Kari in Wonderland

There's a point in every campaign where a candidate for office does something or reveals a piece of information so strange that you can't help but wonder about their sanity.

Brandenburg's office doesn't exactly fit the "Law & Order" mold.

She has several plush animals in her office that sing, including a bear rug and a deer head on the wall. She is known to dance to the animals as they break out with such tunes as "Sweet Home Alabama."

- Albuquerque Journal (Subscription)

Huh? Dancing in her office while the deer and the bear rug play? Never mind that the DA's office has been a no show on voter fraud. Never mind Brandenburg's single minded obsession with putting the innocent behind bars. Never mind her plea before prosecute mentality. It's quite possible the District Attorney for the 2nd Judicial District is insane.

In the corner of her office is a large refrigerator. On top is a case of A&W Root Beer and inside the freezer are gallons of ice cream.

"I don't like soda," she says. "We were having root beer float day for everyone in the office."

Brandenburg prides herself on being able to improve morale. It was part of her platform when she first elected eight years ago.

- Albuquerque Journal (Subscription)

What?! Hey, we like an occasional root beer float as much as the next Eye, but shouldn't one of our top law enforcement officials be more concerned about putting criminals in prison?

This is just bizarre and more than a little alarming. We've got a DA dancing in her office while her stuffed animals sing and serving up root beer floats while repeat offenders like Clifton Bloomfield are cut pleas and set loose on the public. It's like Alice... or at least Kari in Wonderland.

Terrible Job

Chief Schultz has never done well with Eye readers and last week's Eye Poll was no exception. 70% of readers felt that the unpopular chief doing either a not so good job or a terrible job, while only 20% felt he was doing either a good or excellent job. Those are not the kind of numbers that any politician or government official would like to see if they plan on staying in their job.

In our unscientific poll of 359 people, 13% felt the chief was doing an excellent job, 7% a good job, 8% a fair job, 13% a not so good job, 1% didn't know, and a whopping 53% thought that the chief was doing a terrible job (view the results here).

This week we take another look at the race for district attorney. There have been a lot of stories lately on the activities of incumbent DA Kari Brandenburg. We have a hard time believing that Torroco could improve upon the 70% that she received earlier, but most of the publicity hasn't been exactly flattering for Brandenburg (or her stuffed animals). But one thing is sure, the DA's race is now receiving the attention that it deserves. Don't forget to vote!

Questionable Judgement

After the arrest but before the courtroom District Attorney's are charged with making decisions about who will be prosecuted and who will not. We got our Eyes on the motion filed yesterday by alleged murderer Clifton Bloomfield... you know the one charging DA Kari Brandenburg with prosecutorial misconduct. It's interesting reading to say the least, but it all boils down to this claim:

The Statements Provided by Clifton Bloomfield were Provided in Furtherance of Plea Negotiations and are Barred from Disclosure by the Prosecution, yet some of the Contents were Leaked to the Media, in Violation of the Rules of Evidence and Professionalism.

-Liane Kerr, Attorney for Clifton Bloomfield (Request for Dismissal)

According to the filing, inadmissible and confidential information concerning three murders was leaked to the media in violation of a confidentiality agreement covering plea negotiations. Further, Kerr's motion alleges that Brandenburg kept changing the terms of the plea agreement.

We all know that District Attorney Brandenburg has a history of heading straight to a plea bargain - do not pass a judge, do not see a jury. But Clifton Bloomfield is suspected of as many as SIX MURDERS - at least two of which have DNA evidence linking him to the killings. If Bloomfield is guilty of killing even one person - he shouldn't be in prison he should be under it.

We'd argue that it's her job to try the case not to plead it - particularly when the accused has such a long criminal record and most people would consider him nothing less than a serial killer. There's little doubt that Clifton Bloomfield is a danger to society and should be permanently removed from society. In addition, we'd argue that he's the type of career criminal that the death penalty was meant for.

Now, because a DA in a hotly contested election leaks information to the press there's a possibility that a serial murderer could go free. It reminds us of another DA in another jurisdiction using a racially charged rape case as a vehicle to victory.

