“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.”

America must resolve in #2020 to stop the kinds of #AntiSemitic attacks shown in this video https://twitter.com/i/status/1211798042027970560 and carried out by the #Left’s #AntifaDomesticTerrorists, #BLM thugs, and others inspired by the Democratic Party. We must stand up to the Democrats' promotion of #BDS — Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions — all aimed at Israel. 

And we must call out the college professors and lecturers, as well as even high school teachers who are indoctrinating the ignorant oncoming generations to be anti-Israel.

We must also call out their leaders in their racism and antisemitism: Leaders such as Ilhan Omar, a Democrat Congresswoman from Minnesota, Rashida Tlaib, a Democrat Congresswoman from Illinois, Al Sharpton, a Democrat Party stooge, fraud, and con artist from New York, and Minister Louis Farrakhan, leader of the Nation of Islam and also a con artist extraordinaire.

Call Out Those Who Tolerate Them

Hold them to account. It is bizarre the extent to which neither the Democrat Party nor any talking head in the Mainstream Media will condemn any of the most virulent antisemitic acts or attacks carried out by any of these people.

As Massachusetts voter Josh Eibelman has written to his Congressional Representative, Ayanna Pressley:

"... I have become increasingly disappointed and concerned about your silence with regards to Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib. Omar and Tlaib, members of the “Squad” which you are proudly part of, have in the past engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric. They have also slandered and defamed the world’s only Jewish state. So I was concerned about your membership in “the Squad.” But I became more hopeful when I learned you supported the bill condemning the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

But I expected you to condemn the anti-Semitic rhetoric your “sisters” are spouting. I thought you would call out Miftah for its vile Jew-hatred. I hoped you would reaffirm the shared values of democracy and freedom that the United States and Israel stand for...

Instead, your statement made you a bystander to the hate and ill-will Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib have for Israel — and for Jews.

... you wrote, “Congresswomen Omar and Tlaib are my dear friends, my sisters in service and hardworking Americans who have been subject to some of the most vile and vicious attacks simply for being who they are.”

Congresswoman Pressley: Members of The Squad, which you so proudly represent, are dealing a grave injustice to American Jewry. You have a moral obligation to stand up for your Jewish brothers and sisters, especially those in your District. We are pained by your silence, and willful ignorance of the vile rhetoric propagated by your “sisters in service.”

As an American, I am shocked by your silence, and as a Jew, I am outraged by it. And as a voting constituent, I hope you will find your voice."

We noted the Democratic Party's dangerous-looking moves toward antisemitism some 25-30 years ago in its party leaders' refusal or reluctance to condemn people like Sharpton. Since then, the Democrats' media organs have, most bizarrely, given Sharpton his own platform on their flagship media outlet. 

Over the past decade or so, the drift toward antisemitism among the Democrat faithful has turned into a flood.

2020 should be a year in which it is confronted by decent Americans throughout the country. 

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

Another blunder for doofus ole Joe. Where would America be without him? Read it hear: https://bit.ly/2F5S9Me

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

One of Trump's most vocal critics is the pussy hat-wearing Governor of New Mexico. She is also a woman who demanded that State Senator Michael Padilla not only quit the race for Lieutenant Governor, but immediately resign from the State Senate—based on allegations of sexual harassment that were ten years old. 

Numerous New Mexico Democrat-favoring blogs weighed in breathlessly and angrily. They demanded that people who were faced with unsubstantiated charges be railroaded. Immediately.

These were folks like Padilla and others like former State Representative Carl Trujillo (who passed a lie detector test, which his accuser refused to take). In Trujillo's case, the charges "went away" once Andrea Romero who used the charges against him, won the Democrat primary in June of 2018. Mysterious.

And the bloggers were successful, as New Mexico Senate Democrats led by Peter Wirth and Mimi Stewart (who directly benefited from Padilla being kicked out of his job) decided to run Padilla off. 

Those blogs included NMPolitics.net, led by Heath Haussamen, New Mexico Political Report with Andy Lyman and Matthew Reichbach, New Mexico in Depth with Trip Jennings and Marjorie Childress, New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan, along with the Associated Press with Morgan Lee and Russell Contreras, the Albuquerque Journal, the Santa Fe New Mexican, and the Las Cruces Sun-News, all of whom went ballistic. 

They all sang right on cue and right in key. 

Well, where are they now? The story of Grisham's groin-grabbing is 48 hours old. What do we have? Silence. Again, right on cue, and right in key.

Grisham isn't now just known for gun-grabbing, but for groin grabbing. (The Marines might say both are the same, but we digress.)

It appears that Governor Grisham has problems of her own regarding not sexual harassment, but sexual and physical abuse. And that there is no shortage of witnesses. The question that will arise is whether those witnesses will come clean under oath. 

The James Hallinan Story

Mr. Hallinan responded to our request for an interview, by calling this afternoon. He stated that the most egregious physical and sexual abuse occurred at the home of State Representative Deborah Armstrong. That would place the event at  2015 Dietz Place NW, Albuquerque, New Mexico. In the 87107 zip code.

He then said, "It involved a bottle of water. It was at a staff meeting, but at this point, I'd rather not describe the incident in detail." 

We then responded: "Well, we have a narrative from another source." And Hallinan replied, "Tell me your narrative." So we did. It went like this:

Governor Grisham in plain sight of everyone at the event, approached Hallinan and took a bottle of water and threw it in Hallinan's groin area, completely soaking his crotch. She then reached down and grabbed him by his sexual organs, loudly stating, "Is this real, have you really even got anything down here?"

At this point, Hallinan responded: "I will not deny that account. I will not argue with that."

He then went on to describe a miserable work environment in which he was hardly the only victim. 

"It left me really fucked up," he said, "this really fucked me up for all time. It eats at me, every day, all day, all the time. I resent the way she holds me under her thumb, living in fear of some sort of retaliation or vindictive action she might take, to hurt my business, to discourage clients, to keep me from getting work. She is the most vindictive, petty, and mean-spirited, individual I have ever known."

"I think of all the pushing back I did for her. It was constant. I had to try to kill stories, pushing back continuously on stories that she was sleeping this person or that, making sure she wasn't identified with anyone the Democratic Party leaders did not want her to be associated with."

"I've never seen, much less experienced the kind of pervasive manipulation of human beings, pervasive and calculating," he said, "she is so smart with abusing the power dynamic, she is a complete bully. She abused me in full view of my supervisors and my staffers, in addition to everyone there who worked for her, including Dominic Gabello, who sat right there at the table with his staff, and with Representative Armstrong right there as well."

We pointed out that none of these people—all of whom are totally #woke and virulent #MeToo enthusiasts—has ever said a thing. 

"Everyone lives in fear," he said, "of retaliation, and of retribution."

"But it never stops. I get calls from people like [Albuquerque City Councillor] Pat Davis passing along threats, and with his own threat that 'the Albuquerque City Council won't fund Somos ABQ,' which is a client of mine. I had to laugh and tell him 'I don't make any money off Somos ABQ'. Although the City does provide funding for it, which is why Davis threatened me. But people are so afraid of the administration that they pass on threats that don't even make any sense."

Hallinan finished the conversation by admitting that he is afraid for his own safety.

"I'm public enemy number one right now of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, And I may be public enemy of the national Democratic Party once I make it known that I am recommending to the Democratic Governors' Association that they definitely do not make Michelle their new chair. That would be disastrous for the DGA."

Hallinan is scheduled to return to New Mexico in January, from somewhere in the Dutch West Indies. (We narrowed it down to six islands owned by The Netherlands.) But he allowed as how "if the Government of The Netherlands were open to granting me asylum, it is something I would consider." 

Finally, We Still Ask

Where are the media? The mainstream media? All the little Democrat blogs that give themselves awards for brilliant "fair" journalism? Silent. NMPolitics.net, led by Heath Haussamen? New Mexico Political Report with Andy Lyman and Matthew Reichbach? New Mexico in Depth with Trip Jennings and Marjorie Childress? New Mexico Politics with Joe Monahan?

Right on cue. Right in key.

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

Think for just a moment. If some prominent political operative came up on the internet with allegations of sexual assault against Susana Martinez (or any prominent* Republican) how long do you think it would be until there was wall-to-wall coverage of the story?

On every TV station in Albuquerque? On El Paso or Lubbock TV? On KKOB? On the front pages of the Albuquerque Journal? The Santa Fe New Mexican? The Las Cruces Sun-News?  On every tweet or blog posting by the Democrat Party spokesman—little Joey Monahan?

We can answer it for you: It would be non-stop! It would be bigger than the headlines on Pearl Harbor.

(Hell, it would be huge even if it was for running a red light or maybe even talking loud in a restaurant. But sexual assault? Holy moly! Heaven forbid! It would be beyond HUGE!) 

Think about this: Former State Representative Brian Moore—a Republican—fished in the wrong place without a proper fishing license. What happened? Front-page story in the Albuquerque Journal. (You really can't make this stuff up about the New Mexico media.)

JAMES HALLINAN?

James Hallinan was the Communications Director for Michelle Lujan Grisham's run for governor.

When he was recruited, she was up by 4 points.

But after he had done all of her commo, her research, created her digital platform, killed all of her negative press stories (okay, admittedly not a terribly difficult task with New Mexico's Democrat-friendly media), and solicited and "earned" tons of positive stories (okay, again, not that hard in NM) she won by a whopping 14 points on election day! 

Hallinan did the same thing for the new State Auditor, Brian Colón.  Before that, he had worked for Hector Balderas for three years, driving the messaging about the AG that got him on the national media stage, and numerous appearances on CNN, MSNBC, and CNBC. 

The point is, this guy is a big deal within the Democratic Party. He's not some drunk guy stumbling in from a ride on ART to some sort of wild party scene in Albuquerque. 

This is so very different from So Many Sexual Assault Stories or Claims

Hallinan was not only close to Grisham and all Democrats, he is going on the record!  How is this different from so many of the #MeToo stories that have been so popular through the years? Let us count the ways:

• 1) He is telling it first hand—this isn't someone waltzing in with a story he "heard" from someone else, or from two or three people removed.

