Rick Santorum, Far Right Republicans, and Le Penn

So I earlier compared Rick Santorum to Jean Marie LePenn (See Link), a far-right French politician.  This comparison was based on outrageous, far right sound bites, like LePenn, as opposed to substantive discourse.  Santoroum's "out there" comments dominated the news even if his voting potential did not.  Some of the far-right even suggested that a vote for Romney was the same as a vote for Obama.

So, why his post?  Marine LePenn, daughter of Jean Marie LePenn, obtained nearly 20% of the French vote while Sarkozy, the current President, got about 27%.  He will face a runoff against Francois Hollande, a Socialist candidate.  The French far right party, who will not be in the runoff election, is advocating abstaining from the general runoff election!  That is so much like Rick Santorum and his supporters!

I actually believe that Rick Santorum wanted to win, not trash the Republican Party.  In point of fact, his continuing in the Republican primaries enabled those who, like Marine LePenn’s supporters, would abstain rather than vote for a “true conservative”.  This argues that all of us need to reject those who are, like LePenn’s supporters (and Santorum’s) unwilling to compromise.  If you cannot compromise, you enable the far left and the far right in our country.  The majority of people are someplace in the center.  I personally believe that most are center right but center left works as well.  We need to flush the far right and the far left from our institutions.

Only a far right view and a total disregard of the consequences kept Rick Santorum in the race for President after mid-February.  He needs to be flushed from consideration in 2016 and beyond, regardless of the outcome of this year’s election.

Dianne Feinstein, Left Wing Radical Politics, the George Zimmerman Case, and Gun Laws

It has started!  Diane Feinstein of California has moved to block two important Senate bills, S 2188 and S 2213. Senate bill 2188 is the same as House Bill 822 (HR 822) and S2213 is a slightly different variant of S 2188.  Both bills would grant universal reciprocity for concealed weapons permits across all states that issue concealed weapon permits.  Currently there is a patchwork of reciprocity provisions that results in different reciprocity for different states as the reciprocity is worked out between each state.  Neither bill would alter the concealed carry requirements within a particular state.  


She is attempting to use the uproar over the case of George Zimmerman in Florida to distort the logic of the two bills.  In fact she is against any extension of gun rights and is using the current uproar to stop a reasonable bill from being passed.  Neither bill would alter the laws in New Mexico!

For example, New Mexico does not allow concealed carry in establishments whose primary business is to sell liquor by the glass (bars) while Arizona does allow that as long as the person carrying the concealed weapon does not consume alcohol.  The Senate bills would grant Arizona concealed carry licensees the same rights in New Mexico as permit holders from New Mexico.  The fact that their law is less restrictive than New Mexico's would not allow them to violate New Mexico's law.  All the Senate bills would do would be to force states to recognize concealed permits from other states if, and only if, the state granted concealed carry permits.  


Some states, California for example, issue concealed carry permits to select individuals rather than all legal, law-abiding, citizens.  In California, Senator Feinstein would easily qualify for a concealed permit while "Joe Gardener" would not.  A majority of states, including New Mexico, are now "shall-issue" with respect to concealed carry permits.  This means that any person who meets the statuary requirements in the state and satisfies certain state-specified training requirements, will be issued a permit.  This generally precludes felons, persons with DUI convictions, persons with mental defects, etc.  The only real difference is training.  Arizona , for example, requires just 8 hours of training while New Mexico requires 15 hours of training.  If you think that is a big deal, consider that New mexico already recognizes Arizona permit holders.  The Senate bills would only codify what is already New Mexico policy.  The Senate bills would also make New Mexico permits valid in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and Florida.  Currently our permits are not recognized in those states although Arizona's, with fewer hours of training required, are.  Out permits would also be recognized in California since they do issue concealed carry permits.