Brandenburg may even be playing fast and loose with the facts in order to save her political career. In a recent New Mexico Bar Association Forum she made two claims that our Eyes tell us were not factual regarding the Elton John Richard case. The first that the fleeing felon Daniel Romero was shot in the back and the second was that before being shot he was yelling "put down the gun."



You'll notice in the video that Brandenburg uses "back" and "under the arm" interchangeably. With all due respect there's a huge difference. If Romero was shot in the back he was fleeing. If on the other hand he was shot under the arm, then it's far more likely that Romero was lunging for Richard at the time he was shot.

The other problem with Brandenburg's statement at the Bar Association Forum was the claim that Romero was yelling "put down the gun." There were no witnesses at the scene of the shooting that could have heard any statements by either party. Brandenburg seems to be playing a game of spin the facts to make them fit her actions in order to justify prosecuting a Marine whose actions made us all safer.

Challenger Lisa Torroco made the argument that if the evidence showed that Richard chased Romero a quarter of a mile and shot him in the back - Richard should have been charged with 1st degree murder. On the other hand, if Richard chased Romero for a quarter of a mile attempting to detain the felon and shot him under the arm defending himself, then the case against the former Marine should have been dropped.

Whether it's the case of mentally retarded Robert Gonzales who sat in jail for 3 years for the murder of an 11 year old girl despite exculpatory forensic evidence, the case of a decorated Marine defending himself and his family, or the case of an alleged serial murderer (subscription) who could be set free due to questionable actions by the DA herself, Brandenburg's head-long rush for an easy conviction is punishing the innocent and endangering the lives of all of those who reside in the 2nd Judicial District. Questionable judgment? Absolutely.

----- Update ------
Yesterday, Clifton Bloomfield cut a deal with the DA's office and his attorney withdrew her motion to dismiss. In the deal, Bloomfield admitted to killing five of the six people he was linked to murdering (ABQ Journal - Subsription).

DA Brandenburg called it a "deal with the devil," and in this case we agree. The question remains, if Bloomfield did it why are Lee and Rowley still in jail? If Lee and Rowley were part of any of the six murders, why didn't the plea agreement include testimony against the pair? APD announced there would be more arrests next week, if that's the case we're talking a real criminal enterprise here.

If Lee and Rowley were involved, they need to have a date with a needle. If holding the two and promising more arrests is a ploy aimed at job security then the DA is playing with Constitutional fire that could burn her even if she manages to hang on to her job.

----- Correction -----
We initially named a Richard Gomez as the mentally retarded man accused of rape and murder. Thanks to a reader who sent us an email correcting our mistake. The accused was Robert Gonzales. It has been corrected above.

Principle

From time to time our vocation gets in the way of our avocation. In fact, we haven't even had the opportunity to watch this week's Presidential Debate. Don't worry, we have it tucked away on TIVO and will be reviewing both candidates performances for ourself.

Apparently, John McCain brought up the idea of adjusting principle amounts for "toxic" loans purchased by the government under the bailout bill. We've been challenged by our readers over the issue and rightly so. Most of the comments went something like this one:

Eye are you planning on ever addressing the fact that McCain directly proposed adjusting mortgage principals to match current market values during the second debate? Do you actually care about this issue or are you just casting about for things to attack Obama/Biden on?

It must make you feel pretty dumb when you go out on a limb to write an attack piece in support of your candidate and then your candidate comes out in favor of and even more extreme version of what you attacked his opponents for, doesn't it?

It's a fair criticism... sort of. The fact is we don't care which candidate or party supports readjusting the principle value of a loan whether that loan is "toxic" or not. Wealth redistribution is wealth redistribution regardless of the party proposing it and regardless of the reasoning behind the move. It's immoral and it's wrong.

(Sidebar)
You'll note that we haven't been blaming either party for the current mortgage debacle. The fact is they both had a hand in Fannie and Freddy's irresponsible trade in "affordable housing" loans - loans that were made to people who could never repay them.

Whether it was President Bush and his "culture of ownership" or Jimmy Carter's affirmative action for loans - government policies directly harmed the financial markets and all of those who were given those "toxic" mortgages.
(End Sidebar)

If the government purchases a "toxic" loan at full value and then lowers the principle, tax payers are giving the mortgage holder not only the difference in principle but the difference in the interest that would have been collected over the life of the loan. To the taxpayer it's an immediate loss followed by a long-term earnings loss - all with the stroke of a politician's pen.