• 2) Hallinan is not suddenly "recounting" a story from 30 years ago—that he didn't tell anyone else.

• 3) He is not coming up with a deal about "This happened when I was in high school."

James Hallinan has already posted the tweets shown above.

Coverage of this Story is a Real Challenge: But only in New Mexico

If this were occurring in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, or Texas—it doesn't matter if it's a Democrat or Republican state—a state with a mature, highly professional, "get-the-story" media, Grisham would have been front-page news this morning, and wall-to-wall TV all day.

But New Mexico has a small, largely in-bred media culture—one that is hand-in-glove with the Democrat Party establishment. The media regularly cover up or grossly slant political stories to fit the Democrats' goals and objectives (even government-centered shows like New Mexico in Focus on PBS frequently have a 5 to nothing Lefty panel, though usually, it's only 4 to 1, and largely utter or regurgitate inanities copied from the DPNM.) 

The coverage of Governor Grisham's administration has been icky sweet to downright promotional. This contrasts extremely sharply with the coverage of Susana Martinez, which went hunting—almost always "snipe" hunting—for any invented "controversy, no matter what.

Examples

• The State Fair Commission

The Fair Board is an excellent example. Egged on by the Democrat Party, through spokesman Joe Monahan, Martinez's efforts to put Expo New Mexico on sound financial footing was made into three or four YEARS of stories. They manufactured a phony "crisis" and then bounced it around. 

The message Democrats lobbied the New Mexico media to tell was that there had to be "something" wrong there. Yet it turned out to be about NOTHING. Expo was saved by an open bid lease that poured badly needed capital into the entity. The story finally died of pure exhaustion because of its non-existence to start with. 

Compare that with Grisham, who appointed a slew of political operatives, cronies, and hacks to the same board. She even appointed Eric Serna, who serves as the chair.

Serna is so badly tainted with a reputation for corruption that he is the only Democrat to ever lose a race for the strongly Democrat Third Congressional District. Even Democrats turned against him. Can you imagine New Mexico media reaction if Martinez had appointed Serna? Whoa! But Grisham? Crickets. Just crickets. 

• Grisham's Veto of Mental Health funding for UNM athletes

Grisham vetoed the bill because she was "pissed off" about the Soccer program being cut (something she could have insisted be saved if she really wanted to). Then a Lobo football player committed suicide. 

What would have happened to Martinez? The Democrats would have issued a press release blaming Martinez. Monahan and the purely political operatives on the city council and in the state legislature (Pat Davis, Jacob Candelaria, et. al) would have been on the "story" immediately.

People like Colleen Heild, Milan Simonich, or Jolene Gutierrez Krueger would have written front-page stories of the "thoughtless cruelty." Then "news" reporters and editorialists would have banged away at it for at least a year, probably inventing a nickname for Martinez along the way.

• It took Grisham six months to appoint a cabinet secretary for the new Early Childhood Education and Care Department.

If it had been Martinez dilly-dallying around, the same process listed above would have occurred. The media were on record hammering Martinez even for vacancies of six weeks. 

• Grisham appoints as her Deputy Chief of Staff, Diego Arencon, a firefighter union guy who had been suspended from the Albuquerque Fire Department for falsifying time cards

Martinez would have been fried. New Mexico media with Grisham? "Nothing to see here, folks, keep moving. Go on home."

• Grisham gives raises of almost 50% to everyone working for her

Again, Martinez would have been criticized for her entire term. NM Media? "Meh."

It will be Interesting to See How it Plays Out: Hallinan turns to Contreras

Hallinan has identified AP reporter Russell Contreras as his "go-to" guy for his story. This will be interesting. Contreras is a "reporter" by title, but is also extremely active with opinion writing on Facebook and other media—strongly endorsing Democrat policies and candidates while bashing anything remotely conservative or even moderate.

So this puts Contreras in a tough spot: How to play this story? He will be on the horns of a dilemma. Our guess is they'll figure out someway, somehow to vilify some Republican in this process. Or go to extremes to ensure that the #MeToo narrative is somehow validated. In any case, it will almost certainly not end up being a straight story—despite Hallinan's straightforward presentation thus far. 

This is going to be interesting 

Grisham is said to be the upcoming Chair of the Democratic Governors' Association, a position of great influence in campaigns. In other words, she will have national prominence and come in for national scrutiny. Our money is on the national media getting to the true bottom of this story before the fawning New Mexico crowd figures the real story out, or even tries to. 

* We know, we know—you're thinking "thanks to Steve Pearce, Harvey, Mark, Anissa, and the Gang of 8, there aren't any left in New Mexico. Just bear with us though. Think if there "were" any. Play along.

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

It doesn’t matter if it is Doris Kearns Goodwin, supposedly waxing “historical,” or any number of talking heads running the gamut from foaming-at-the-mouth outrage to genuine bemusement. It all comes down to this: raw, crude, unadulterated partisanship.

Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin, who has already established a record for involvement in email theft and anti-Republican campaigning, is the apparent author of an email sent out by the Republican Party of New Mexico which the Democrats will undoubtedly use against the GOP.

While, quite properly, criticizing Congressman Ben Ray Lujan (indicting him was all well and good) Tinnin goes on to write:

He said that Trump called “unfavorable press” the enemy of the people. But Trump didn’t say that. He said that “Fake News” Media—those who create deliberately false stories—are the enemy of the people.

And they are.

[Warning: Based on the messages we have received so far, and the total posts, about half the readers believe the entire country should be assholes to each other all the time—no matter what the subject matter. But, encouragingly, a stubborn other half of readers believe we should be able to separate political views and arguments from basic moments of human life and death.]

The impeachment hearings should produce a new, well-earned nickname for the Democrat counsel, Daniel Goldman: “Chicken Little.”

When questioned as to how certain subpoenas appeared—those that demanded the private phone records of House members and reporters—Goldman said he didn’t know—that they, essentially, fell from the sky.

Republican congressional candidate Yvette Herrell published a poll last week, purportedly to boost her campaign. But as we looked at it, we think she may not have analyzed it that closely.

Conducted by The Tarrance Group, a respected Republican polling company, the survey showed Herrell leading Claire Chase 43% to 13%, with Chris Mathys at 12%. While that seems to be good for Herrell, on closer examination there are some problems for Herrell.

Keep in mind that Herrell is the reigning nominee of the party, and as such she has had massive publicity for nearly two years—based on her year-long campaign in 2018 and throughout 2019 based on the publicity surrounding voting irregularities in Doña Ana County. Understanding that, consider these observations:

1) Herrell is polling only 43%.  And keep in mind that this is with her name recognition is at 84%, while Chase and Mathys probably have only around 15% name recognition (it wasn’t published).  In that context, for Herrell to be that far below 50% has to be a fairly bad sign for Herrell. It is a clear indication that Republican primary voters are not that happy with her as a choice for 2020.

2) And consider the above observation in light of Trump’s whopping 93% approval rating among these same 450 Republican primary voters.

3) 17% of these likely Republican primary voters have a negative opinion of Herrell. More than one in six. That’s not good. Why would that many Republicans—77 of them out of 450—be saying they view her negatively?

Frankly, if we were running the Herrell campaign, we would not have published this information.

Bottom Line on the Poll:

Herrell pummeled here two opponents in the weeks leading up to this poll. With Chris Mathys, she received the unlawful assistance of the Republican Party of New Mexico to attack him. With Chase, she attacked her with a strong advertising campaign on television, radio, social media, and in print media advertising and newspaper stories.

Yet, what happened? Herrell is only at 43% and has a negative rating of 17%. While there is little doubt the attacks on Chase and Mathys hurt their standing—for now—the attacks don't seem to have been nearly as effective as Herrell wanted them to be.

Additionally, the attacks appear to have raised Herrell’s own negatives—piling on to the reputation she developed with her attacks on former Republican state chairman Monty Newman last year, attacks that were perceived to be unfair.

Other CD 2 Issues

We have received quite a bit of input from current and former State House Republicans, upset with the approach the Republican House Caucus is taking in the 2020 battle for control of the legislature.

Namely, key legislators are—again—weirdly focusing on the US House race in CD 2 rather than concentrating on trying to win back the New Mexico State House.

One state rep told us:

“I’m frustrated as I can be. This is exactly what these guys were doing in 2018, running around trying to drum up endorsements for Yvette Herrell, getting involved in a primary and not focusing on their only real job, which is taking care of our numbers in the House.”

The complaint rings true, based on the highly-publicized effort led by House Minority Leader Jim Townsend of Artesia to round up endorsements.

Our records indicate that in late 2017 and early 2018, Townsend worked assiduously on his fellow representatives, eventually rounding up something like 22 House Republicans to endorse Yvette Herrell, including such luminaries as the former Speaker. 

What the fascination was we don’t know. But many now-defeated ex-representatives are alarmed that Townsend is again focusing on a federal race that has nothing at all to do with trying to gain—or even hold onto—the state house seats that have become so scarce on his watch.

“He’s doing the same damned thing,” said another rep.

This time around, however, our reports are that Townsend has been able to secure only five endorsements for Herrell. Although another report has it at six.

Coming Soon: (CD 2, Part 3 of 3) Complaints about the “Gang of 8,” the RPNM’s Controlling Clique and their Bad Advice to Innocent Political Actors.

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

We have read the articles of impeachment—they consist of only 8 pages, with only a few words on page 9. The first article is titled “Abuse of Power.” What will happen with that we don’t know.

Many voters are concerned about the long-term influence of America’s “mainstream” networks, websites, and newspapers. They see not only the bias, which has existed for years, but the relatively new phenomenon of open, unabashed, enthusiastic political advocacy—all of it to the Left or extreme Left.

The concern is that the mass media, including such entities as the New York Times, Bloomberg, Vox, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and MSNBC, will continue to affect the thinking of the already heavily indoctrinated members of Generation Z and the Millennials—not to mention the influence on older generations.

