We cannot understand why the "leadership" of the Republican Party of New Mexico continues to work as hard as they can to divide the New Mexico GOP. The end-of-year voter registration showed that Democrats outnumber Republicans in the state by nearly 200,000 voters (579,409 Democrats, 384,937 Republicans).

Add to that an enormous number of Decline-to-State voters, 285,111 to be exact—a huge percentage of which registered that way when they signed up for some form of government assistance—and you have a situation in which Republican candidates must face a highly unfavorable electorate.

So it is bizarre that state party officials Steve Pearce and Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin, along with erstwhile "Republican" radio show host Eddy Aragon* (who has also been a Libertarian, independent, and who knows what all) and various other divisive minions on social media have set their sights on Republicans.

If their goal is to win elections, and if they're going to take aim at anyone, it should be Democrats. 

Susana Martinez—Her Remarkable Record is Largely Unknown to New Mexicans 

That's what 8 years of Criticism by the Gang of 8 and the Galassini Cult will Get You

It is an irony of ironies that none of the RPNM people and their toadies can stop vilifying Susana Martinez, the only governor they actually criticize, and whom they have attacked nonstop for eight years.

Largely because of propagandizing by Pearce, Tinnin, Aragon, and the Galassini Cult based in Alamogordo, almost no New Mexicans even know that Martinez was rated as the most successful governor in the US—the only governor in 2018 to receive an A+ from the CATO Institute, a fiscal watchdog group. Yes, Martinez left the state with an all-time record surplus of $2.2 billion a Martinez 

Inviting an ex-Governor to Speak is a Crime?—And NO, She is not and Never was a "Never Trumper"

Aragon has spent days attacking the Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Bernalillo County, Judith McIntyre Wright, for having the temerity to invite Susana Martinez to speak at an event. He did so apparently at the behest of Pearce and Tinnin. Why? Because they continue to hate her—for no reason other than childishness. 

Aragon claims that Martinez can never be allowed to speak at any event because, he says, she is a "Never-Trumper." But he is lying. And we wonder why. But the reality is that she never has been any such thing. We spoke directly with the former governor, and here is what she said:

"I voted for Trump. There is no way I was ever going to vote for Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson. Were there were moments when I wished Trump had used language that was different from what he used? Of course. But that puts me in the same category as approximately 30,000,000 other Republicans. 

Sure there are times I wish he wouldnt say or text certain things. So what? That doesn't make me a "Never Trumper. I am in complete support of his policies, from national security to border security—which is much the same thing—and all across the board, to his ensuring that our law enforcement officers are safe and many other things. He has delivered. It is ridiculous for anyone to claim that I am a "Never Trumper."

Phony, Made-up Issues

A number of party volunteers and stalwarts, including county chairs, are pushing back against the "Us against Them" mentality of the Pearce-ite party officials. The RPNM has been playing favorites, helping preferred candidates, pushing narratives that try to harm candidates that are not necessarily in their little clique. 

If the Republican Party says you can't be a candidate or you can't be a Republican unless you were on the escalator with Trump when he announced, then they are disqualifying more than 70% of the present membership of the GOP. Trump only got 25-30% of the vote in his early primaries. And in the final analysis, more than 55% of Republicans supported someone other than Trump in the nomination process.

That includes party favorite Yvette Herrell who was part of the Ted Cruz team early on. It also includes Eddy Aragon too, who was also for Cruz. It also includes Pearce, who was very unhappy with Trump from time to time in the early going. 

Bottom Line: The Republican Party "leadership" needs to clean up their act, get over their constant airing of grievances, and concentrate on growing the party, not shrinking it.

Either that or get out of the way. 

* NOTE: According to ratings providers, his show has fewer than 150 listeners. Also, Aragon has announced as a US Senate candidate, so he may be in trouble with the FEC for his antics.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

It certainly appeared to us that Elizabeth Warren very carefully planned her little confrontation with Bernie, ensuring that there were open mikes. Her purpose was:

1) damaging Bernie’s overall image as “woke,” but especially among women; and
2) conveying the idea that she is a “strong” leader.

Friday it was announced that the Virginia Legislature voted to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment. In so doing, it became the 38th state to approve the amendment. Virginia’s action is alleged to mean that the long-awaited ERA has finally satisfied the Constitutional provision that requires that ¾ ths of the states must ratify an amendment for it to be adopted.