This is the type of "maverick" crap that drives us crazy. McCain is consistently inconsistent and a good portion of the time he betrays his own party in the process. Democrats and Independents have always loved him for it - while conservatives are busy pulling the knife(s) from their backs.

This isn't the first time that we've been on the sharp end of one of McCain's knifes and we're quite sure that it won't be the last. However, McCain's failings don't make Obama fit to be President. Wealth redistribution through government spending and regulation are at the core of Obama's philosophy (or at least at the core of whoever it is that's pulling his strings).

We're going to have to drag Senator McCain over the finish line, and then deal with what he does in the Oval Office. We have to save the country from Obama, and then save it (and the Republican Party) from whoever McCain puts in his cabinet. We're going to have to do it one step at a time. Do not throw in the towel.

- Rush Limbaugh

If you want "maverick" - McCain is your choice. If you want limited government, restrained spending, and personal freedom - McCain is your only choice despite his propensity to betray each of those principles from time to time.

Our principles on the other hand, will not change. Biden was wrong when proposed resetting principle values. McCain was wrong when he proposed doing the same.

For now it's more important that we save the country and ourselves from a man who would make the biggest corporation in the world, larger, more wasteful, and more intrusive - while taking our money, our liberty, and endangering our lives. Without doubt that man is Barack Hussein Obama - an anathema to liberty and prosperity.

Eye Poll: No Bailout

Eye readers were overwhelmingly opposed to bailing out Wall Street. Last week's unscientific poll had 69% of Eye readers saying no way to a bailout, 22% absolutely supported the move, 8% didn't know, and another 1% didn't care (see the results here).

Congress passed the plan that our readers so overwhelmingly rejected on Friday of last week. The pork infested bailout was supposed to be good news to the markets, but so far today we've seen the Dow off over 600 points. Pundits and politicians will have us believe that the market hasn't seen the taxpayer moolah and won't for a couple of months yet therefore the bailout isn't reflected in today's selloff.

Perhaps Wall Street has figured out that all the bailout does is transfer bad debt from financial institutions to government institutions. Instead of having financial institutions collapse we're placing a long-term burden on taxpayers at a time when the Baby Boom Bomb is getting ready to explode. Of course, what is $700 BILLION compared to the TRILLIONS of dollars the social security debacle will cost all of us.

Last week's post on the APD Citywide briefing (read it here) incited a number of passionate responses. It got us thinking about the chief's job performance and whether or not you approve. So that's this week's Eye Poll. Don't forget to vote!

Obamination: Theft As A Policy

The policies of wealth redistribution and market control are and have been the foundation of Democratic economic thought since FDR and The Great Depression. Progressive taxation is one of the vehicles for transferring money from producers to non-producers.

One of our readers pointed out a comment by Senator Biden in last week's Vice Presidential debate that called for extending the authority of government to not only buy up toxic assets but to reset the value of the principle owed. This isn't the first time we've recently heard Democratic leaders talking about changing principle values. It's predictable really and just an extension of the core philosophy of Progressive thought.

The reasoning behind the move is to adjust principle values for properties that were bought at higher market values to current market conditions in order to protect those who are "upside down" in their homes. In other words, these property owners are in a situation where they owe more than the property is worth.

(Sidebar)
Over the past few weeks the concept of a free market has taken somewhat of a beating. The fact is that we are the market. Our freedom to negotiate the exchange of goods or services is a foundational part of our individual liberty. When we lose the freedom of exchange we lose the freedom to be rewarded for our achievements.
(End Sidebar)

It's the type of policy that warms the cockles of most Progressive's hearts. But it's also the type of dangerous policy that - despite the $700 BILLION Bailout and Pork-fest passed by Congress - would ultimately make money harder for home buyers to get.

Say for example, you and your neighbor engage in a voluntary transaction where you loan your lawn mower and your weed whacker to them. The neighbor agrees not only to repay (return) your lawn mower and weed whacker but to refill their gas tanks and provide you with an additional gallon of gas.

