Intelligence and how it relates to the individual and interpersonal relationships.

What is intelligence? Intelligence is the ability a person possesses that allows them to logically, precisely, and quickly reason out solutions to problems. It is based upon their capacity to learn, understanding relationships (both factual as well as abstract), and to some degree… their genetics.

How does one’s intelligence relate to their handling of interpersonal relationships? People with similar IQ’s tend to deal with each other on the same intellectual plane. Its when the IQ’s are grossly mismatched, that miscommunication and misunderstandings tend to occur. For example, when someone of average intelligence is trying to communicate with an individual that has severe mental limitations, concepts and language must be lowered to the lowest common denominator. Words that convey direct thoughts and unambiguous meanings work best. Much the same is true when someone having a high IQ interacts with one with an average IQ. But that’s just my opinion….

August 3, 2013August 4, 2013

9 Things You Didn’t Know About the Second Amendment

http://www.policymic.com/articles/24557/9-things-you-didn-t-know-about-the-second-amendment

1. The Second Amendment codifies a pre-existing right

The Constitution doesn’t grant or create rights; it recognizes and protects rights that inherently exist. This is why the Founders used the word “unalienable” previously in the Declaration of Independence; these rights cannot be created or taken away. In D.C. vs. Heller, the Supreme Court said the Second Amendment “codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed … this is not a right granted by the Constitution” (p. 19).

2. The Second Amendment protects individual, not collective rights

The use of the word “militia” has created some confusion in modern times, because we don’t understand the language as it was used at the time the Constitution was written. However, the Supreme Court states in context, “it was clearly an individual right” (p. 20). The operative clause of the Second Amendment is “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” which is used three times in the Bill of Rights. The Court explains that “All three of these instances unambiguously refer to individual rights, not ‘collective’ rights, or rights that may be exercised only through participation in some corporate body” (p. 5), adding “nowhere else in the Constitution does a ‘right’ attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right” (p. 6).

3. Every citizen is the militia

To further clarify regarding the use of the word “militia,” the court states “the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men” (p. 23). Today we would say it is all citizens, not necessarily just men. The Court explains: “’Keep arms’ was simply a common way of referring to possessing arms, for militiamen and everyone else” (p. 9). Since the militia is all of us, it doesn’t mean “only carrying a weapon in an organized military unit” (p. 11-12). “It was clearly an individual right, having nothing whatever to do with service in a militia” (p. 20).

4. Personal self-defense is the primary purpose of the Second Amendment

We often hear politicians talk about their strong commitment to the Second Amendment while simultaneously mentioning hunting. Although hunting is a legitimate purpose for firearms, it isn’t the primary purpose for the Second Amendment. The Court states “the core lawful purpose [is] self-defense” (p. 58), explaining the Founders “understood the right to enable individuals to defend themselves … the ‘right of self-preservation’ as permitting a citizen to ‘repe[l] force by force’ when ‘the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury’ (p.21). They conclude “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right” (p.56).

5. There is no interest-balancing approach to the Second Amendment

Interest-balancing means we balance a right with other interests. The court notes that we don’t interpret rights this way stating “we know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all” (p.62-63). This doesn’t mean that it is unlimited, the same as all rights (more on that below). However, the court states that even though gun violence is a problem to be taken seriously, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table” (p.64).

6. The Second Amendment exists to prevent tyranny

You’ve probably heard this. It’s listed because this is one of those things about the Second Amendment that many people think is made up. In truth, this is not made up. The Court explains that in order to keep the nation free (“security of a free state”), then the people need arms: “When the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny” (p.24-25). The Court states that the Founders noted “that history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents” (p. 25). At the time of ratification, there was real fear that government could become oppressive: “during the 1788 ratification debates, the fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia was pervasive” (p.25). The response to that concern was to codify the citizens’ militia right to arms in the Constitution (p. 26).

7. The Second Amendment was also meant as a provision to repel a foreign army invasion

You may find this one comical, but it’s in there. The court notes one of many reasons for the militia to ensure a free state was “it is useful in repelling invasions” (p.24). This provision, like tyranny, isn’t an everyday occurring use of the right; more like a once-in-a-century (if that) kind of provision. A popular myth from World War II holds Isoroku Yamamoto, commander-in-chief of the Imperial Japanese navy allegedly said “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Although there is no evidence of him saying this, there was concern that Japan might invade during WWII. Japan did invade Alaska, which was a U.S. territory at the time, and even today on the West Coast there are still gun embankments from the era (now mostly parks). The fact is that there are over 310 million firearms in the United States as of 2009, making a foreign invasion success less likely (that, and the U.S. military is arguably the strongest in the world).

