The Weekly Sedition

Monday, 9 March 2015

[LPNM] Does “Everybody” Truly Support Laws Against “Predatory” Lending? (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Economics, Politics, Principles — Tags: , , , , , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 5:42 PM

Subject: Does “Everybody” Truly Support Laws Against “Predatory” Lending?
Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2015 22:33:50 -0700
From: Mike Blessing
To: Albuquerque Journal

Ms. Nathalie Martin recently wrote in a guest column titled “Remember who votes against cap on loan interest rates” that

“The bottom line is that everybody favors the cap, except the legislators who have lined their pockets with industry funds.”

I for one do not favor the proposed cap, as it pushes those who can’t qualify for loans from businesses that meet with Ms. Martin’s approval to the extra-legal market — the gangs, Mafia remnants and such.

I submit that losing a car title for nonpayment is much less stressful than having your fingers or leg broken. But maybe that’s just me?

Still, I don’t remember being directly polled on this issue in any way, shape or form, so I have to ask — what sort of polling did Ms. Martin undertake?

To which polling firm was this contracted out?

What was the sample size? What was the demographic breakdown of the respondents? What was the poll format — telephone, direct mail, via the web, or face-to-face?

Another loaded line from the article:

“One-thousand percent interest loans hurt New Mexicans, and we unquestionably need to destroy these high-cost lenders before they destroy us.”

One easy way to avoid being “destroyed” by high-interest lenders is to simply not do business with them. I’ve gotten offers through the mail from such outfits in the past, and never been close to being “destroyed” — I simply put the mailings into the shredder.

Who owns you? Who runs your life? Who should — you or someone else?
Freedom is the answer — what’s the question?

“Government is the disease that masquerades as its own cure.”
— Robert LeFevre

“If you wanna live long on your own terms
You gotta be willing to crash and burn”
— Motley Crue, “Primal Scream”


  1. Approximate reading level – 9
  2. Reposted –
    1. LPUSA / LPNM
      1. Libertarian Party of New Mexico – Blog / Facebook group / Facebook page
      2. New Mexico Libertarians Facebook group
    2. Albuquerque Journal article

Copyright © 2015 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++ and KWrite.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Tuesday, 19 March 2013

The “Sequester,” The Budget and Other Goodies

Filed under: Economics, Politics — Tags: , , , , , , — mikewb1971 @ 12:41 AM

Taking note of an article in The Weekly StandardReporter Asks Carney: Will Obama Cut Back on Lavish Vacations, Golf Trips?

So I guess a cut of 85,000,000,000[1] out of a budget of 3,800,000,000,000[1] really isn’t such a bad thing after all, is it? Maybe, just maybe . . . they could, you know, cut a bit more?

Dare I hope for such “slash and burn” legislation?

Never mind that no such budget has actually been passed by both U.S. House and U.S. Senate and been signed by Dear Leader Obama, as the U.S. Constitution supposedly requires?

Isn’t someone who was allegedly a “Constitutional law professor” supposed to notice things like these?

How is it that I, with ZERO formal schooling beyond the high school level in the law, the legislative process or the political process can notice this, but 535 people who allegedly swore to uphold and defend the Constitution blow it off without a second thought?

In my opinion, it would be worth it to pay Obama (and Biden, and Boehner, and the other 534 idiots) 1,000,000 a year, tax free, to do nothing but play golf all year around.

Just make sure that they understand that the deal is OFF the second any of them picks up any sort of writing implement or touches any sort of keyboard.


  1. These numbers are ballpark wild-assed guesstimates, of course. As the cliche goes, “close enough for government work.”
  2. I have a habit of using the null set symbol (“∅”) to represent Federal Reserve Notes as opposed to the “dollar sign” (“$”), because the dollar is supposed to be backed by gold or silver, where the Federal Reserve Note is redeemable upon government demand from yours and my life, liberty, property and pursuit of happiness.
  3. Original article

Copyright © 2013 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++.

Tuesday, 12 May 2009

Loan Ruling Hurts Consumers (Letter to the Editor)

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 1:50 PM

Loan Ruling Hurts Consumers
by Bill Koehler

THE ARTICLE “Arbitration Clause Illegal” [1] said that this is a victory for the consumer. What total nonsense.

How does taking away the consumer’s as well as the lender’s freedom benefit anyone? The court said this was against public policy.

What does that mean? Basically, the lawyers don’t want to be prohibited from stealing.

Who is the real “winner” in all this? When legitimate lenders are regulated out of existence there will always be those who will fill the void just as there always are when any legitimate activity is prohibited. The real victory is for the loan sharks. They don’t need arbitration. they simply send a modern day Al Capone to collect — before he got in the booze business he handled collections. . . .

BILL KOEHLER Albuquerque

The Reverend Bill Koehler is New Mexico’s Consumer Advocate and the Press Secretary of the Libertarian Party of New Mexico


Friday, May 01, 2009

Arbitration Clause Is ‘Illegal’
By Joline Gutierrez Krueger

Score another one for the consumer.

The state Supreme Court this week struck down a payday loan company’s “self-serving” arbitration provision.

Such a provision, found in many consumer contracts, took away a consumer’s right to sue the company while the company retained its own rights to all legal remedies.