We Doubt It However

However, there is a glitch. When Congress passed the amendment and sent it to the states, in 1972, it included a clause requiring that the states must ratify the resolution within seven years from that date. That period lasted from 1972 to 1979—without the necessary 38 states approving it. So Congress then granted it a controversial three-year extension—but 1982 came and went and it still wasn’t ratified.

Now, nearly 38 years after the last deadline passed, Virginia claims to be the decisive 38th state. You can see the controversy immediately. Proponents claim that the deadline clause is somehow "unconstitutional." We don't see how that can be reasoned.

It is true that most constitutional amendments have not had "deadlines" for ratification. However, four of them do. The 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was the first to have the "seven-year deadline" tacked on. Apparently, Congress believed that the temperance movement was eventually going to die out and the enthusiasm for prohibition would fade in a few years. It didn't, as we all know.

The 20th Amendment (Dates of presidential and congressional terms; inauguration) also had the deadline added on, And the 21st Amendment (Repealing Prohibition) contained the deadline—with Congress probably hoping the states would be encouraged to hurry up. The ill-advised 22nd Amendment (Two-term presidential limit) was the last to contain the seven-year clause.

But there's more: Even if you believe there is somehow something "improper" with there being a deadline, there's the additional issue that has arisen because five states have repealed their own ratification of the ERA. Are those states' actions allowable?

Or does a state get only one shot at deciding on constitutional amendments: Up or Down?, One time? If that is the case, then why have states taken several votes before ratifying certain amendments? Is ratification a one-way street: You get to try to approve an amendment as many times as you want to, getting second chance after second chance—or third or fourth chance;  BUT, you don't ever get a second chance NOT to ratify. 

In other words, proponents get unlimited chances, while opponents get only one. Seems an odd concept. Yet some people insist that's the way it should be.

Many Believe the ERA Issue will End up in the Supreme Court

For all the reasons discussed above, we aren't sure this will make it to SCOTUS. There does not appear to be a valid case. It seems that proponents of the Equal Rights Amendment should have to start all over. And maybe this time ensure that there is no time-limit clause.

But if the Case were to Reach the Court, How Would Justices Rule?

A case like this one will present a classic example of the difference between so-called "conservative" and "liberal" justices and their approach to the law.

The Liberals

Because they strongly favor the ERA, four of the justices (Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would all vote (and we use "vote" because they do see themselves as having a legislative function) in favor of saying that the ERA has been ratified.   

1) They would say that the time-limit is somehow disallowed (they'd come up with some reasoning, regardless of how tortured it may be) and:

2) They would use the same approach to "reason" that no state can "rescind" its ratification. 

Again, they would do this not because the law actually says they must, but because THEY FAVOR the policy—a certain outcome of the controversy. They would not be reaching their decision based on the black letter reading of the legislation in question, or based on perfectly constitutional and proper actions taken by legislatures.

They can't. The laws, the proposals, and the resolutions don't say what they want them to say. Likewise, the actions of the states are not what they want to see either. But it's important to understand that judicial liberalism means enacting what you want to see adopted as public policy by means of court rulings. They will agree with the Virginia Legislature. Why? Because they want to. 

The Conservatives

Among the five conservatives, one or two of them, perhaps all of them, may also favor the ERA, believing it to be good public policy. Or some or all of them may have their doubts. We don't know. However, the rationale for their ruling will be very different from that of the liberals.

If they are judicial conservatives, they will rule that the time limit has expired. Why? Because it has expired. They will acknowledge that it's up to Congress to propose the amendments, not the courts. And the Congress can write the resolutions any way they desire. 

Bottom Line

The four liberals will try to overcome any obstacles that may exist in order to get to an outcome they want to see—the adoption of the ERA.

The five conservatives, assuming they are jurisprudential conservatives, will follow the actual law as written, and rule against efforts to circumvent legal, prescribed deadlines. 

The differences between judicial conservatives and liberals are not based on public policy preferences, but rather how they approach the questions. "What does the law say?" As opposed to "What do I want to see happen?"

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Apparently, Governor Grisham made some pointed remarks today about James Hallinan, her former staffer who made very specific allegations of sexual assault and abuse against Grisham. NMPJ broke that story, publishing Hallinan's detailed accusations on December 26.