Elizabeth Warren is the latest to do it. After taking a big lead in early November, she’s dropped like a stone in Democrat polls over the past 4 weeks since she “clarified” her “Medicare for All” costs and budget.

But—she says—it’s SEXISM !

We are hopeful that the Conservatives and Prime Minister Boris Johnson can win not only a majority (326 of 650 seats) but a sizeable majority so as to be able to finally follow through with the British people's decision to exit the European Union and the increasingly overreaching and nonsensical European Parliament.

34 million British subjects went to the polls 3½ years ago and shocked the establishment as well as all of Europe by voting decisively, 52-48 to leave the EU. Despite that, vigorous opposition from the Labour Party and other parties, as well as the British media has resulted in roadblock after roadblock on the road to Brexit.

The Republican candidate whose signs were stolen wins the runoff election. Democrat sign-stealing efforts go unrewarded at the polls.

(watch this follow-on 90-second video, as this Leftist activist outlines his “right” to steal)

THIS IS WORTH 90 seconds of your time—it’s actually very amusing:

“I stole five signs...so let’s say that’s $100 worth of speech...a donation to Ane Romero campaign? ... Yeah, you could call it that. That’s what I’m calling it...not everyone has money to throw at campaigns. Stealing campaign signs is my free speech...”

Regardless of one’s position on the impeachment matter, one odd new standard is being established and is being overlooked by everyone:

Becoming a presidential candidate makes that person exempt from investigation.

REMEMBRANCE DAY for 2,403 AMERICANS*

It is also A TIME TO REFLECT on the QUESTION of HIROSHIMA and NAGASAKI

Like the whack-a-mole game in an arcade, the revisionists—and oftentimes totally unrepentant Japanese, including “professors” and teachers—are forever popping up. They try to make the case to themselves first, and also to the United States and the whole world, that they—Japan—are the “victims” of World War II. All this, despite the fact they are the one, singular, grotesquely racist and unrepentant people on the face of the earth.

Japan, through its politicians, “historians,” teachers, professors, and apologists, have never owned up to their barbarism, which including acts that not even the Nazis had committed. And they have taught their succeeding generations NOTHING of their war crimes, aggression, and inhumanity.

Instead, like the whack-a-mole, their lying and misrepresentations are clearly planned forever. They hope that at some point there will be no one to counter their claims, at which point their version of “history” will triumph.

YES, DROPPING THE BOMB ON JAPAN WAS A GOOD DECISION:

Why you should never give it a second thought for the rest of your life.

Dropping the bomb saved 40 million lives—more than 90% of them Japanese. It was not the mythical, wild guess “one million” casualties that talking heads attributed to Truman’s motivation. It was 40 times that.

Enough already. Here are the facts:

In 1945, Japan had a population of 72 million people. The Japanese military still had 4.5 million men on the home islands. Additionally, there were 31.5 million men and women in the "home force." They had all been thoroughly indoctrinated (yes, totally brainwashed) to be just as fanatical as everyone else in this strange, oddly hostile country.

Japan is still, quietly, a racist homeland, whose denizens still teach their children that they were "victims" in World War II, and that America, the British, the Dutch, and the Chinese were the actual “aggressors.”

On Okinawa (and previous campaigns) the Japanese had not only fought to almost the last soldier, but had also lost 30% of the civilians on the island. These were people ethnically closely related to the Japanese whom they had brainwashed into believing that Americans were going to murder them all, rape the women, et cetera.

On the home islands, things were going to be much much worse.

A HISTORY and a RECORD of DYING to the LAST MAN

Based on all the previous campaigns—from Tarawa, to the Solomons, the Marianas, the Gilberts, the Philippines, the Aleutians, and all the way to Okinawa—the Japanese had established a clear record of not surrendering.

A typical campaign would end with 5,000 dead and 17 taken prisoner. Or perhaps, 10,000 or 12,000 killed, and maybe 114 somehow surrendering. Their death toll as a defending force was always well beyond 99% of their strength.

The Japanese government had spent years preparing for an invasion of their islands. They had trained EVERYONE—old men, boys, women, young girls, old women—the works. They had all of them believing the allies would brutalize, rape, torture, and inflict all manner of death and worse.

In a conventional warfare invasion of Japan scenario, we must assume the Japanese would have lost over 25 million soldiers and auxiliaries dead, plus another 12 million non-combatant civilians.

Forget about the two A-bombs. It is vitally important to remember that plain old conventional fire-bombing killed five times as many Japanese as the A-bombs did—and was vastly more "cruel." But no one whines about that because it's not as emotional a subject as "nukes."

The 37 million people wiped out may be a low estimate, but it is a logical estimate. If you think that's high, you need to understand that the total losses in the Soviet Union were over 40 million—and they were not fanatics. And the estimate for the Japanese could be low. Very low. If they had succeeded in getting total buy-in, which was not by any means out of the question, the total Japanese deaths could have been 60 million or more.

ACTUAL ALLIED LOSSES

American losses would have been far beyond the "one million casualties" often thrown around as a cliché. They probably would have exceeded 3 million and possibly as many as 5 million. (That doesn't include the British who were committed to the invasion as well—or the Soviet Union for that matter who were by then prepared to participate too.)

The bottom line is the Japanese weren't going to surrender—they almost refused to surrender even after both bombs were dropped 6 and 9 August 1945. They finally did so 8 days after the first bomb hit. But they reached that momentous decision only after enormous consternation—and after a coup attempt.

Without the bombs, Japan was prepared to fight forever, never surrendering, retreating into the hills, mountains, and the most remote areas of their islands.

The bombs saved a minimum of 40 million lives. The Japanese (and silly Americans too) need to shut up about it.

* 2,008 Navy, 218 Army, 109 Marine Corps, 68 civilians.

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

During the "three professors" hearing, Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz showed that the “highly acclaimed” “objective and scholarly” Democrat star witness “perfessers” are all big-time heavily partisan Democrat activists and donors.

The Democrat Party and the Mainstream Media have issued joint statements indicting the Democrat Party and the entire Democrat primary electorate for blatant racism and sexism!

In the wake of the collapse of the Kamala Harris campaign, the unanimous verdict from all Democrat consultants and pundits, together with the talking heads on NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and CNN is this:

Why do all the Democrats in Congress have to try to glom onto the military service of their fathers, uncles, grandparents, or—in some cases—ancestors?

Do they really perceive that their questions or diatribes are somehow more credible or more weighty and persuasive because they can cite the military service of their parents or ancestors?

Have you noticed that the Democrat committee members read scripted questions to the three Democrat lawyers? And that the Democrat lawyers were reading—or clearly reciting—prepared answers for those questions that have obviously been provided them ahead of time? And that their questions were accompanied by choreographed video and graphics?

So weird. And, well, phony. All of it belies the notion of an investigative hearing.

A woman who is both insultingly pedantic and embarrassingly ignorant.

How great can the Stanford Law School really be? If Pamela Karlan is any example, it can’t be all that great. Like so many people who have been grossly over-promoted—or who have gotten positions based on grotesque abuses of affirmative action or some sort of quota—Karlan is embarrassingly pedantic.

As if reasonably well-read Americans didn’t already know it, Karlan felt it her duty to “teach” us that our Constitution does not permit titles of nobility. Though most of us learned that by the 4th Grade, Karlan was beaming with pride as if she were repeating a real gem of a factoid, or a key whiz-bang line out of one of her Third-year law school lectures.

As if that weren’t embarrassing enough, Karlan then said:

“While the president can name his son ‘Barron,’ he can’t make him a baron.”

Wow! How monumentally stupid! Karlan does not even know that the president’s son’s name is not “Baron.”

 

She can neither spell nor reason well. Barron has nothing to do with the word “baron.” And she is a “distinguished professor” at Stanford University. Heaven help us.

Later, when she pretended to apologize, she couldn’t even do that. She issued another version of the “modern apology” — “I’ll apologize (grudgingly) but Trump should apologize.”

Politicians use the modern apology, which is no apology at all. And maybe that’s correct for Karlan, as she is every ounce the politician. One thing for sure—she’s no jurist. God help Stanford.

To be fair, the Harvard University law professor and the North Carolina law professor were equally unimpressive. All three of them were overt activists who provided nothing that was even remotely scholarly.

What ripoffs law schools must be today! We can hope that they are at least teaching how to do wills and powers of attorney because they’re certainly not teaching any Constitutional law.

---

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

---

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

The Democrat professor Jonathan Turley has shown himself—despite his opposition to Trump—to be a vastly superior lawyer and jurist to the other three Democrat professors.

Turley is dispassionate, scholarly, balanced, and constantly referring to historical and legal precedent.

(And the same would hold true for any other right of center, or even center-right party that might emerge.)

Here is the video:  https://bit.ly/2Mp27wc

Sadly, it does reflect the reality of Millennials, Gen Z, and even Gen X in America. And it demonstrates the tragic and devastating malpractice in the field of education in the United States over the past three generations. While extremely damaging to young children in both primary and secondary schools, this malpractice has had its MOST DEVASTATING effects in post-secondary education.

And within that highest level of educational instruction, the MOST extreme consequences have been observed at the most prestigious colleges and universities—the ones which impart "credentials" of the highest order, if not necessarily greater knowledge or understanding of the subject matter—where tuition exceeds $50,000 per year. (The ones that parents will go to jail for—just to get their children in.)

Want to see what you get for that money? Watch the video.

[NOTE: This video is not from one of the "credential" schools, but was taken at the State University of New Jersey. However, the "thinking" reflected in the video is the same, if not somewhat less violent or aggressive than that which takes place at Ivy League schools or the more prestigious schools.]

MANY of us DID NOT NOTICE

We were oblivious for too long about what was happening—quite systematically and institutionally actually—in the American educational system. But the video below, while not representing "all" Millenials, Gen Z, or Gen Z cohorts, does, in fact, represent the indoctrinated "thinking" of millions of Americans now in the electorate. That is to say, "They walk among us and they vote." They have been ill-served through the silent and unnoticed adoption of textbooks written by ideologues and the instruction of teachers, who have been victims themselves.