8. The Second Amendment protects weapons “in common use at the time”

The right to keep and bear arms isn’t unlimited: “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited” (p. 54). The Court upheld restrictions like the prohibition of arms by felons and the mentally ill, and carrying in certain prohibited places like schools and courthouses. What is protected are weapons “in common use of the time” (p.55). This doesn’t mean weapons in common use “at that time,” meaning the 18th Century. The Court said the idea that it would is “frivolous” and that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” (p.8). The Court’s criteria includes weapons in popular widespread use “that [are] overwhelmingly chosen by American society” (p. 56), and “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans” (p. 58).

9. The Second Amendment might require full-blown military arms to fulfill the original intent

The Court didn’t rule specifically on this in D.C. vs. Heller, but noting that weapon technology has drastically changed (mentioning modern day bombers and tanks), they stated “the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large” (p. 55).

They further added that “the fact that modern developments [in modern weaponry] have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right” (p. 56). A full ruling has not been made, as this was not in the scope the court was asked to rule on in the D.C. vs. Heller case, but they left the door open for future ruling.

July 6, 2013

Is he a traitor?

Nicaragua and Venezuela willing to grant asylum to Edward Snowden

The White House declined to comment Friday after the Presidents of Venezuela and Nicaragua announced they were prepared to grant NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden asylum.

Although there were no concrete details from Presidents Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua or Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, it is believed that they are the first offers of asylum that Snowden has received since he requested asylum in several countries, including Nicaragua and Venezuela.

“As head of state, the government of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela decided to offer humanitarian asylum to the young American Edward Snowden so that he can live (without) … persecution from the empire,” President Maduro said, referring to the United States. He made the offer during a speech marking the anniversary of Venezuela’s independence. It was not immediately clear if there were any conditions to Venezuela’s offer.

In Nicaragua, Ortega said he was willing to make the same offer “if circumstances allow it.” Ortega didn’t say what the right circumstances would be when he spoke during a speech in Managua.

He said the Nicaraguan embassy in Moscow received Snowden’s application for asylum and that it is studying the request.

“We have the sovereign right to help a person who felt remorse after finding out how the United States was using technology to spy on the whole world, and especially its European allies,” Ortega said.

The White House on Friday refused to comment on the asylum offers, referring questions on the matter to the U.S. Justice Department, according to Reuters.

The offers came a day after left-wing South American leaders gathered to denounce the rerouting of Bolivian President Evo Morales’ plane in Europe earlier this week amid reports that Snowden might have been aboard.

Spain on Friday said it had been warned along with other European countries that Snowden, a former U.S. intelligence worker, was aboard the Bolivian presidential plane, an acknowledgement that the manhunt for the fugitive leaker had something to do with the plane’s unexpected diversion to Austria.

It is unclear whether the United States, which has told its European allies that it wants Snowden back, warned Madrid about the Bolivian president’s plane. U.S. officials will not detail their conversations with European countries, except to say that they have stated the U.S.’s general position that it wants Snowden back.

President Barack Obama has publicly displayed a relaxed attitude toward Snowden’s movements, saying last month that he wouldn’t be “scrambling jets to get a 29-year-old hacker.”

But the drama surrounding the flight of Bolivian President Evo Morales, whose plane was abruptly rerouted to Vienna after apparently being denied permission to fly over France, suggests that pressure is being applied behind the scenes.

Spanish Foreign Minister Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo told Spanish National Television that “they told us that the information was clear, that he was inside.”

He did not identify who “they” were and declined to say whether he had been in contact with the U.S. But he said that European countries’ decisions were based on the tip. France has since sent a letter of apology to the Bolivian government.

Meanwhile, secret-spilling website WikiLeaks said that Snowden, who is still believed to be stuck in a Moscow airport’s transit area, had put in asylum applications to six new countries.

The organization said in a message posted to Twitter on Friday that it wouldn’t be identifying the countries involved “due to attempted U.S. interference.” They also called for “all strong countries” in the Union of South American Nations to offer Snowden asylym.