California, in LA and San Francisco, tends to be more left-oriented.  That is, those two population centers tend to vote more left than right.  The left, in general, has bought into the idea that more restrictions on gun ownership and deployment makes a safer city.  I actually published a post (see link) that clearly refutes that position.  That post shows that places are generally no more safe with restrictive gun laws than with reasonable laws, such as New Mexico's, that allow law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons.  There is no evidence, no reasonable evidence anyway, to support the far-left's position on gun control!  If you look at the post, you might even conclude that states with less restrictive gun laws are safer although I am not saying that.



Concealed carry permit holders have some training in the laws of their own state.  George Zimmerman, for example, would not have been legally allowed to accost Trayvon Martin in New Mexico or Arizona.  I don't know how this will play out in Florida.  None of us know the evidence in that case.  George Zimmerman may be convicted, acquitted, or the jury might be hung.  He might be shown to have acted in violation of the law or to have properly discharged his firearm.  The stand-your-ground portions of the Florida self-defense statute may or may not be an issue.  In any event, the George Zimmerman case does not reflect on S2188 and S2213.


Senator Tom Udall has promised to fairly weigh this legislation.  What that means is anyone's guess until he actually votes.  If the vote is strictly based on gun rights, I estimate that it is 60/40 that he will vote for the bills.  If the bills become mired in partisan politics, Udall cannot be counted on to vote for the bills.  Our other Senator, Senator Bingaman, can likely not be swayed as he is not running for re-election.


Please raise your voice to support S2188 and S2213 and to not allow Senator Feinstein, from California, to affect our rights to bear arms in New Mexico and the other states in our great country.  Senator Udall can be reached at tomudall.Senate.gov. 

O'Malley, Benton, and Garduño are at it again

Debbie O'Malley, Isaac Benton, and Ray Garduño are at it again.  That is, they are putting up a lot of smoke to obscure their vote on the Paseo Del Norté interchange funding proposed by Mayor Richard Berry.  This time they were joined by fellow Democrat, Ken Sanchez, in a party line vote to censure the Police Department by calling for a DOJ (Department of Justice) investigation of the department.

This came up last year as a council resolution and was vetoed by Mayor Berry.  There were not enough votes to override his veto.  I am not sure of his logic but let me state that the DOJ is already investigating the shootings in Albuquerque over the last few years and will take action if there are actionable issues.  Having the City Council call for a DOJ investigation is strictly a no-confidence vote by the council for the Albuquerque Police Department.

Really?  Is that the message you want to send to the people in the city protecting the rest of us from danger?  More likely this is a shallow, political, gesture to distract the voters from their failure to act on the Paseo Del Norté interchange funding.

The issue for which they claim to be requesting help from the DOJ (yes, Eric Holder's Department of Justice) is that the Albuquerque Police Department has shot, and in many instances killed, several suspects over the last two years, allegedly in an improper fashion.  Now, none of these "august" councilmen/councilwomen will actually say that they believe the actions to be improper, only that Eric Holder's DOJ, the same people who brought you 'gun-walking', 'Operation Fast and Furious', and trials of terrorists on US soil, could do a better job than we, the people, of Albuquerque.

Leaving aside the issue of whether Eric Holder's department is truly qualified given its current leadership (there are still plenty of honest career law enforcement types there), what would they discover if they went through the records of the police shootings over the last 2 1/2 years?  They would find that almost all of  the incidents (according to news reports) involved suspects with weapons or grappling with officers for their weapons.  True, some of the suspects' families allege otherwise but grand juries, composed of citizens of Albuquerque, have cleared the officers involved.

True, there are a couple of officers with inflammatory comments but their actions still appear to be reasonable.

What all of us non-officers might ask is whether there was justification for deadly force.  Here we have to trust our system.  We have police internal affairs boards, citizen review panels, and an independent judge who oversee all of the actions of out police department.  Add to that the fact that every police department in the US is subject to review by the DOJ and there is little to fear that justice will not be served.  There is absolutely no need, except to distract the public from one's voting record, to vote to request a DOJ review.  Also, it is fine to watch TV cops avoid using deadly force but it is another to put one's own life on the line and have to try to enforce the laws and not be killed.  Hats off to out police department.