HERE IS A STATEMENT GRISHAM APPARENTLY ISSUED TODAY, ATTACKING HALLINAN

(Although the wording or syntax, apparently either drafted by the Governor's staff, or spoken by Grisham, is sketchy):

"It’s unfair to victims. It’s completely false.  There are real victims every single day and in this poisonous climate that’s what happens, right? that they use these things and they hide from real things do happen. I hope he gets help, but I’m proud of who I am, what I stand for and what we are going to get done.

HALLINAN ISSUES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT IN RESPONSE

I have issued the following statement:

"Governor Lujan Grisham’s comments are inappropriate and damaging, only serving to revictimize Mr. Hallinan and countless other victims.

"We look forward to a court’s assessment of who the 'real victims' are and who truly seeks to 'hide' from the 'real things' they have perpetrated against employees and associates over the years.

"We are hopeful that other victims will come forward to further expose the truth."  

          – Rachel Berlin Benjamin, lead legal counsel for James Hallinan     

    Buckley Beal, LLP, 600 Peach Street N. E., Suite 900, Atlanta, Georgia, 30308

WE ARE NOT SURE, BUT IT APPEARS THAT HALLINAN HAS A HIGH-POWERED LAW FIRM

(If that's the case, Governor Groin-Grabber may not be out of the woods so quickly—or as quickly as she thinks...)

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

19 days ago, at 1:07 PM on Thursday, 26 December, we broke the story of James Hallinan’s first-hand, personally-delivered report stating that Governor Grisham grabbed him in the groin in front of witnesses. Since then, the story has been read on our sites nearly 50,000 times:

                10,659 on our website (www.newmexicopoliticaljournal.com

                13,482 on our Twitter handle (@NMPolJournal)

                25,197 on our Facebook page (@NMPoliticalJournal)

For a grand total of 49,338 readers.

We called out both the Mainstream Media as well as the four leading Democrat social media blog sites. “Why are we the only ones covering this story?”

The answer, unfortunately, was one that comes under the familiar title “Only in New Mexico.” That is to say: because it involves not only the state’s leading Democrat, but a progressive Democrat, the media did not know whether to poop in their pants, go blind, or look around for any other possible option. There was clear panic in the newsrooms.

But not just in the newsrooms. The Republican Party of New Mexico did not know what to do or say, and still doesn’t. The same goes for the Galassini Cult—a group centered in Alamogordo which has effectively destroyed the Republican Party of Otero County—and is the de facto controlling element of the RPNM. More on those two later.

Suffice it to say that the Republican Party should be all over this story. Demanding answers, keeping it in the public eye, insisting on the same kind of coverage that would occur if the alleged perpetrator were a Republican.

Can you imagine the wall-to-wall coverage this story would have been having for the past 19 days if Susana Martinez were the alleged perp? No. Don’t bother. You cannot even begin to imagine the level and intensity of media sensation that would surround us.

Missing the Point: The Story is not now and Never Has Never Been About the Provable Guilt or Innocence of Grisham: But the Hypocrisy of So Many—Including the Mainstream Media, the #MeToo Movement, and the Established Democrat Party

A Local TV Station

After breaking the story and calling out the media, we got this from a KOAT-TV reporter:

“James Hallinan posted these on social media moments before leaving the country for vacation, and as he mentioned, he has declined media interviews.

"Without an interview or a criminal complaint/lawsuit filed, it would be irresponsible for any journalist to run with this…If Hallinan agrees to do interviews, and any similar incidents are corroborated, I assure you this will get plenty of media attention….”
 

Our response was, essentially: what part of Journalism 101 did KOAT not understand? Hallinan DID do an interview. And the KOAT reporter read it—that’s how he knew that his station and all the other TV stations and other media were being called out.

“Hallinan did a first-hand, on-the-record interview. He also posted tweets that are, by definition, first-hand, on-the-record statements. There is no denying that.

We asked the reporter:

“Did KOAT interview the Kavanaugh accuser? Answer: No, you didn’t.”

 “Did [the accuser in that case] file a lawsuit? Answer: No. She did not.”

 “Did she go to the police? Answer: No. She did not.”

But:

  “Did KOAT run the story? Answer: Yes. You did. Many of them.”

