reposted –
    1. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group

Copyright © 2016 Libertarian Party of New Mexico and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

Sunday, 28 February 2016

Obama’s Presidential Firsts

Filed under: Humor, Politics, Reading — Tags: , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:52 AM

Obama’s Presidential Firsts

The Many Accomplishments of President Barack Hussein Obama (r. 2009-2017 (?))

By Tom Ririe

Quit trashing Obama’s accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

  1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.
  2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
  3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
  4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
  5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.
  6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
  7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
  8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.
  9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
  10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
  11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
  12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
  13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
  14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
  15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
  16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
  17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
  18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
  19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
  20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
  21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
  22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
  23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
  24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
  25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
  26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
  27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.
  28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
  29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.
  30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.
  31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
  32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
  33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
  34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
  35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).
  36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”
  37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

I feel much better now. I had been under the impression he hadn’t been doing ANYTHING . . . Such an accomplished individual . . . in the eyes of the ignorant maybe!

H/T Michael Z. Williamson


NOTES

  1. Original article

Copyright © 2016 Tom Ririe and Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with medit.

Tuesday, 10 November 2015

More Hoplophobia and Victim Disarmament from Michelle Lujan Grisham

Filed under: Politics, Principles, Self-Defense — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 11:12 PM

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

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

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 12.2
  2. Reposted –
    1. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoLPNM Blog / LPNM Official Facebook page / LPNM Official Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoLPBC Blog / LPBCNM Official Facebook page / LPBCNM Official Facebook group

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++.

Saturday, 10 October 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

  1. City Council on 2015-10-07 5:00 PM – TWENTY-FIRST COUNCIL – FORTY-NINTH MEETING
  2. DPA Statement: Albuquerque Mayor Berry’s Veto of Marijuana Decriminalization Lags Behind History and the Public’s Will

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.6
  2. Original article — http://abqjournal.com/656288/news/abq-mayors-marijuana-veto-stands.html
    Archived here — https://archive.is/3NWiF
  3. Reposted –
    1. Libertarian Party –
      1. New MexicoBlog / Facebook page / Facebook group
      2. Bernalillo County, New MexicoBlog / Facebook page / Facebook group
    2. Albuquerque Liberty Forum Facebook page
    3. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group

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 KWrite.

Wednesday, 1 July 2015

Trump and the GOP

Filed under: Comedy, Humor, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:32 AM

6/29/2015 5:15 PM:

“Cultural Marxism and its many variants, such as political correctness and multiculturalism, is now firmly ensconced in the White House and the Democrat Party, while the Republican Party, dominated by eunuchs and the avaricious, continuously accommodates its “principles” to match an ever-shifting leftward movement of the “conventional wisdom.” It does so solely to maintain its place as the token opposition and grifter at the federal tax-revenue trough for the personal financial benefits that it provides.

I’ve never seen a more perfect summation of the GOP’s “principles” or more accurately, lack thereof, principles — besides the following:

  1. Milking the donors.
  2. Filling as many public offices with fellow GOP trough-feeders as possible.
  3. Milking the rest of the population on behalf of themselves and their sponsors, using the tax-feeding officeholders.

Perhaps Rand Paul will follow in his father’s footsteps and be an exception to this. Possibly Ted Cruz, as well. As for the rest, they’re mere media-hounding streetwalker wannabes, such as Mr. Trump . . . .

I like Donald Trump in a half-hearted way. I like his macho no-nonsense response to those who try to pretend business is merely the handmaiden of politics. I like that he is aware of his own hard work to build his business and greatly increase the fortune his father bequeathed to him.

Except for his corporate bankruptcies, that is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Legal_affairs

I like that he is proud of his success, neither meek or humble. But I don’t like what I consider a failing of many business people, a lack of grasp of fundamental principles.

Donald Trump’s guiding principle seems to be limited to one: Donald Trump.

Whatever keeps him in the limelight seems to be OK with him.

Until I see otherwise, I’ll consider his 2016 campaign to be prep work for another season of The Apprentice.

I fear that like Joe McCarthy, he will go overboard and kill his own best characteristics, making himself a buffoon similar to Joe Biden if he does not become more fully acquainted with the basic premises of his political position.

Trump is very, very good at making a buffoon of himself.

Back in 2008, Trump attempted to run for president on the Reform Party ticket, advocating a 14% tax on rich people.

For example, recently, it looks as though he paid people $50 a head to show up at his “presidential announcement” rally and make it look like they like him:

http://google.com/search?q=Donald+Trump+Extra+Mile+Casting


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Donald Trump Hired Paid Actors To Attend Presidential Launch Event by Angelo Carusone
  2. Daily Mail [London, UK] – Donald Trump accused of hiring ACTORS for $50 each to pose as supporters at Trump Towers presidential campaign launch [H/T Angelo Carusone]
  3. The Hollywood ReporterDonald Trump Campaign Offered Actors $50 to Cheer for Him at Presidential Announcement [H/T Angelo Carusone]

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 11.7

Copyright © 2015 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++ and KWrite.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Friday, 10 April 2015

A Question for Judge Malott (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Media, Philosophy, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:03 PM

From: Mike Blessing
To: Editorial Page Editor, Albuquerque Journal
Date: Friday, 3 April 2015
Subject: A Question for Judge Malott

In today’s op-ed piece about discrimination, Judge Malott states that as the trial judge in Elane Photography v. Willock[1], he ruled that it’s illegal for people to discriminate against others on the basis of sexual orientation, and that Elaine Hugenin was wrong to refuse service to Vanessa Willock on that basis.

This begs the question of why it was so important for Willock to force herself upon Hugenin, but I digress.

The question then for Judge Malott is this: is it against the law for a gay-owned business to refuse service to straight people simply because they’re straight?

If the answer is “yes,” then the Judge is saying that people should be forced to associate with others that they would prefer not to, and freedom of association goes down the toilet.

If “no,” then the judge is saying that politically-protected segments of society get to lord it over to those deemed unworthy of such protection, and the question isn’t about the offending conduct, but “who” does to “whom.”

I’m having trouble deciding which answer to this is worse. In the end, I’d prefer that individuals be free to associate with others of their own choice, period.

To the LGBT folks — If you want someone to take pictures or video of or bake a cake for your commitment ceremony, why would you force yourself upon those who don’t want your business when some of their competitors will happily do business with you?


FOR FURTHER REFERENCE

  1. Elane Photography v. WillockBing / DuckDuckGo / Google

NOTES

  1. Approximate reading level – 13.8

Copyright © 2015 Mike Blessing. All rights reserved.
Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Older Posts »