Shame on councilors Debbie O'Malley, Isaac Benton, and Ray Garduño, and Ken Sanchez for their vote.

If you want to take the time to review the reported facts, take the time to look over the data.  Now, the facts cited below are not the same as the data reviewed by the internal affairs boards, grand juries, independent judges, and DOJ, they have better and more complete data.  But, seriously, they speak of officers faced with a life-threatening situation who had to make a shoot or be killed decision in seconds.  These officers deserve our support.  That is not to say that a DOJ review is a bad thing, only that it will happen without the posturing by councilors Debbie O'Malley, Isaac Benton, Ray Garduño, and Ken Sanchez.  The facts as reported in the news media are shown below.  Note that I removed the officer names to avoid additional pressure on them.  Also, most of the hyperlinks are to TV News.  If you have a subscription to the Albuquerque Journal, there are more additional citetions in that publication but they are not available w/o a subscription.  For this reason, they are not citesd as often but I spent an entire day going through their archives to get the data and then searched the web for alternate sources.  The Journal remains an excellent source although some reporters have an anti-police bias.

There may be better data than this but the reported events overwhelmingly suggest that the actions taken by the police were justified.

2010 shootings.

No	Date	Victim Name	Weapon Y/N	Remarks
1	1/9/2010	Aaron Renfro	Y	ABQ Journal Link
2	1/13/2010	Kenneth Ellis	Y	ABQ Journal Story
3	1/29/2010	Wayne Cordova	?	KRQE Link Initial reports reported that Cordova had something wrapped around his hand.  ABQ Journal story in archives.
4	3/30/2010	Mickey Owings	N	Suspect rammed police with stolen automobile.  KRQE Link  ABQ Journal story in archives.
5	4/14/2010	Benjamin Marquez	Y	KRQE Link1, KRQE Link2
6	6/10/2010	Chris Hinz	Y	KRQE Link 10 year SWAT veterans
7	6/15/2010	Julian Calbert	Y	KRQE Link 3 yr veteran
8	7/28/2010	Len Fuentes	Y	KRQE Link 3 year veteran.  KOAT Link reported that Grand Jury cleared Hollier.
9	8/18/2010	Enrique Carrasco	Y	KRQE Link 3 year veteran ABQ Journal Link reported Brown cleared by Grand Jury
10	9/15/2010	Todd Barr	Y	KRQE Link 4 year veteran.  Cleared by Grand Jury per ABQ Journal Link
11	10/19/2010	Daniel Gonzales	Y	KRQE Link Man shot in Tucumcari after APD SWAT called out by State Police
12	10/31/2010	Alexi Sinkevitch	Y	KRQE Link 2 year veteran
13	11/12/2010	Ray Russell Tenorio	Y	KRQE Link
14	3/4/2010	Unknown	?	Officer fired at but missed car

2011 shootings:

No	Date	Victim Name	Weapon Y/N	Remarks
1	2/10/11	Jacob Mitschelen	Y	KRQE Link.  Later reports saying that Mitschelen was shot in back were clarified by Deputy Chief Paul Feist in KRQE Link 2.
2	3/22/2011	Jerry Perea	N	KRQE Link Perea died after being tasered by officers.  Man was high on Meth and obese.
3	4/12/2011	Chris Torres	Y?	KRQE Link1 Indicates that Torres wrestled with second detective over weapon and was shot by Brown.  KRQE Link2 quotes family members as denying this.
4	5/11/2011	Alan Gomez	Y	Gomez had hostages and was reported to be armed.  When shot was not carrying gun but officer had no way of knowing.
5	6/5/2011	Raymond Grey Garcia	Y	3, 3, & 6Yrs KOB Link
6	6/27/2011	Orlando Paisano	Y	KRQE Link Lujan shot Paisano after being attacked with 15 inch bayonet.
7	8/8/2011	Unidentified	Y	KRQE Link Man throwing Ax shot w/bean bag gun.
8	8/31/2011	Michael Marquez	Y	KRQE Link Shot by APD sniper (16 yr veteran) after pointing AK47.