Corroborated? Corroborated? Whoa! When did the media EVER ask for a Kavanaugh story—or countless others—be “corroborated” prior to begin covering the story? You’re right if your answer is “NEVER.”

The reporter got angry and sent several more emails he probably regrets.

The station eventually covered the story without:

•     A police report

•     A lawsuit

•     Any "corroboration" by anyone

Better to be shamed into covering the story than not to cover it ever.

A Local Albuquerque FM “Talk Radio” Station (which claims to be “libertarian” or “Conservative”

[NOTE: This station is not at all like KKOB, which is the established 50,000-watt talk radio leader in New Mexico. Instead, this station broadcasts with only 250 watts of power and has an estimated audience of fewer than 150 listeners.]

Here is what the station manager/owner had to say about the Hallinan-Grisham Story:

"This is not a story”…“Sorry folks…I smell BS…PAY NO ATTENTION TO THIS!”

“It has to be corroborated…” Has he gone to law enforcement? Does he have an attorney?

“As much as I would like to cover this and wouldn’t mind this being true, he’s going to need a lawyer and a criminal report before his claim can be legitimized.

"There’s no one to corroborate his claims…If he actually contacts law enforcement then we can “play ball” folks! Let’s see                what happens."

We have to tell you—because intelligent voters, Republican or Democrat would not believe it otherwise—that we are not making this up.

Normally, given the extremely tiny “reach” of this station, we wouldn’t pay that much attention. But several readers sent us these bizarre, unintelligible comments, and other comments on Facebook.

We decided to include these comments only because the station—despite its irrelevance—has a close relationship with the RPNM. In fact, we are told that Steve Pearce actually PAYS the station to have his own show taped and broadcast on Saturdays. (The radio station operator also claims to be ready to announce his own run for the US Senate.)

To Sum it Up

The Hallinan report, which we believe is far from over, is about hypocrisy. The Weinstein trial is ongoing. Hypocrisy and double standards abound.

Yet, the only elected official or candidate the Republican Party of New Mexico and all its divisive allied "But-Boys" ("we can't cover this, but...we can't register voters, but...we can't win any elections, but....we can't manage a message, but...we can't organize any campaign at all, but...") have ever seen fit to criticize is…wait for it…Susana Martinez. (All apparently because of personal, petty feuds cooked up by Pearce, Harvey Yates, among others.)

Martinez, by the way, left the state with a $2.2 billion surplus and is the only governor in America to receive an A+ rating from the CATO Institute—in recognition of her fiscal leadership, numerous vetoes to reduce government spending or stop unnecessary spending proposals, and her vetoes of ALL proposals to raise taxes or fees.

She left office as the highest-rated governor in the country. Yet, the Gang of 8, which currently runs Republican headquarters, fought her and criticized her every step of the way for eight solid years. A truly amazing and ridiculous story.

(The same goes for their allies in the Galassini Cult of Alamogordo which has destroyed the Republican Party of Otero County. But more on that ongoing soap opera in a later edition.)

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Clearly not wanting to interfere with the massive statewide celebrations of New Mexico's 108th Birthday, Albuquerque meteorologist Mark Ronchetti waited till the morning of January 7 to announce his candidacy for the US Senate seat being vacated by Democrat Tom Udall.

Ronchetti will compete for the Republican nomination in the primary which will take place on June 2. Already in the GOP race are Gavin Clarkson, Mick Rich, Elisa Martinez, and Louis Sánchez, who just entered the race. None, so far, has sparked the level of excitement that Ronchetti's announcement has immediately received.

A Late Entry—But There are Reasons Ronchetti is an Intriguing Option

In reviewing US Senate races over the past several decades, it is difficult to find a serious major party candidate announcing his or her candidacy at this late a date—fewer than five months from the date of a primary. However, we see Ronchetti as an intriguing candidate for several reasons:

1) Bernalillo County. The state's largest county has been migrating leftward for some 30 years, and increasingly so over the past decade. It hasn't voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988, though Republicans continued to carry the county in some off-year statewide races through the years.

But Ronchetti has been a very popular local fixture on KRQE-TV for 13 years. And there is precedent for a very well-known local Albuquerque Republican to do well and buck the trend. The most recent example is in 2016, when Bernalillo County District Court Judge Judith Nakamura, running in a presidential year, carried the county by more than 24,000 votes on her way to winning a seat on the Supreme Court.