A number of countries have already rejected asylum applications from Snowden.

Reuters and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

June 18, 2013June 18, 2013

Slippery Slope

Northern Colorado Gazette

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=11517Who%20s

Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals

Claim unfair to be stigmatized for sexual orientation

by Jack Minor –

Using the same tactics used by “gay” rights activists, pedophiles have begun to seek similar status arguing their desire for children is a sexual orientation no different than heterosexual or homosexuals.

Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.

In 1973 the American Psychiatric Association declassified homosexuality from its list of mental disorders. A group of psychiatrists with B4U-Act recently held a symposium proposing a new definition of pedophilia in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders of the APA.

B4U-Act calls pedophiles “minor-attracted people.” The organization’s website states its purpose is to, “help mental health professionals learn more about attraction to minors and to consider the effects of stereotyping, stigma and fear.”

In 1998 The APA issued a report claiming “that the ‘negative potential’ of adult sex with children was ‘overstated’ and that ‘the vast majority of both men and women reported no negative sexual effects from childhood sexual abuse experiences.”

Pedophilia has already been granted protected status by the Federal Government. The Matthew Shephard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act lists “sexual orientation” as a protected class; however, it does not define the term.

Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

The White House praised the bill saying, “At root, this isn’t just about our laws; this is about who we are as a people. This is about whether we value one another – whether we embrace our differences rather than allowing them to become a source of animus.”

Earlier this year two psychologists in Canada declared that pedophilia is a sexual orientation just like homosexuality or heterosexuality.

Van Gijseghem, psychologist and retired professor of the University of Montreal, told members of Parliament, “Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.”

Linda Harvey, of Mission America, said the push for pedophiles to have equal rights will become more and more common as LGBT groups continue to assert themselves. “It’s all part of a plan to introduce sex to children at younger and younger ages; to convince them that normal friendship is actually a sexual attraction.”

Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor and director of the Pacific Center for Sex and Society, stated that child pornography could be beneficial to society because, “Potential sex offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex against children.”

Diamond is a distinguished lecturer for the Institute for the Advanced Study of Human Sexuality in San Francisco. The IASHS openly advocated for the repeal of the Revolutionary war ban on homosexuals serving in the military.

The IASHS lists, on its website, a list of “basic sexual rights” that includes “the right to engage in sexual acts or activities of any kind whatsoever, providing they do not involve nonconsensual acts, violence, constraint, coercion or fraud.” Another right is to, “be free of persecution, condemnation, discrimination, or societal intervention in private sexual behavior” and “the freedom of any sexual thought, fantasy or desire.” The organization also says that no one should be “disadvantaged because of age.”

Sex offender laws protecting children have been challenged in several states including California, Georgia and Iowa. Sex offenders claim the laws prohibiting them from living near schools or parks are unfair because it penalizes them for life.

June 5, 2013August 16, 2017

Happy birthday…

You’ve been gone now as long as you were alive. The sadness still lingers but it’s time to let go of the anger. Happy birthday, Father.

Marco Antonio Yepes Reyes 1939 – 1976

March 28, 2013March 28, 2013

Yep, I called it!

Rather than Deal With Health-Care Reform, Doctors Mull Early Retirement

by Kate Rogers

Published March 27, 2013

FOXBusiness

American doctors are increasingly concerned about changes already implemented or coming to the health-care system, and some are opting to retire sooner than planned.

Deloitte’s 2013 survey of U.S. physicians found 57% doctors view changes in the industry under the Affordable Care Act as a threat, and six in 10 physicians report it’s likely that many will retire earlier than planned in the next two to three years. This trend could cause more widespread issues in the health-care system that is already coping with doctor and nurse shortages in some areas of the country.

The survey found these numbers to be fairly uniform among all doctors regardless of age, gender or medical specialty.

Fifty-seven percent also say the practice of medicine is in jeopardy, because the “best and brightest” may not consider a career in medicine under new requirements of the reform.

New Jersey-based family physician Marc Mayer, blames the new electronic medical records requirement under the reform as pushing doctors into retirement early. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act mandates practices use electronic medical records to reduce paper work, increase communications and cut costs and errors starting Oct. 1 2012.