Iran, Syria, Afghanistan, and the Obama Administration

It is beginning to look more and more like President Obama will deplore the Syrian crackdown, the Iranian quest for nuclear weapons, and the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan forever.   This is regardless of what ever happens in those three countries.  Mr. Obama has done little to aid the Syrian rebels, continues to 'jawbone' the Iranian state, and has proposed withdrawing funding from Afghanistan security forces even as he withdraws troops from there.

This country's appetite for war is down drastically since 9/11 and perhaps the administration's actions just reflect the current attitudes in the country.  The actions in Afghanistan may condemn the women in that country to Sharia law and have likely endangered the remaining US troops.  According to an excellent article in the Wall Street Journal this morning (see link), the failure to act in Syria has enabled the Assad regime to kill over 10,000 of Syria's citizens and to imprison 200,000 more.  The inaction on Iran also leaves us questioning the motives of the administration.

With the exception of its failure in Afghanistan, a war supposedly favored by Mr. Obama, the inaction in Syria and Iran may reflect wider issues for which we have inadequate knowledge.  Whether that is true or not, President Obama owes the US (voting) population a clearer explanation of the situation there and his failure to act.  Right now the administration looks as effective as a high school football team attempting to perform in the NFL.

Error in yesterday's post

Yesterday's post in response to an Albuquerque Journal article had an arithmetic mistake in the table of data.  I erroneously reported 15.24 homicides per 100,000 for the city of Chicago.  The correct number is 14.98 deaths/100,000.  While this is still double the rate in Albuquerque, it was still an error.  The post has been corrected.

Albuquerque Journal and Gun Control

Joline Gutierez Krueger wrote today in the Albuquerque Journal of the trail of two handguns purchased in Albuquerque that were used by the purchaser in a spree killing in Pittsburgh.  The tone of the article suggested that the killer would not have taken the action that he did if he had not been able to legally purchase the handguns in New Mexico and, by implication, that we could make the world a safer place by passing more restrictive laws on individual gun sales.  The killer purchased the guns from an Albuquerque resident but was, in fact, a person with a previously treated psychological condition.  The purchaser did not make that information available to the seller.  So, Ms. Gutierez-Krueger implied that a simple change of gun sale requirements would have made this sale impossible.

First, it is in no one’s advantage to have a person illegally use a gun in a crime.  It casts a bad light on legal gun owners, and violent crime is not good for anyone.  At question is whether more restrictive gun laws actually decrease violent crime.  Statistics in Chicago, Washington DC, and Mexico, would argue against that.  The two cities have the most restrictive gun laws in the nation and violent crime in them is much higher than here.  The 2010 FBI Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics show that Chicago and Washington DC have homicide rates that are double to triple the rates in Albuquerque:

City	Homicides	Population	Deaths/100,000	Reference
Albuquerque	42	545,389	7.71	FBI UCR Statistics (See Link)
Chicago	432	2,883,649	14.98	FBI UCR Statistics (See Link)
District of Columbia	132	601,732	21.94	FBI UCR Statistics (See Link)
Mexico	-	-	18	Wikipedia (See Link)

A true proponent of more restrictive gun laws will argue that most of the homicides are because of citizens purchasing guns in more permissive states.  To put that argument in perspective consider that legal gun sales in Mexico are nearly as restrictive as the UK with sales limited to a single gun store in Mexico City.  Those restrictions have not helped Mexico avoid high murder rates.  Their murder rate is 18 per 100,000 persons while the rate in the US as a whole is only 4.8 per hundred thousand.Certainly these rates do not argue effectively that increased gun restrictions would make the country a safer place.

It would be nice for an individual seller to have the option of doing an instant check on a purchaser.  Currently that is not available to the individual seller of firearms.