She did so even though Trump was losing the county by yearly 49,000, an amazing swing of some 73,000 votes. Ronchetti almost certainly has even higher name recognition than Nakamura.

2) Ronchetti is an outsider. In fact, he's so much an outsider that he's an outsider's outsider. With a completely fresh start, not coming from politics at all, and having never run for office, he can bring what well may be seen as a fresh voice, an non-politician's perspective.

3) He has the potential to unite all forces in the Republican Party, as well as independents and non-Hard Left Democrats. We have heard rumors/speculation that Ronchetti's team—perhaps meaning key supporters, or those willing to endorse or get deeply involved (we're not sure)—may well include folks from disparate wings, so to speak, of the Republican Party.

He may have prominent support from those who have supported current and previous GOP primary opponents. In other words, Ronchetti may have the backing of some who support CD 2 candidate Yvette Herrell as well as supporters of her opponent Claire Chase. He may also be backed by Susana Martinez supporters as well as those who supported her first primary opponent Allen Weh. 

4) He will be a hard target. We all know and lament the extreme negativity that seems to permeate the airwaves in every single political campaign these days, from local school board races all the way to President of the United States.

The bulk of the ammunition used in such attacks comes from the voting records or public statements made on the campaign trail in previous races. People who have been in political office have taken tough votes or have worked to enact ordinances on a city council or county commission, or they have sponsored bills in the legislature.

All of those actions provide rationales for negative attacks, often unfair, but attacks nonetheless. Ronchetti has none of that ready-made baggage.

Of course that doesn't mean he won't be attacked—he will be. But the attacks are likely to based on trivial or contrived matters, which will in turn likely make him a more sympathetic figure than most political candidates. Opponents will have to be very careful so as to not have their attacks backfire.

Ronchetti's Statements

"Like all New Mexicans, I want my kids to grow up in an America where opportunities are created right here in New Mexico—where the American dream is as strong today as it’s ever been. I’m concerned that Washington is standing in the way of that bright future."

“Sadly, politicians like Congressman Ben Ray Lujàn are focused more on fighting one another than fighting for us—and that’s why I couldn’t sit on the sidelines anymore.” 

“New Mexicans are fed up with the petty partisan politics that has gotten in the way of progress for New Mexicans.”

“Hatred for your political opponents can never be stronger than your love of New Mexico—when it is, nobody wins. When partisanship is all that matters, it’s the people that get left behind—I will always put New Mexicans first.” 

Ronchetti describes himself as "a political outsider" who has worked in television news for more than 23 years. He is a pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment conservative Republican who believes in low taxes and that government’s number one job should be to protect freedom and liberty and keep our families safe.

He is the grandson of immigrants who says that his family "has impressed on him the importance of serving one’s community, and that the promise of the American Dream is what makes the United States a truly great and unique country."

He states that he will take a "pragmatic, outsider perspective to Washington" and "always prioritize the future of New Mexico families—and the protection of the American Dream for every child—above all else."

His Campaign Goes on to Say

"New Mexico deserves a senator who has not been part of the problem in Washington, but a senator who will represent true New Mexican values.

Mark will be New Mexicans’ voice in the nation’s capital, where he will work to preserve and grow New Mexico’s role at the forefront of our national defense, secure our southern border, and bring much-needed federal help toward the daily fight against crime. He is ready to bring new leadership to Washington."

Ronchetti is 46, lives in Albuquerque, where he and his wife, Krysty, are raising two young daughters. They say they are "proud New Mexicans who want their children to be able to chase and realize their boldest dreams—right here, at home."

The Bernalillo County Factor: It Cannot be Overstated

In thinking about the decision that Republican primary voters will have to make, we have to return to the concept of the popular local Albuquerquean. Overcoming the devastating results that Bernalillo County has produced for the GOP is a consideration that simply has to be made.

Long gone are the days, 35 years ago when the county went for Ronald Reagan by 37,000 votes, leading to a statewide margin of 106,000.

Despite supporting the local builder Gary Johnson twice in off-year elections, by the turn of the century, Albuquerque had drifted far enough Left to produce a 4,000 vote margin for Al Gore, as the state ended up in a virtual tie, with Gore winning the state by only 366 votes.