“Those one and two-person practices with doctors in their late 50s and early 60s may think it’s too daunting of a change and retire early,” he says. “If they don’t do all of those [required] things, they will be looking at a drop in income.”

Jane Orient, executive director of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons, says the group has been surveying its members on early retirement and other topics for the past decade and has seen similar responses since the implementation of health-care reform. However, she says the economy will play a bigger role on how many doctors exit their practice.

“Some are looking at concierge models, some doctors will go work for hospitals because they just can’t cope with the crushing load of new regulations,” Orient says.

Physicians also report a decrease in take-home pay from 2011 to 2012 in the Deloitte survey, attributing the haircut to ObamaCare. More than half of respondents saw a 10% or less decrease in their paycheck in the past year. Half forecast that physician incomes will fall dramatically in the next one to three years. Sixty-eight percent of solo physicians report being more likely to have their incomes will fall than those in practices with two to nine physicians (51%) or those with more than 10 physicians (44%).

ObamaCare proposes to save money by “squeezing doctors’ ability to make money,” says Orient. Right now, about 50% of what doctors make goes to overhead costs, she adds, so a 10% cut in fees at doctors’ offices equates to a 20% cut in profits.

“A lot of our doctors are [concerned about profit loss] and say these threats and cuts are draconian. The requirements are impossible and if you combine that with the fact that a frightening proportion are aged 55 and older, many could retire if they wanted to,” she says.

Mayer’s practice, the Avenel-Iselin Medical Group is a patient-centered medical home, and has been able to participate in both Medicare and private commercial insurance programs. In 2013 and 2014, the law requires states to pay PCPs 100% of Medicare payment rates for services.

“They are paying us for care management fees, and we are now being paid for primary care physician services that we have always done but were never paid for.”

March 22, 2013

‘Unintended Consequences’ of ObamaCare

ObamaCare weighs in: CVS tells employees to reveal personal health info — or pay up

Published March 21, 2013

FoxNews.com

Looks like ObamaCare may be rearing its head. In the wake of the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, CVS is telling its employees they need to reveal their height, weight, body fat percent and other personal information for health insurance purposes.

The Rhode Island-based company, which employs around 200,000 individuals, is telling workers who use its health insurance they need to have a wellness review done — or pay up.

CVS says it will pay for the health reviews and the information will go to a third party administrator of CVS’s benefits, not CVS itself. According to the company, CVS bosses will not be able to access their employees’ health records.

The idea is to incentivize healthy living. CVS says the idea is nothing new.

“The idea of an employee wellness plan is perfectly legal under the ADA. Courts held up these plans,” said Joshua Kersey, a Tampa labor attorney. He says with “Obamacare” looming in 2014, practices like this wellness review are likely to become more common, because a lot of employers are expecting to pay more for their workers’ health insurance.

“The more money it’s going to save the employer, the more incentive the employer has to affect these types of programs,” he said.

In CVS’s case, workers not comfortable getting the review done will have to pay a $600 annual penalty.

“It is voluntary because you’re welcome to get healthcare through someone else,” he said.

In a statement, CVS says it’s implemented the program to try and keep employees as healthy as possible, and help them manage their costs.

March 19, 2013February 18, 2021

Magpul

Update from Magpul’s FaceBook page

Apparently Gov Hickenlooper has announced that he will sign HB 1224 on Wednesday. We were asked for our reaction, and here is what we said:

We have said all along that based on the legal problems and uncertainties in the bill, as well as general principle, we will have no choice but to leave if the Governor signs this into law. We will start our transition out of the state almost immediately, and we will prioritize moving magazine manufacturing operations first. We expect the first PMAGs to be made outside CO within 30 days of the signing, with the rest to follow in phases. We will likely become a multi-state operation as a result of this move, and not all locations have been selected. We have made some initial contacts and evaluated a list of new potential locations for additional manufacturing and the new company headquarters, and we will begin talks with various state representatives in earnest if the Governor indeed signs this legislation. Although we are agile for a company of our size, it is still a significant footprint, and we will perform this move in a manner that is best for the company and our employees.

It is disappointing to us that money and a social agenda from outside the state have apparently penetrated the American West to control our legislature and Governor, but we feel confident that Colorado residents can still take the state back through recalls, ballot initiatives, and the 2014 election to undo these wrongs against responsible Citizens.