The lawn mower and weed whacker are the principle, the gas is the interest. Along comes Barrack Hussein O'Biden who decide that the extra gas is really asking for too much. In addition, your neighbor who can't afford to maintain their lawn really needs your weed whacker to help them. So the O'Biden boys change the terms of your agreement forgiving them the additional gallon of gas and allowing your neighbor to keep your weed whacker.

What do you think will happen the next time your neighbor shows up on your doorstep to borrow something? That's right... you're not gonna' give him the time of day fearing the O'Biden boys will show up and make you pay for it.

Government intervention in a private transaction never benefits either party. The lender loses money and stops lending. The borrower ultimately ends up unable to borrow what they need. The only "winner" is the politician who convinces the borrower that they're getting something for free and that their benefactor is the intervening politician.

In addition, Obama and Biden are hawking a "progressive" tax scheme that they claim only raises taxes on those rich people who make over $250,000 a year. Like the O'Biden idea of allowing the government to reset principle amounts, this Robin Hood tax policy is appealing until you take a look at who actually pays.

Who are these evil "rich people" that should be required to pay more of their earnings? As you drive around town take a look at all of those local businesses that line the major streets. They're hardware stores, lock smiths, beauty salons, pet groomeries, and restaurants. These are your friends and neighbors that have invested their money, time, sweat, and tears in a business that they believe in. These are the people that make Albuquerque unique - not the big boxes, department stores, and chain restaurants that can be found in any city anywhere in the country. And these are the very people that O'Biden propose to increase taxes on.

When faced with increased taxes small businesses look at the increase as an increase in the cost of doing business. Their only choices are to absorb the increased cost of doing business, increase prices to their customers, or go out of business. So you see, the middle class - those who Obama and crew claim to be protecting - really face higher prices or the loss of goods or services.

If that sounds familiar that's because it's no different that the lender who makes a contract with a borrower to lend a specific amount of money for a set amount of profit who has both the profit and the amount to be repaid arbitrarily set by some politician.

You'll hear The Anointed One and his chief acolyte Biden talking about fairness. What is fair about forcing someone whose hard work earns them an amount of wealth that is in excess of some arbitrary line? What is fair about changing the terms of a freely and legally negotiated contract?

What Obama proposes is no different than the local hoodlum stealing your wallet at knifepoint. Make no mistake, if Obama becomes President he will work to take from those who have earned in order to give to those who haven't. The middle class will pay for that redistribution through higher prices for goods and services, and shortages caused by small businesses that are unable to absorb Obama's small business hold-up.

Democratic leaders have long advocated this type of theft as a policy - stealing from one group to give to another in exchange for political power. In this way (as in many others) Obama isn't change - he's the logical result of class warfare politics, the stock and trade of the Democratic Party since the '30's.

We don't believe that your everyday Democrat truly believes that it's right to steal. We believe that they're good people who want to see everyone succeed. The problem is success cannot be given, it has to be earned. And while there's little doubt that Republicans lost their way... It is certain that an Obama Presidency would be a gigantic leap toward more government, more taxes, and less liberty.

Pale-in Comparison

We just finished watching the debate... you know the one, between the mocked Sarah Palin and Senator Joe Biden. We wish that we could have been as excited about the last debate between The Anointed One and John McCain, but really there wasn't anything all that exciting about a stodgy senator and a stuffed suit. Both were predictable and both were infuriating for different reasons.

Tonight's debate couldn't have been better prepared for a Palin victory. What made it all the sweeter was all of the prep work was done not by the McCain campaign "lowering expectations" but by the irrational hatred of John McCain's running mate Sara Palin.

The far left - frothing at the mouth - spent the last few weeks trying to turn the Governor from Alaska into the idiot sister of the village idiot. They were wrong then and tonight they were proved wrong once again. Sarah Palin did a credible job representing her ticket and herself.

To be fair, Senator Joe Biden didn't do a bad job he just didn't do anything to distinguish himself. Biden did exactly what people expected. He was smooth, he was congenial, he came off knowledgeable, but all of those things are expected from a thirty year U.S. Senator.

Meanwhile, Biden's opponent looked the public directly in the eye and told them about her core values. There was no condescension or superiority, there was simple expression and acceptance. She showed who she was, and she was loyal to her ticket.

Sarah Palin's energy and her ability to be herself is her strength - she showed that tonight. The contest left Senator Biden pale in comparison.