It appears that among the current generation, just entering the electorate—Generation Z—perhaps as many as 75 to 80% of the cohort hold the views "articulated" in the video. For Millenials, the figure is probably 55 to 65%. Among the Generation X cohort, the "belief system" is probably between 40 and 55%. (And, yes, it's almost certain that 20% or more of Baby Boomers have converted themselves into thinking like this.)

(For an example of how Millennials/Gen Z actually talk, go to approximately 3:10. For an example of the "comprehensive philosophy," go to about 6:00.)

Yes, the future does look fairly bleak for the Republican Party.

[DISCLAIMER: NMPJ does not endorse the producer of the video, and the last minute of the video should be ignored.]

THE GENERATIONS

Gen Z: Born approximately 1997 to the present day
Millennials: Born approximately 1981 to 1996
Gen X: Born approximately 1965 to 1980
Baby Boomers: 1 Jan 1946 to 31 Dec 1964
Silent Generation: Roughly 1928-1945
World War II Generation: 1901-1927
Lost Generation: 1883-1900 (Now extinct)

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

In 2018, Yvette Herrell was unable to hold the congressional seat vacated by Steve Pearce. Okay, so sometimes campaigns don't go well. So back to the drawing board.

But our question is this: Is the recipe for 2020  to attack and vilify all Republicans who supported someone other than Trump in the 2016 presidential primaries? (Even if that group includes Herrell?) Does this make sense on any level?

How is this a strategy for success against Xochitl Torres Small? Who came up with this plan? Is it really smart? Or is it just yet another prescription for divisiveness, defeat, and disaster conjured up by the same gang of disgruntled haters who brought us 2016 and 2018?

The Gang of 8

We have reported extensively on the ongoing disaster brought on by the Gang of 8* that seized control of the Republican Party of New Mexico following the 2014 election. That Gang was jealous of the near-miraculous accomplishments of then-Governor Martinez. Martinez had just finished raising some $3 million which she and her team used to finance a brilliant strategic effort that resulted in the Republicans capturing the State House of Representatives for the first time in 60 years.

The Gang couldn’t stand it, with their hatred for her overriding the best interests of the state—and of New Mexico.

So they took control, and decided to pursue a collection of personal agendas which has resulted in systematically and relentlessly driving the party into near-complete ineffectual irrelevance.

Their “efforts” and “management” resulted in immediately losing back the House to the Democrats. Then just two years after that, their ineptitude reached world-record levels of incompetence, culminating last November in the greatest electoral disaster the New Mexico GOP has ever seen.

YET, THE GANG GOES ON: ONCE AGAIN PUSHING YVETTE HERRELL

That Gang, however, along with their allies, specifically in Alamogordo, are akin to the energizer Bunny of destructiveness. They appear to be continuously and fanatically devoted to destroying as many other Republicans as they possibly can influence or reach. The “reverse Midas Touch” has perhaps never been more starkly identified.

In 2018, the Gang pulled out all the stops for State Representative Yvette Herrell, a Pearce acolyte, to succeed Pearce in CD2. This open interference badly split Lea County Republicans by turning off and permanently alienating several thousand GOP voters who favored former Hobbs Mayor Monty Newman. 

The Gangs’ meddling in Lea County were doubly inept in that 1) Lea County is the state’s strongest GOP county, and 2) the whole effort backfired as Herrell steadfastly refused to debate Democrat nominee Xochitl Torres Small, something Newman would not have been afraid to do. The Herrell team ran a bizarrely disorganized campaign and Herrell lost by a sizeable margin.

Now, the Gang has Herrell back in the Republican primary race for a second go. This time she’s apologizing for her campaign blunders in 2018, and pledging to debate and to do “all the things she failed to do in the last campaign.”

ATTACKS on CLAIRE CHASE

Rather than run a positive campaign to inspire and motivate the GOP base (complete with the appropriate mea culpas about the blowing the 2018 general election), the 2020 Herrell team has decided to try to destroy the nascent campaign of her only serious primary opponent, Roswell Republican Claire Chase.

They have hit upon the tactic of trying to use Chase’s opposition to Trump in 2015 and 2016. Herrell, for her part, is now claiming (in Orwellian-styled lingo) to have “always been for Trump,” without a single bit of support for that claim. The evidence suggests she was actually for Ted Cruz—and others—before she found it useful to claim she had “always” been for Trump.

Clearly, neither Herrell nor Chase was truly a Trump enthusiast. So what?

Are the 2015/2016 “Trump Questions” Really Fair? Or Relevant?

Or is it more relevant to be for Trump Now?

Okay, so Chase opposed Trump in the primaries four years ago, and didn’t vote for him in the primaries. So what?

That actually lines her up with the vast majority of all Republicans. When all the votes in all 50 states’ Republican primaries were counted, Trump had 14,105,993 votes. But 17,167,848 Republicans had voted AGAINST him. (Likely including both Herrell and Chase.)

That’s right: Even after all the other candidates had dropped out, and Trump was handed the final dozen or so primaries without opposition, when all the votes were counted Trump was still opposed by a landslide majority of Republicans!

And that was after all the other Republicans had dropped out. He had started out with only 24% and 35% in New Hampshire, and only 34% on Super Tuesday. Just before his last opponent dropped out, he was being opposed by some 60% of GOP voters!

So what if you are a Republican who didn’t make Trump your First Choice?

The point we are making is that it is not an unpardonable sin for Republicans not to have not supported Trump three years ago—so long as they didn’t vote for Clinton. (Otherwise, Trump would have left 17 million votes on the table, and would have lost in a landslide.)

So does Herrell’s Gang bringing all this up, and rehashing it, matter?

Does that make the 55.2% of Republicans who opposed Trump’s nomination “bad people”? Is that relevant 3½ years later? Or is the fact that 88% of Republicans now support Trump a more relevant data point?

Why is this Gang, this one group of people—who by the way were also among the 2016 Republican majority who wanted someone other than Trump—trying to get a little bit of hate going?

Do they foment divisiveness just for the sake of it? Did they not learn anything from their loss of the House in 2016? Or their historically catastrophic loss of almost everything else in 2018? Apparently not.

Herrell, presumably with the encouragement and the approval of The Gang, has now even started a separate stand-alone website whose sole purpose is to hate on Claire Chase.  Southern New Mexico Republicans can be forgiven if they ask: “That’s your campaign? That’s your rationale for being the choice to take on Xochitl?”

* The eight include the names, Harvey Yates, Ryan Cangiolosi, Andrea Goff, John Billingsley, Mark Murphy, Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin, Rocky Galassini, and Stevan Pearce.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

1) FIONA HILL

Fiona Hill, because she has a British accent, clearly greatly impressed the mainstream media, who are easily wowed by such superficial factors.

But Hill did something truly reprehensible. She spoke of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which is a well-known anti-Semitic book. She spoke of it in faux professorial terms, as if she were talking to a high school freshman class, and acted as if she were discussing something that is little-known or obscure and that she’s some sort of monumental intellectual just because she knows about it.

Wrong. We all know about it.

The “Protocols” is a disgusting attack on Jews and Judaism. It has been discredited since its publication over a century ago. The only people who actually believe anything contained in the book are the leaders of the Islamic world—and Islamists throughout America. (Islam, oddly, is the only religion the modern Democrat Party defends, but we digress.)

Ridiculously, Hill tried to establish this outrageous claim:

 Anyone who criticizes the billionaire Democrat activist George Soros is equal to those anti-Semites who actually believe the      "Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”  In other words, because Soros is of Jewish heritage (even though he has long-since denied any belief in Judaism) if you attack him for his nefarious and fraudulent political activities, you are saying that you believe in anti-Semitic propaganda.

Anti-Soros = Anti-Semitic

What? This is nothing short of outrageously stupid. And it discredits her as any kind of scholar.

Imagine one of the Republican congressmen saying:

“Listen, you Democrats, if you attack Ronald Reagan, or Eisenhower, or Abraham Lincoln, (or Trump, for that matter) then that means you hate freedom and America and it actually means you are endorsing Hitler’s book “Mein Kampf.”

That would be stupid and groundless. Just like what Fiona Hill said. Her statements on this subject were probably the intellectual low point of the entire proceedings—and that is saying something, as there is stiff competition for that award. (How George Soros has achieved iconic status in the Democrat Party is unknown, but it's the subject for a later discussion.)

2) JIM JORDAN’S “LANDSLIDE’ LANGUAGE

Jim Jordan keeps repeating the dumbass statements by Trump that he won “one of the greatest Electoral College landslides in history."

This is not only untrue, it’s ridiculous, and it’s stupid to keep saying it. It also serves no purpose other than to establish yourself as someone who will tell tall tales.

In 2016, Trump got 304 Electoral votes, 34 more than the bare minimum necessary to win. Out of 59 presidential elections in US history, it was the 13th closest. It is absurd to call it a landslide—in fact, it’s kind of stupid in that it plays the audience as an ignorant lot. (They may be, so it may work, but it is still playing them. And it is morally wrong to insult your audience's intelligence just because you know you can, and get away with it.)

If Trump had lost Texas, he would have lost the election. Or, to use examples of states that were very close, if he had lost Florida plus one more state he would have lost the election.

The point is, Trump won the election in the Constitutionally-prescribed manner provided for in the Electoral College.

Period. He earned it. He won fair and square. That is a fact. There is nothing beyond that that can be gained by going ahead and lying about it. Or by inventing tales that make it sound more grandiose.

We don’t understand why people, including Trump, do this kind of thing. It only harms credibility, and does so needlessly.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

[We don't approve of offensive language, and would not use this term ourselves, but others have used the term "Fart-gate" to describe this story.]

SWALWELL PASSES (considerable) GAS on LIVE TV https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XK797-vj4k

A secret study has been leaked by insiders at the DNC, showing that the Chairman, Thomas Perez, authorized surveillance of Democrat front runner Joe Biden this past April.