March 19, 2013

Guns Suppliers To Leave Anti-2nd Amendment States

Regarding LEO Sales

March 1st, 2013

Back in 1990, when I was deployed in Desert Shield and Desert Storm as a Marine grunt, some companies prioritized me items for my M16 for shipping that I purchased with my own funds. After getting out and forming Magpul in 1999, I established the same priority policy for Military and Law Enforcement, due to the requirements of their profession.

The same policy has been in place for 13 years now and has never been an issue until a few days ago. I do not support the idea that individual police officers should be punished for the actions of their elected officials. That said, I understand the concerns that some have with Law Enforcement officers getting special treatment while at the same time denouncing second amendment rights to another citizen in the same state.

With the fight in Colorado right now we do not have time to implement a new program, so I have suspended all LE sales to ban states until we can implement a system wherein any Law Enforcement Officer buying for duty use will have to promise to uphold their oath to the US Constitution – specifically the second and fourteenth amendments – as it applies to all citizens.

Richard Fitzpatrick

President/CEO – Founder

Magpul Industries

March 16, 2013

This is how the liberals think government should act.

Funny, the liberals adored Chavez. Just take a look at the type of oppression those liberals supported. Why would they not think to run the United States the very same way if given a chance????

http://news.yahoo.com/venezuelas-opposition-ground-down-chavistas-064738425.html

Venezuela’s opposition ground down by Chavistas

By FRANK BAJAK | Associated Press – 22 hrs ago

View PhotoVenezuela’s acting President Nicolas …
A man rests next to a graffiti …

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) — The people tapped by Hugo Chavez to carry on his socialist revolution seem to be improvising the rules of governing as they march toward what most Venezuelans consider certain victory in a mid-April vote to replace the late president.

Chavez’s designated successor, Nicolas Maduro, and his ruling clique have repeatedly circumvented the constitution and exploited their monopoly on power to all but crush an opposition already crippled by years of government intimidation.

The odds are so stacked against opposition candidate Henrique Capriles that he has compared his run to being “led to a slaughterhouse and dropped into a meat grinder.”

Long before Chavez succumbed to cancer, Capriles and his supporters were already maligned and harassed, legally and financially, by the government, say human rights and press freedom analysts.

Now, they say, the repression is reaching new levels as the president’s heirs step up attacks to compensate for their lack of Chavez’s political acumen, charisma and moral authority.

Liliana Ortega, director of the COFAVIC human rights group, says the government acts with “military logic: You are loyal to me to the end. One small criticism, and you’re my enemy.”

The government has vilified Capriles as a “fascist” conspiring with U.S. putschists against the homeland. It hauls opposition leaders into court on criminal corruption charges. And it has impoverished Capriles’ campaign by wielding tax investigators against donors, the opposition says,

Venezuelans learned Monday that the owners of the last remaining TV channel critical of the government were selling the channel, under what they described as government coercion. And on Wednesday, Interior Minister Nestor Reverol announced the arrest of a 53-year-old woman for sending “destabilizing” messages on Twitter. He offered few details, and the woman could not be located.

All this as the Chavista leadership choreographs Maduro’s succession, dipping into a treasury fortified by revenues from the world’s largest oil reserves and wielding a state media machine that takes control of all airwaves at will.

“It is classic consolidation of power in a crisis,” said Adam Isacson, security analyst at the Washington Office on Latin America. “There was always an effort to at least put a patina of legality on what was being done. There was always a process. There’s not much of a process now.”

Information Ministry spokesman Oscar Lloreda said he doubted there would be a comment from the government about its tactics. “I don’t think there is a spokesman interested in responding to those accusations,” he said.

The improvisation began when the Supreme Court, stacked with Chavez loyalists, said the president’s new term could begin as scheduled although he wouldn’t be sworn in on Jan. 10 as specified by the constitution. Chavez was in Cuba at the time, battling a respiratory infection after his fourth cancer surgery.

After the president’s March 5 death, Maduro was sworn in as acting leader, Chavez’s wish for the man he named vice president after defeating Capriles in October by a 12-point margin.

The constitution says the National Assembly speaker should instead become interim leader if a president-elect dies before taking the oath of office. But no matter. The high court decision saying Chavez’s term had already begun let the government swear in Maduro.