“A one-sided mandatory arbitration clause is now unenforceable and illegal in New Mexico,” Attorney General Gary King said Thursday, a day after the state’s highest court handed down its decision against World Finance Corp. of New Mexico in favor of Las Vegas, N.M., social worker Laura Cordova.

The case stems from a lawsuit Cordova filed in September 2006 against World Finance that accused the short-term lender of unreasonable debt collection and violating the Unfair Practices Act.

Cordova said the company besieged her for nearly three years with increasingly threatening, demanding phone calls to her office, home, relatives and boss when she couldn’t pay back her loans, at a 110 percent annual interest rate, after she fell ill.

The company challenged her right to a jury trial by invoking a clause in her contract that forced her into mandatory arbitration, a private dispute resolution system that bypasses the courts, overseen by an entity of the company’s choosing.

Such clauses are prevalent in contracts consumers often enter into when they sign up for a credit card, cell phone, loans, medical care or a job.

Cordova opposed World Finance’s effort to forced arbitration, and, in January 2007, a state District Court judge in Las Vegas agreed. The state Court of Appeals also sided with Cordova in June 2007.

World Finance appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Wednesday’s decision, written by Justice Charles Daniels, called World Finance’s arbitration clause one-sided, self-serving and therefore unenforceable.

The decision could ultimately effect a change in business practices statewide and possibly elsewhere, said Paul Bland, a lawyer with the Washington, D.C.-based Public Justice Foundation, who argued Cordova’s case before the state Supreme Court along with Albuquerque attorney Rob Treinen.

The state Attorney General’s Office and the AARP had also filed “friend of the court” briefs siding with Cordova.

Treinen said Cordova now has a chance to present her initial case against World Finance before average everyday citizens rather than an arbiter handpicked by the company she is suing.

Sunday, 6 January 2008

Public Campaign Financing

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 10:22 PM

At the Weekly Alibi’s story Best and Worst of 2007, I posted the following comment, as the Alibi is a staunch supporter of taxpayer-pays campaign financing

Maybe Re-Think the “Best” and “Worst” ?  (GunsSaveLives) [ Sun Jan 6 2008 4:04 PM ]


7. Supporters of public campaign financing need to be aware that they’re establishing a potential for black and hispanic voters to be taxed to support the Ku Klux Kandidate. Maybe other Alibi readers are OK with that, but there’s no way in Hell that I’ll sign off on that.

Am I the only one who remembers the 1992 gubernatorial election in Louisiana?

The Democrat was a guy by the Edwin Edwards, and was generally thought of as a crook.

There were two Republicans in the race, the incumbent (Buddy Roemer) and David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan. Roemer came in third, so Edwards and Duke went to a run-off election, where Duke was soundly defeated.

Remember that the population of Louisiana has a significant black (or “African-American,” if you prefer) component.

If Louisiana had been running a public-campaign financing scheme at the time, money would have been taxed away from those black voters and been given by the State of Louisiana to the Duke for Governor campaign coffers.

Back in September 1997, I was one of the co-hosts on Roundtable, a Crossfire-style round-robin show on Channel 27. Roundtable was produced by Richard Haley, who has since moved to California. I was one of the Libertarians who was featured, Milt Herman was representing the U.S. Taxpayers Party (now the Constitution Party), and Richard Damerow was there for the Reform Party.

John McCall was representing the Green Party at the time, and started the night’s show with a pitch for public campaign financing. I cut in and asked McCall, “Do you consider it morally acceptable for black and hispanic voters to be taxed to support the Aryan Nations or Ku Klux Klan candidate?”

His response? Not “let me think about it,” not “let me get back to you,” not “I hadn’t thought about that.”

His response was “Yeah — we need more voices in the debate.”

I was floored — how do you respond to that?

A few years later (December 2006), I was in the middle of a Central Committee meeting for the Libertarian Party of New Mexico [1](as of now, I’ve been the Secretary since June 2005), and Joe Knight proposed a resolution opposing Wild Bill Richardson’s ethics proposals, when one of the committee members spoke up in support of limiting campaign contributions and public campaign financing, as it “could be good to get corporations out of the picture.”

Again, I asked if we should consider it acceptable to tax black and hispanic voters to provide funds for candidates fielded by the Aryan Nations or the Ku Klux Klan – again, the answer was in the affirmative — we “don’t want special interests (corporations) to take over the government.”

All of this assumes, of course, that once candidate qualify for the public cash, they’re going to get it, regardless of other considerations, such as their partisan affiliation, where they or their party stands on certain issues, how well they’re connected to election officials, that sort of thing. And we know (of course) that election officials would never display any kind of bias on these sort of issues, right?

Actually, the exact opposite is true — just in the last 200 years of American history, there have been plenty of cases where candidates were kept off the ballot on the basis of their partisan affiliation (both Democrat and Republican, not to mention Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, etc.), their race, gender, religion, nationality, etc. And that’s just the informal ballot-line exclusions I’m talking about here — some of the more inclined towards politically-correctness might end up on the board or commission that determines who gets the public cash, and use their powers of office to rule against those they don’t like.

In short, taxpayer-pays campaign financing is a boondoggle at best, an atrocity at worst, as it forces people to support via taxation candidates that they wouldn’t ordinarily touch with a ten-foot pole.

[1] At present (6 January 2006) the domain name for the LPNM [] has expired due to issues over who has control of the domain account, so I linked above to the Myspace group.