The DNC study showed that Biden has been hiding, and did in fact again this spring, hide his own Easter Eggs. Successfully. Locating only 2 of 24.

We see Campaign Ads Coming...

The Democrats may crank it up somewhat over next few days, who knows? But for now, we presume the Republicans have already captured several key moments within the hearings and they’ve already created about five devastating ads...

Question to Ambassador Taylor and Secretary Kent:

“Are either of you here to today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?"

...two deer caught in headlights...dead silence, slight mumbling...lifeline anyone?

Question to Ambassador Yovanovitch:

“Do you have any information regarding the president of the United States accepting any bribes?”

“No.”

“Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that he has been involved with at all?”

“No.”

Then there’s Chris Stewart’s question...

After both of Wednesday’s diplomats went really long and deep about how Ukraine and the rest of the world are incredibly corrupt and rife with bribery and extortion, Stewart plays to their vast knowledge of all the corruption in the world:

“Can you give me an example, anytime, where the Vice President shows up and demands that a specific prosecutor be fired and gives them a 6 hour time limit to do so? Are you aware of that ever happening in any other place?”

More deer in the headlights...

And an immediate realization that each was “hoist with his own petard.”

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

TRUMP SENDS A DUMB TWEET DURING FRIDAY'S TESTIMONY

Every ambassador serves at the pleasure of the president. In fact, an ambassador is the personal in-country representative of the President of the United States. If he wants to fire one or replace one it’s his call.

In fact, presidents have fired ambassadors many many times throughout American history. So Yovanovitch has no basis for whining—and firing her is not grounds for impeachment.

Trump Hurts his Own Cause—Not because the Tweet is "Intimidating," but Just Because it's a Dumb Tweet

(No one except NMPJ, that is.)

NOTE TO READERS: Please provide answers, if you can

Republicans worried sick about where all of his massive support will end up now.

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford—aka App-Trail Mark—just now ended his presidential campaign, less than two months after announcing his bid to knock off Trump.

The Concept of the Whistleblower

• What it is and is NOT.
• The danger of not understanding it.
• A few words about the 6th Amendment
   

A “whistleblower” is someone who is afforded protection against losing his/her job for coming forth to provide evidence of wrongdoing. There is nothing in the whistleblower concept that indicates that such an individual is “anonymous.”

On the contrary, a government that accepts and uses evidence from an anonymous informant to prosecute wrongdoing need not protect an informant at all. After all, the informant is unknown. That being the case, why would such protection even be necessary?

Someone who can remain anonymous NEEDS NO PROTECTION—he or she is, by definition UNKNOWN.

MISUSE of WHISTLEBLOWER CONCEPT

If the Democrat/Media position on whistleblowers is correct, then US Government agencies could just begin to use 800 number lines, invite callers to “blow their whistles,” and then prosecute anyone they want based on anonymous messages.

The SIXTH AMENDMENT

Under the 6th Amendment, anyone accused in America has the right to:

• be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation;
• be confronted with the witnesses against him;
• have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and
• have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The Democrats in Congress have thus far not only disregarded these fundamental concepts, they have shown aggressive contempt for them. This should be a very sobering moment for all Americans, regardless of political affiliation.

Trump may or may not have violated a law or committed some high crime, but whether he has or has not he must be afforded the same procedural protections afforded all other Americans.

Denying the Republicans the right of calling witnesses, or to cross-examine other witnesses represents a great danger to all of us, not just the minority in Congress, and not just Trump.

IN SUM

In our view, the Democrats and their media allies are attempting to change fundamental concepts about the American judicial system.

This represents a danger to civil liberties that extends well beyond any partisan political considerations. By ignoring basic components of due process, the Democrats are counting on the increasingly evident ignorance of millions of Americans, and, sadly, are also engaged in aggressively teaching ignorance to millions more.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

This was written in the winter of 1788, but does it sound like today? You tell us.

We list 10 phrases written by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65.*

How many of these phrases do you perceive fit the current circumstances? Let us know your number. 

...the trial of impeachments...

1. "...They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL..." [Note: capital letters are from Hamilton, not NMPJ]

2. "...The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community,

3. "...and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.

4. "...In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions,

5. "...and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other..."

6. "...and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."

7. "...The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived..."

8. "...most conspicuous characters in it will...be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning

9. "...[most conspicuous characters in it will...be too often [of]] ...the most numerous faction..."

10. "...[the most cunning] can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny."

* While Federalist 65 deals directly with the potential role of the Senate in a post-impeachment trial, it is also applicable as a means of evaluating the role and conduct of the House of Representatives in the indictment process, which is in fact "impeachment."

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

We received the following email from Albuquerque Attorney Pat Rogers, to whom we had credited the defeat of the so-called Democracy Dollars initiative, promoted by the progressive Left in the recently concluded Albuquerque municipal election.

Dear NMPJ:

Some high school pals sent me your recent Democracy Dollar article. I write, somewhat reluctantly, to give credit where credit is due.  Because I have done lots of other good things without any credit I admit I was tempted to leave the impression I whipped up on the Democracy Dollar advocates, single-handedly.

My old pals who commented about the article know me and remain convinced there must be more to the story. There is.

The Rio Grande Foundation, a free-market advocacy outfit in New Mexico, is responsible for the lion’s share of the $200 spent in opposition. The Rio Grande Foundation sponsored the first podcast against Democracy Dollars and that is still online at their site.  

They dreamed up the excellent website title:  “Go Fund Yourself”. Their website contains lots of background on the issue. Any of your readers interested in the details of the battle or the other free-market battles in New Mexico should check out the Rio Grande Foundation website.  

A worthy cause and source of information for anyone in favor of freedom and limited government.http://nowaynm.org/

Other individuals and the Bernalillo County Republican Party pitched in with letters to the editor and emails to friends.

The odds and forces aligned in favor of this latest bad idea from the coast were actually even more significant and one-sided than noted in the article.

The money that will be finally reported by the advocates of the wacky, wasteful scheme will be well over $550,000 because the leftist groups have yet to report the contributions and expenditures for the last days of the campaign, the time when the most dollars and time are usually expended.

More important, the usual suspects pushing this bad idea included OLÉ (formerly known as ACORN until a variety of illegal activities were exposed), Progress Now, Working Families, Common Cause and a host of the usual out-of-state coastal leftists that often don’t report accurately.

The last few days of the Democracy Dollar campaign also featured endorsements for Democracy Dollars by some nobodies named Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, some Texas yahoo, and some others who should never be elected to any public office. Luckily their endorsements were ignored.

Thank you for your report on this significant victory for the taxpayers and voters. Occasionally, common sense prevails.  

Patrick J. Rogers

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Watch this short video and see what California’s massive POPULAR VOTE will lead to in the rest of America.

Remember: We are NOT a direct democracy. And Direct Democracy leads to a California.

Click here:  https://www.facebook.com/craigneil/videos/10214966635135435/

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

The Demise of Democracy Dollars

Perhaps the biggest news of last Tuesday evening was the defeat of the progressive Democrats’ scheme called “Democracy Dollars.”

It was a plan that would provide everyone in Albuquerque with a $25 voucher (paid for by Albuquerque taxpayers) that each person could “donate” to the Albuquerque city council or mayoral candidate of his/her choice.

The proponents of the scheme, who are by and large Left-wing campaign consultants and so-called non-profit leftist activists, spent more than $550,000 to win the voters’ approval for what would have been a new source for an additional $14 million in public financing.

The proposal was riddled with loopholes and components that just screamed “fraud” and “scam,” but it had a nice name.

(Opponents pointed out that that name was highly misleading and that it should be called “Democrat Dollars,” since it was being pushed so hard by New Mexico’s dominant political party.)

Democracy Dollars Goes All Out—Leaving No Stone Unturned (and no turn unstoned)

The Democracy Dollars crowd pulled out all the stops: rallies on Civic Plaza led by far-Left Albuquerque politico Eric Griego, paid door-to-door campaigning, tons of mail, radio, television, celebrity endorsements, catchy slogans, and cool nicknames like "Burque Bucks." 

The money poured in from all over Left-wing America. They touted the support of the so-called "Common Cause" organization.

(The "common" in the name apparently comes from its "common," and in fact unanimous and unwavering support for every single Left-wing idea which is broached anywhere in America.) 

They had the support of the League of Women Voters, which, as we understand

One Lonely Opponent

Meanwhile, going up against more than a half-million dollars in advertising was the lonely voice of Albuquerque attorney Pat Rogers, and one or two other supporters who, combined, spent less than $250 (that’s right, two-hundred and fifty dollars).

Rogers published an Op-ed in the Albuquerque Journal excoriating the scheme and its flaws. He then went on a PBS show on KNME’s Channel 5 (which perhaps has 500-600 viewers in all of New Mexico) and calmly demolished the entire proposal, step-by-step. He spoke to a business forum, perhaps attended by 50 or 60 people, and he went on KKOB Radio 770 for an hour.

That was it.

The result?

                YES: 39,317 (48.7%)

                NO:  41,356 (51.3%)

Yeah, the Democracy Dollars crowd, despite enjoying a spending advantage of 2,200 to 1, actually managed to lose the election.

Go figure!

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

Commemorating the ultra stupid Texas “Clock Boy” hoax that bewildered so many Democrats—Obama invited the perpetrator, Ahmed Mohamed, to the White House, believing that he was some sort of budding “scientist” or “genius-like engineer.”

What is forgotten is that Mohamed’s father the creatively-named Mohamed Mohamed (it seems his family ran out of name ideas) tried desperately to make money out of the entire ordeal, filing a half dozen lawsuits.

New Mexico Republicans can be glad that the RPNM is now acting to ensure election integrity—albeit too late to save at least 70 ballots. Nonetheless, Steve Pearce is to be commended for taking action.