Another Supreme Court ruling, issued during Chavez’s state funeral March 8, ratified Maduro as acting president.

The opposition screamed. The government ignored them.

At the swearing-in, more improvisation. Maduro claimed the armed forces’ allegiance to a din of applause. He pumped a fist in the air as the state TV camera turned to Defense Minister Diego Molero, who reciprocated the gesture from the gallery.

A state TV channel had already announced via Twitter that the military was with Maduro, ignoring a constitutional mandate of political neutrality for the armed forces.

On Monday, another display of ruling party hubris: Maduro registered his candidacy on the terrace of the National Electoral Council, a nominally impartial body, while its chairwoman presided under a huge poster of Chavez reading “Maduro, from my heart.”

The crowd of red-shirted Chavistas was thick. Capriles didn’t show to register, sending two representatives instead.

Capriles had complained Maduro was using Chavez’s body as a political prop, and his campaign later said he was emailed that morning a photograph of a hand pointing a gun at a TV screen bearing Capriles’ image.

Chavez long ago turned the criminal justice system into a tool for exacting political vengeance, said COFAVIC’s Ortega, who for a decade has had a detail of bodyguards ordered by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights.

While Chavez could rely on his famous powers of persuasion to consolidate control, Maduro’s ruling circle lacks the panache.

“There is a blurring of constitutional mandates right now,” said Miguel Tinker Salas, a Latin American studies professor at Pomona College in California. “Maduro does not have the charisma, and the connection that Hugo Chavez had historically with the population.”

In February, authorities briefly detained the pilots of a loaned private plane that had brought Capriles back from a family visit to New York, with officials searching the plane up and down, people close to the candidate said on condition of anonymity due to the matter’s sensitivity.

And no sooner had Capriles announced his candidacy Sunday than Maduro was on the air, accusing him of seeking to provoke violence and suggesting he could face criminal charges for insulting Chavez’s family.

Capriles accused the government of repeatedly lying to create false hopes that Chavez would recover and bolster its own political ambitions. He even suggested it may have lied about the timing of Chavez’s death.

The government has in recent years forced dozens of critics into exile but the opposition only identifies a handful of people as “political prisoners.”

One is a judge, Maria Lourdes Afiuni, whose freeing of a banker jailed for alleged currency violations enraged Chavez in 2009. He had her thrown in jail and she remains under house arrest. The U.N. calls her a political prisoner.

Capriles aide Leopoldo Lopez, who faces government charges of influence peddling in a 15-year-old case, calls the strategy pinpoint persecution, a “selective strangling” of the leadership.

Although Venezuela’s high inflation, food shortages and rampant crime provide ample ammunition for criticizing the leadership, a hard political reality is that the opposition can’t match the enormous resources the government wields to win over voters, including a flurry of state TV channels that deluge the public with hours of fawning video of Maduro handing out free government housing and praying for the late leader.

Capriles’ campaign, meanwhile, is nearly destitute, carrying nearly $1 million in debt from the last campaign, said his campaign finance director, Rafael Guzman.

Although Venezuelan law allows businesses and individuals to freely make political contributions of any amount, the Chavista government persecutes people who donate to opposition candidates as if they were breaking the law, Guzman said.

“Here in Venezuela, it is basically a crime to do opposition politics,” he said.

If big companies contribute, tax authorities immediately jump on them and begin auditing for accounting irregularities, he said. “So we don’t even go to big companies,” he said.

One company that wasn’t afraid was Globovision, the last TV channel standing that’s been critical of the government.

On Monday, owner Guillermo Zuloaga told employees he had sold it to a businessman apparently friendly with the government.

“We have been harassed by the state’s institutions, in a completely polarized country, opposing an all-powerful government that wants to see us fail,” Zuloaga wrote.

The sale is to go through immediately after Venezuelans cast their ballots for a new president April 14.

Globovision’s journalists are hurt, but hard-bitten.

Delvalle Canelon, host of the Sunday show “Hello, Venezuela,” recalled constant physical and legal harassment that got so bad Globovision took to routinely sending journalists into pro-Chavez zones with helmets and flak jackets.

Information scarcity has been another issue.

“We haven’t had access to government sources in years.”

___

Associated Press writers Jack Chang, E. Eduardo Castillo, Fabiola Sanchez and Christopher Toothaker contributed to this report.