Then four years later, in 2004, an all-out, unprecedented Get-out-the-Vote campaign by both parties drove up Bernalillo County turnout by over 24% in just one presidential election cycle, as more than 257,000 Albuquerqueans voted in 2004, compared to 206,000 in 2000.

That same GOTV push was being made all over the state as statewide turnout surged by 28%. President Bush carried the state by 5,988 votes, but John Kerry prevailed in Bernalillo County by 10,800. 

The weak candidacy of John McCain led to a landslide by Obama in 2008, as he swept Bernco 171,556 to 110,521, a county presidential record margin of 61,000 votes. in 2012, Romney fared somewhat better, losing by "only" 44,000 votes.

But in 2016, there were a couple of mixed messages: 1) Trump saw the GOP margin of defeat climb back to nearly 49,000 in the presidential race, while 2) Nakamura—the popular local—reversed those numbers, carrying the county by over 24,000 votes. Elsewhere in the state, she led by only a little over  6,000, giving her a margin of victory of 30,500 statewide in an otherwise disastrous year for the Republican Party.

Hope for the GOP. Concern Among Democrats

Again, no one knows the thinking behind any of the candidacies or campaigns that have been launched. We can only speculate—e.g. Ben Ray Lujan wants to move up from the House, etc. And we haven't spoken with any of the other candidates in weeks or months, and we've never spoken with Ronchetti.

However, in thinking about Ronchetti's image, and looking at the Bernalillo County voting dynamics and its impact on New Mexico elections, we can see how it's not unreasonable that New Mexico Republicans may very well become very enthusiastic about a Ronchetti run for the US Senate. There is a lot to consider in the numbers that can make Ronchetti a potential game-changer. 

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Alexis Johnson is one of seven Republican candidates vying for the GOP nomination in the open northern NM congressional district being vacated by Democrat Ben Ray Lujan.

This afternoon she issued a press release titled:

Fairly well illustrated in these photographs.

This is another consideration for voters as America heads into 2020. Trump, if anything, has been far LESS interventionist than his predecessors. Yet, he has shown that he can and will take decisive action when required.

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Leading Democrats and their (de facto) campaign managers in the mainstream media took to the airwaves yesterday to bemoan the creepy, unrelenting, inexplicable racism that persists within their own ranks.

NBC's Andrea Mitchell led the self-loathing discussion, clearly recognizing the Democratic Party's traditional association with racism, the Klan, Jim Crow, and segregation, almost tearfully declaring:

"as of now there are going to be five white candidates on the next debate stage."

Mitchell, who became famous last April for having assumed that Castro was Cuban because his last name is, well...Castro, simply had no words to describe her despair.

The painfully non-introspective Mitchell droned on about the lack of diversity within the ranks of the Democrat contenders, ignoring the fact that all of them express virtually identical views on all the issues being pushed by the progressive wing of the Democratic Party.

Castro, for his part, had contributed one of the more bizarre policy positions in recent centuries—when in a debate in June he became the first candidate in any party to ardently and vociferously insist on "abortion rights for transgender women."

When informed after the debate that transgender women are actually biologically male, have no ovaries, and cannot become pregnant, Castro angrily declared that he would "look into it." Following this "controversial" policy initiative, Castro's campaign, which had never exactly surged, went either downhill or remained the same. It was difficult for analysts to determine which. In any case, he's done now.

One additional note: Castro tried desperately to base his campaign on identity politics, effectively shouting "I'm Hispanic, I'm Hispanic, I'm Hispanic" over and over again—entirely oblivious to the obvious racism inherent in identity politics (but then, the entire Democrat Party is also oblivious to it).

However, Castro—just like the now-forgotten "Beto" and the currently forgotten Cory Booker—could NOT actually speak Spanish. He spoke Spanish like some Gringo tourist who just got off a plane somewhere, talking like Steve Martin:

"doan day ess tah el bahn yo?"

In short, he was hilarious. And he will be missed.

[NOTE: This is NOT a parody, even though it sounds like one.]

Email us (at nmpj@dfn.com) with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

“This is very simple: General Soleimani is dead because he was an evil bastard who murdered Americans.

“The President made the brave and right call, and Americans should be proud of our service members who got the job done.”