In response to our article, the RPNM swung into action late this afternoon. They filed suit against the three entities we had identified for them as having acted unlawfully:

• The Doña Ana County Clerk
• The Secretary of State
• The Absent Voter Precinct Board

With Las Cruces mayoral candidate Mike Tellez as the plaintiff, they went into district court in Las Cruces. We are proud to share highlights of this RPNM press release as they read almost verbatim from our article:

REPUBLICAN PARTY of NEW MEXICO and LAS CRUCES MAYORAL CANDIDATE SUE STATE OVER ABSENTEE BALLOTS

The Republican Party of New Mexico and Las Cruces mayoral candidate Mike Tellez have filed suit against New Mexico’s Secretary of State, the Dona Ana County Clerk and the County’s Absent Voter Precinct Board. The RPNM and Tellez claim the defendants are ignoring a 2019 law that requires absentee voters to provide their name, address and date of birth.

The lawsuit charges that The AVPB had been instructed by the County Clerk, who herself was acting on the advice of the Secretary of State Maggie Oliver, to count the ballots despite at least one of the three qualifications missing. The suit claims the defendants did nothing to fix this problem.

The Republican Party and Tellez are asking the court for an injunction to stop the counting of absentee ballots. The RPNM has learned at least 70 of these ballots have at least one of the three necessary pieces of information missing. The Plaintiffs want the ballots sequestered until a ruling.

The Party is also asking for a declaratory judgment to clarify the meaning of the 2019 changes to the statute. It wants the court to set a uniform statewide standard for qualifying and counting absentee votes for this non-partisan election and future ones. While this local election is non-partisan, there are many registered GOP voters in Dona Ana County.

“What’s happening in Dona Ana County is wrong and setting a bad precedent for future elections. Our Party must stand up to this. People who vote illegally are hurting the integrity of the system. We as a Party must raise a red flag when we see people ignoring voting laws,” said Steve Pearce, RPNM Chairman. “It’s our duty to call on the State to fix these problems.”

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

In the current local election taking place in Doña Ana County, the Doña Ana County Clerk, claiming to be acting on instructions from the Secretary of State, is—once again—violating state law.

Despite explicit direction given by the state legislature, Doña Ana County is once again accepting absentee ballots whose outer envelopes do not provide the identification information a voter must provide in order for his or her ballot to be accepted and counted. The outer envelope of a returned absentee ballot must show:

• The voter’s name
• The voter’s registration address
• The voter’s year of birth
• The voter’s signature

In other words, to vote by absentee ballot a voter must provide the same information that the early voter or the Election Day voter must provide as a condition for receiving a ballot. (Outer envelope shown at right.)

In the CD2 race last year, the Doña Ana County Clerk accepted hundreds of ballots which were missing one or more of the mandatory requirements shown above.

This past March, the state legislature passed legislation making it crystal clear (it was already clear but being ignored) by inserting new, unmistakable language mandating that the information identifying the voter had to be included for a ballot to be accepted.

What has the Doña Ana County Clerk Done?

She has ordered that ballots with missing signatures, years of birth, and other omissions be accepted. Not only has she accepted the ballots, she has had the Absent Voter Precinct Board:

1)  open the outer envelopes (where the missing information is supposed to be attached)

2)  remove the inner envelopes—the ones with the actual voted ballots; and

3)  separate the inner envelopes from the outer ones, so it is now impossible to verify the voter

She has comingled all the ballots. This means it is impossible to tell legitimate, law-abiding and lawful voters casting legal ballots from those who don’t fit that category.

There are several categories of voters whose ballots may not qualify—that’s one of the principal the reasons for the existence of the Absent Voter Precinct Board. Some of those categories are:

• Voters who are qualified electors, but ineligible to vote in a particular district or contest
• Individuals who are committing vote fraud
• Voters whose names or addresses are being used by others who are committing fraud

By ignoring the law and by eliminating the role of the Absent Voter Precinct Board, the County Clerk—with the authorization of the Secretary of State—has created yet another New Mexico “goat roping” and substituted that for a legal election in which established lawful voting procedures are to be used.

[PLEASE NOTE: A decision taken by the Absent Voter Precinct Board to reject a ballot is not final and does not finally exclude anyone from voting. Instead, a rejected ballot is set aside and treated in much the same way as a provisional ballot. The voter may ultimately be able to show that his or her ballot should count--by providing a signature or correct information, etc., in which case the mailing envelope shall be opened and the ballot shall be counted.]

Where is the Republican Party of New Mexico?

The above-referenced violations of election law are setting the stage for the 2020 Presidential Election year in which all congressional seats, a US Senate race, and the entire New Mexico legislature will be contested.

And here we have the same violations committed by the same people in the same city and county where the 2018 violations took place.

We have it on good authority that State Chairman Steve Pearce was notified of these ongoing violations, but did nothing. As a result, no injunction was filed and this morning the ballots were finally opened and comingled, despite the illegality of the entire procedure.

If these kinds of violations are allowed to continue, then not only do Republicans have no hope whatsoever of seeing a Republican presidential candidate carry New Mexico, they have very little chance of winning all the other elections.

What Does the Applicable Law Say about Absentee Voting?

1- 6- 8. Mailed ballot envelopes.

C. The reverse of each official mailing envelope shall contain a form to be executed by the voter completing the mailed ballot. The form shall identify the voter and shall contain the following statement: "I have not and will not vote any other ballot in this election". The official mailing envelope shall contain a space for the voter to record the voter's name, registration address and year of birth. The envelope shall have a security flap to cover this information.

1- 6- 9. Mailed ballots; manner of voting; delivery methods.

A. When voting a mailed ballot, the voter shall secretly mark the mailed ballot in the manner provided in the Election Code for marking paper ballots, place it in the official inner envelope and securely seal the envelope. The voter shall then place the official inner envelope inside the official mailing envelope and securely seal the envelope. The voter shall then complete the form on the reverse of the official mailing envelope, which shall include a statement by the voter under penalty of perjury that the facts stated in the form are true and the voter's name, registration address and year of birth.

6- 14. Handling mailed ballots.

A. At any time after mailed ballots have been sent to voters and until the fifth day before the election, the county clerk may convene an election board to meet during the normal business hours of the office of the county clerk to qualify the mailed ballots that are returned. Before opening an official mailing envelope, the presiding judge and the election judges shall determine that the required information has been completed on the reverse side of the official mailing envelope.

B. If the voter's signature or the required voter identification is missing, the presiding judge shall write "Rejected" on the front of the official mailing envelope. The judge or election clerk shall enter the voter's name in the signature rosters or register and shall write the notation "Rejected- - Missing Signature" or "Rejected- - Missing Required Voter Identification" in the "Notations" column of the register. The presiding judge shall place the official mailing envelope unopened in a container provided for rejected ballots.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

He's giving a Medal of Honor to a Green Beret, but NOTHING to Hunter Biden for his 30 days’ solid service in the Navy Reserve before being discharged for failing a drug test.*

Hunter later went to New Mexico Tech and became an expert in Petroleum Engineering. He then parlayed those skills into huge million-dollar “consulting fees” as an international expert. (Wait. No. He just used Clintonesque pay-to-play techniques.)

This is—very sad to say—how far the Democrats have sunk. Previous Democrats, like Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, or Senator Henry M. “Scoop” Jackson, or Senator John F. Kennedy, would have safeguarded US secrets. 

But in the modern Democratic Party there is no one left who will not leak classified information for partisan political purposes.

READERS' RESPOND

• Juli Adcock The president made a wise decision not to tell them and doncha know that they're eating their hearts out over it.
  TENOR
•  
•  
  Frank Drinkwinre Communists

  Jan Hinkle Adam isn't doing his job.
•  
•  
•  
• Jackie Sanders We the people can't trust democrats ! They hate our America , and our freedom
  Nolan Gonzales Did they get Baghdadi nuf said now next
•  
• Billy Dalton Interesting Read...??
  LET THEM GO AHEAD AND IMPEACH TRUMP ... HERE'S WHAT HAPPENS THEN...... CHUGGA CHUGGA CHOO CHOO
  By: Hyram F. Suddfluffel, PhD, (Political Science)
  
  I have a degree in Political Science, and I am a card-carrying Libertarian. I've been studying politics and political history for the past 30 years. My specialty is U.S. Presidents. That said, I hope that the House of Representatives impeaches Trump. Let me tell you what will happen next!
  
  1. The House can pass articles of impeachment over the objections of the Republicans and refer to the Senate for trial.
  
  2. The Senate will conduct a trial. There will be a vote, and the Republicans will vote unanimously, along with a small number of Democrats, to not convict the President. Legally, it will all be over at that point.
  
  3. However, during the trial, and this is what no one is thinking about right now, the President's attorneys will have the right to subpoena and
  question ANYONE THEY WANT! That is different than the special counsel investigation, which was very one-sided. So, during the impeachment trial, we will be hearing testimony from James Comey, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Bruce Ohr, Glenn Simpson, Donna Brazille, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, Christopher Steele, Hillary Clinton, John Brennan, James Clapper, and a whole host of other participants in this whole sordid affair and the ensuing coverup activities. A lot of dirt will be dug up; a lot of truth will be unveiled. Finger pointing will occur. Deals will start being made, and suddenly, a lot of democrats will start being charged and going to prison. All this, because, remember, the President's team will now, for the first time, have the RIGHT to question all of these people under oath – and they will turn on each other. That is already starting.
  
  4. Lastly, one more thing will happen, the Senate will not convict the President. Nothing will happen to Trump. Most Americans are clueless about political processes, the law, and the Constitution. Most Americans believe that being impeached results in removal from office. They don't understand that phase 2 is a trial in and by the Senate, where he has zero chance of conviction. Remember, the Senate is controlled by Republicans; they will determine what testimony is allowed -- and *everything* will be allowed, including: DNC collusion with the Clinton campaign to fix the election in favor of Hillary, the creation of the Trump dossier, the cover up and destruction of emails that very likely included incriminating information. They will incriminate each other for lying to the FISA court, for spying and wiretapping the Trump campaign, and for colluding with foreign political actors, especially George Soros. After the Senate declines to convict the President, we will have an election, and Trump will win. It will be a backlash against democrat petulance, temper tantrums, hypocrisy and dishonesty. Even minorities will vote for Trump, because, for the first time, they will see that democrats have spent 2+ years focused on maintaining their own power, and not doing anything at all about black murders in Chicago, homelessness, opioids, and other important issues that are actually killing people. And, we will spend the following four years listening to politicians and pundits claim that the whole impeachment was rigged.
  
  So let's move on to impeachment.

  Annie D. Cook He didn't tell you Nasty Nancy because you would have leaked it....traitor

  ---

  Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

  Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

  

Republicans in Albuquerque are getting outspent $500,000 to $0 by outside groups. That’s not a typo, nor an exaggeration. 

Back in the day, under previous leadership—including former State Chairmen Allen Weh and Monty Newman, along with Governor Susana Martinez—the Republican Party of New Mexico (RPNM) recognized how important municipal elections could be.

And the Republican National Committee has long preached the need for a “bench”, an all-out effort to attract Republican candidates for local offices, school boards, etc. (Just as Democrats have—it's where people like Martin Heinrich came from.)

In those days, the state party spent money in municipal races, targeting specific precincts, trying out different messages, with different demographic groups and interest groups, seeing where the vote trends were migrating in the Democrats’ favor while identifying places where Republicans might have opportunities to make inroads. And—most important—targeting campaign messages in support of those Republican candidates who were willing to put their names on the line.

This kind of attention to detail, combining tactical thinking and strategic planning, paid big dividends. In Heather Wilson’s last congressional campaign, her 861-vote margin of victory (105,986 to 105,125) was directly attributable to precise targeting in decisive Albuquerque precincts.

It was based on crucial information that had been gleaned by the state party from its activity in the previous year’s city election.

Today’s RPNM? Nothing Happening at All. Leaving Republican candidates on their own.

Unfortunately for Republicans, those kinds of skills and expertise no longer exist within the RPNM.

Today, the current Republican Party of New Mexico is doing nothing at all while Democrats spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to elect their candidates. 

In addition to the $500,000 they have reported spending on the ground, California radical environmental groups are even pouring in cash. KOAT recently reported that “two California-based environmental advocacy groups have contributed a total of $50,000 to help support a City Council candidate

 "It's not illegal but it definitely does not look good,” said Paul Gessing, president of the taxpayer watch group Rio Grande Foundation. “It is a lot of money coming into a city council candidate from outside our state."

Candidate Maurreen Skowran has received $40,000 in taxpayer money for her campaign. “Public records show that the Sierra Club, based in Oakland, California and Green Advocacy Project located in Palo Alto, California, both donated $25,000 to a separate political action committee with the express purpose of helping Skowran.

Trudy Jones, Skowran's opponent, is calling foul.

"This is skirting around the system,” she said. “It is blatantly skirting the system.”

RPNM response: Crickets chirping in the evening silence.

DEMOCRAT DOLLARS—Things are about to get a lot Worse!

If the progressives’ most recent scam—the ballot question they have named “Democracy Dollars”—ends up passing, Republicans are in for a lot worse. The real name for the proposal that is on the ballot should be “Democrat Dollars.” If passed, this initiative would provide each “resident” (not just registered voters) with a voucher worth $25. That could amount to some $14 million in taxpayer dollars being diverted to political campaigns.

The term “resident” makes everyone eligible—all ages, citizen or non-citizen, convicted felon or not, temporarily here or not. Albuquerque is a sanctuary city and its increased population of non-citizens will simply give OLÉ more “voters” (legal or not) to round up and skim money from.

The ballot measure is being supported by sleight-of-hand “contributions” being transferred from pot to pot to pot by the likes of “ABQ Democracy Dollars,” the Left-wing front group that goes under the name “Common Cause,” the so-called “Working Families Party,” and OLÉ—the new name for the infamous “ACORN” group, the Obama-led organization that registered hundreds of thousands of fraudulent voters, and whose members ended up in jail.

These groups have reported having over $450,000 as of mid-October.  

Where is the Republican Party of New Mexico on all of this? Nowhere. The Democrats are playing Chess, while the Republicans are playing “who threw paint on the wall of our building” and other ridiculous diversions. (The answer, by the way, is a couple of Pearce-Tinnin recruits.)  

Democrat Dollars is such a bad idea that the progressives may have an uphill battle getting it approved by voters. But the progressives are smart in pursuing the ballot measure aggressively—because they understand that even if "Democracy Dollars" were to fail, their Left-wing city council candidates will be benefiting from the massive investment in voter turnout that is part of the ballot measure push.

In other words, they may get some Lefties elected even if the ballot measure fails.

CONSEQUENCES?

It takes a certain amount of courage to run for public office—to expose oneself to criticism, unfair attacks by both opponents as well as the media, and the potential humiliation of losing, or losing very badly at the ballot box. For Republicans in places like Albuquerque, all those risks are doubled—with the city migrating steadily leftward.

In other words, if there’s any place where the state Republican Party organization needs to show support and encouragement it is the Duke City. You can't leave candidates hanging out to dry.

By being disorganized, and completely unaware and uninterested in city elections, and leaving Republican women and men exposed to unrelenting attacks and overwhelming spending from a united hard-Left coalition, the Republican Party of New Mexico is forever discouraging intelligent, dedicated Republicans from running for office.

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

The Alamogordo Daily News has reported that the "Cowboys for Trump" is supposedly under investigation by the State Auditor, Brian Colón. This has to do with supposedly questionable travel reimbursements surrounding a trip made by the organization's leader, Otero County Commissioner Couy Griffin. 

There has been much upheaval and consternation both in the local newspaper as well as on social media, no doubt causing a good degree of anguish within the Cowboys for Trump circle. Griffin, for his part, has engaged in very reasonable, indeed much-praised lobbying and advocacy in support of his constituents.

Regarding mismanagement by the federal government on such issues as the federally-sponsored infestation of wolves, poor forest management, and a whole host of property rights issues, Griffin articulates the views of not only Otero County residents but also those of rural New Mexico at large.

Activities Must be Presumed Legal: Long-Time Republican Leader is Griffin's Treasurer

The Daily News quotes Griffin: 

Griffin said after consulting with Otero County's attorney and manager about possible violations of established travel requirements, it was the "right thing to do." The money returned to the county was first donated to Griffin from area businessmen, according to an Oct. 18 Facebook post on the Cowboys For Trump page.

We are bewildered at the suggestion there is a problem, mainly because Griffin's financial adviser and the treasurer of his only campaign account has been steeped in the ins and outs of political committees for some 30 years.  

 

His treasurer is Rocky Galassini, the long-time de facto leader of the Republican Party of Otero County. Galassini has also led the county's Republican Women, as well as a series of splinter groups she has created to compete with the official Republican organizations during those periods of time when the regular Republicans have deposed her. 

 

Galassini is the individual who recruited Couy Griffin for the job of County Commissioner and she became his treasurer and financial adviser. With her three decades' experience in politics, it is not only reasonable for Griffin to believe Galassini knows what she is doing, it is inconceivable to us that she can have steered him down a path of questionable conduct, let alone any suggestion of illegality.

 

After all, her daughter, Anissa Galassini Tinnin, is the Executive Director of the Republican Party of New Mexico. Given Galassini's day-to-day oversight of Griffin's campaign account, as well as

 

her close and immediate connections to tons of expertise in the persons of both the Chairman and Executive Director of the State Republican Party, we have to presume that Mr. Griffin has a significant defense and explanation for what may well be entirely appropriate arrangements and activities.

 

After all, the Galassini's have reviewed all 13 of Griffin's campaign reports and have advised him now for years. He has no doubt trusted their advice and counsel. It seems incomprehensible that they could leave a political newcomer exposed to such criticism and attacks.

 

We certainly hope that is the case. Otherwise, because Griffin supports Trump and also a number of conservative New Mexico causes, the Left and their allies in the media will seize on any matters about which they can try to discredit him. For our part, should any such blame game occur, it would seem unfair that the political novice should be the one to shoulder it. 

---

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

---

Intelligent Political Discourse—for the Thoughtful New Mexican

 

IN THE DEMOCRAT DEBATE #4, which took place this past Tuesday, October 15

The CNN "moderators" actually posited a question to Joe Biden like this:

CNN: Trump has totally lied about you and your son regarding your son’s work in Ukraine and China. Do you have anything to say about that?

Biden took that softball and knocked it out of the park, effectively saying:

In the debate, California Senator Kamala Harris stated that neither Kavanaugh nor anyone else could name a single law that tells a man what he can or cannot do with his body.

We disagree. Here are some examples:

• Every single drug law is a law that tells men (and women) what they can do with their bodies.
• Every single anti-suicide law does the same thing.

And we would also add "the draft," which one reader (shown below) pointed out was another way in which the government can and has exercised total control over men's bodies.

The thing about the word "body"

Well, here we are, with only 141 days left until the Iowa Caucus, and 149 days till the New Hampshire Primary. Of the 27 Democrats who declared for their party’s nomination, 8 have dropped out, and 19 remain. Of those, the Democratic National Committee has decided that only 12 can be on the stage tonight.

The most recent Real Clear Politics average has Biden in the lead with 29.4%, followed by Warren (23.4), Bernie (15.6), Buttigieg and Harris both at 5.2, O’Rourke (2.6), Yang (2.4), Booker (1.6), Klobuchar (1.6) Steyer (1.4), Castro (1.0). Bennett (0.8), and Gabbard (0.8). However, Bennett did not qualify for tonight’s debate, while Gabbard did.

We are on record for many months now as having said that neither Elizabeth Warren nor Joe Biden will be the nominee. We know that goes against the grain, but we have stated our reasons. We also go against the conventional wisdom in believing that Bernie Sanders was not eliminated due to his heart attacks.

We are not saying he is going to win the nomination, but we believe he’s still in it. Our view is that the nominee will emerge from the pack (like betting the field in craps. Biden is probably like betting on 7, and Warren more like betting 8 or 6. But we digress).

As we get closer and closer to Iowa and New Hampshire, the odds increase dramatically that one of those in the pack, maybe in the back of the pack, will speak out about the obvious weaknesses of the frontrunners (discussed below). It could happen as early as tonight. The only constraint would be among those who see themselves as vice-presidential candidates and who will be more reticent to attack their future "running mate."

OUR UPDATED THUMBNAIL SKETCHES

Joe Biden:  As we said some eight months ago, he won’t make it. While he has recently been seriously harmed by the Ukraine business, and the obvious corruption involving his son, we have always believed that his garrulousness—the single word that best describes him is “garrulous”—will play a role in his downfall. It’s just a matter of time until he utters something catastrophic. It could happen tonight. Odds: No Line.

Elizabeth Warren:  As we noted almost exactly a year ago, her fake Indian story will ultimately destroy her. And since then it has gotten worse: It’s been shown that she has repeatedly lied not only about how much she used her “Native American” status to advance herself, she’s also been caught in lies about losing a job because she was pregnant. She won’t make it. Odds: No Line.

Bernie Sanders:  We still believe he could emerge. He has a loyal following, and many people believe in socialism, especitaly in the Democrat Party. Odds: 7-2

Pete Buttigieg:  He’s smart. He pretty much only wants to talk about his sex life, but he’s articulate when he (almost always factually incorrectly) addresses issues. He’s able to speak to issues in ways that appeal to Democrats. But mostly he just likes saying, “I’m Gay.” Odds: 5-1

Kamala Harris:  She’s not done. She’s been to the mountain top, or near the summit, seen the other side, then slipped and rolled back down the defilade side. But she got a taste, and she’s hooked. She may be the one to again take on Biden, or Warren. Odds: 5-1

Robert Francis O’Rourke:  Toast City. A real joke. Odds: 750-1

Andrew Yang: Intriguing still. But too easy to lampoon. Odds: 50-1

Cory Booker:  Megalomaniac and narcissist, consumed by his own fascination with himself and his brilliance. Odds: 30-1

Amy Klobuchar:  One of those from the field who could conceivably catch a spark. Odds: 15-1

Tom Steyer:  Never count out anyone who can spend a billion dollars or buy whole elections. He also has a real niche within the Democrat Party. Odds: 25-1

Julian Castro:  Whining bawl bag of a candidate. Comes across as way too harsh. Can’t quite get the right tempo or style. Odds: 75-1

Tulsi Gabbard:  We’ve always kind of liked her. Don’t get us wrong—she takes pretty much just as lunatic a position on virtually every single issue. But she has real style. And she may be best suited to make the comments that take down either Biden or Warren from their artificially lofty perches. Odds: 10-1

Well, this pretty much takes care of THAT issue.

“We did absolutely NOTHING wrong, and we won’t ever do it again. So there. So let’s get back to the Trump impeachment thing.”

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

There is a certain amount of absurdity in the debates among the six candidates vying to become the next Prime Minister of Canada.

No moderator will stop the candidates from talking over each other. You can’t hear a word any the candidates say. They make US debates look relatively civilized by comparison.

What is it about the parliaments and political traditions of all the [de facto] British Commonwealth nations that make their political discourse so damned rowdy?

We have reviewed the debate among the 6 party leaders fighting to become the next prime minister. The election is 8 days from now, Monday, 21 October.

We could hear enough to determine that several candidates mimic the very same clichés and catch-phrases used by their US equivalents.

The Green Party candidate, Elizabeth May, the (frankly ridiculous) current Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the New Democrats’ Jagmeet Singh (who wears some sort of loud orange turban) are the most egregious—they all sound exactly like Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and, well, sadly, like the “new” Joe Biden, not to mention the rest of the Democratic Party’s field.

Euro-socialism, abortion at any point (maybe as late as a week after birth), massive taxes (to achieve “income equality”) stopping all “pipelines,” hammering Alberta’s oil and gas industry, giving money to the impoverished Maritimes and Quebec, are all the rage.

Another Country that Cannot Criticize the US Electoral College

Despite worldwide criticism of our Electoral College, the outcome of the Canadian election—as is the case in most democratic countries in the world who have adopted a parliamentary system—will not be determined by popular vote. Rather it is determined by which party wins a majority (or perhaps a near-majority) in the House of Commons. It is much like choosing the US president based on the number of Congressmen each party ends up with.

Unlike in the US, few Canadians pay much attention at all to the names or proposals of their own districts’ (called “ridings”) individual candidates for parliament. Instead, they vote almost entirely on who the national party leaders are, basing their decisions on who they want to see become the next prime minister.

The latest polls are the same as they have been for months, with the Conservative Party ( Conservative Party of Canada - Parti conservateur du Canada) and Liberal Party Liberal Party of Canada | Parti libéral du Canada) in a virtual dead-heat, each with about a third of the vote.

The Leftist New Democrats (Canada’s NDP / Le NPD du Canada) poll at about 15-20%, the hard-Left Greens (Green Party of Canada) get about 10%, the Bloc Québécois has about 6%, and the new People’s Party—running to the right of the Conservatives—are left with only about 2%.

But of course, just as in the US, the outcome is not determined by the final popular vote.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

THIS JUST IN: NMPJ EDITOR EMERITUS, former State Senator Rod Adair will be on News Radio KKOB, 770 AM tomorrow at 1:00 PM, as a guest of Talk Radio Host Darren White, whose show follows Rush Limbaugh each weekday from 1:00 to 3:00.

Darren White wants to expand on a discussion he has been having about the possibility of New Mexico going for Trump in 2020: Is that a realistic thought? Is it Unrealistic? Is there an analytical approach to exploring the question? What do the state's electoral history and political demography reveal?

The show can be heard live over www.newsradiokkob.com. Thursday, October 10, at 1:00 PM.

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

Steve Pearce put something of a downer on an otherwise spectacularly successful Republican fundraiser in Hobbs this past week. The Annual Pig Roast is a major event for the Lea County Republican Party, and this year was no exception—but for the Pearce scare. 

Pearce Hogs Spotlight—Spoke Non-Stop for a Half-Hour—Arbitrarily Cut Speaking Time for Candidates

Former Congressman Steve Pearce was the emcee for the meeting, but rather than act as master of ceremonies, he took advantage of the position to speak for almost a half-hour. As a result of his speechifying, and the realization that he had taken so much time, Pearce then arbitrarily announced that the other speakers—the five candidates running for US Senate and US House—would be allowed only one minute each. (They had been told they would have three minutes.)

As one observer told us, "You can't say anything in 60 seconds." So Senate candidates Mick Rich and Gavin Clarkson, along with House candidates Chris Mathys, Yvette Herrell, and Claire Chase, all had to rush through what they had planned to say. Some (if not all) were visibly irritated by Pearce's last-second decision. 

BUT THE BIG NEWS: Pearce is Contemplating Another Run

With the backdrop of the five Republicans running for the two seats on Capitol Hill, Pearce talked with the Hobbs News-Sun, which reported:

"he's not ruling out running himself."

Pearce then went on to throw considerable shade on the five GOP contenders:

"There are people who have been encouraging me and I'm trying to stay in this position, but also I'm listening to what they're saying out of D.C..."I've had those calls, so we're trying to stay exactly where we are."

Of course this implies that people in Washington are taking a look at the two fields and are somehow begging Pearce to rescue the lot of them. This seems something of a stretch, especially with regard to the Senate race. Everyone in Washington and New Mexico knows that Pearce has been a disastrous statewide candidate.

However, could he win back his old house seat?  Well, maybe. Nine months ago we would have said yes, that he could easily beat Torres Small. But since then we have heard from gobs of people in Lea County especially about just how badly Pearce divided the local party there when he went against local favorite Monty Newman in the CD2 Republican primary, and went all out for Yvette Herrell.

That caused deep wounds that have not come close to healing—and some may never heal. One Republican official went so far as to tell us, "A lot of people here just flat-out hate Steve for what he did."

Our feedback, especially regarding any thoughts Pearce might have regarding any kind of statewide race, has been overwhelmingly negative. In fact the thought of such a run has lots of Republicans scared out of their wits. "He would do the same as he did before, and that spells disaster."

But Pearce may be very serious. This could explain why he hogged the mike for nearly 30 minutes and decided to limit his potential opponents to only one minute each?

A BEWILDERING PASSAGE in the HOBBS NEWS-SUN

One blurb in the Hobbs newspaper which caught a lot of people's attention was this:

"Pearce said he would prefer to continue his role as chairman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, rebuilding a party demoralized by a slate of losses in New Mexico in 2018..." 

This, of course, makes no sense at all. Pearce was one of the leading architects—if not the heart and soul—of the total destruction of the party. So having him "rebuild" the party makes as much sense as the Democrats bringing back Hillary Clinton to "rebuild" their party.

Party regulars know that in 2018 the Republican Party of New Mexico was ALREADY being operated by a slew of Pearce insiders and long-time Pearce team members: Harvey Yates and his Sancho Panza, Ryan Cangiolosi, along with John Billingsley and Mark Murphy. All of them have been together with Pearce for many years, united in their opposition to Governor Martinez—which of course sowed the seeds of discord and the disaster to which the group led the Republican Party.

Rebuild? He is still surrounded by the same gang. Only worse. They've hired people who helped steal emails from Republicans and who actively worked to defeat Republican candidates. They've hired women who 1) drove to Ferguson, Missouri to attack the local police there and participate in the completely fake "Hands up, Don't Shoot" demonstrations; 2) Mercilessly heckled former Senator Pete Domenici during his last public appearance; and 3) Led an assault on the Albuquerque Convention Center to try to disrupt a Trump campaign event; and 4) apparently perpetrated a ridiculous hoax, claiming the RPNM building had been "vandalized."

This is Pearce's "Rebuilding" Team? We don't think so.

What Pearce Owes ALL Republican Candidates—And All Rank and File Republicans in New Mexico

Our readerhship clearly believes that Steve Pearce needs to steer clear of trying to make any comebacks. However, if he is even remotely contemplating such a thing, he owes all Republicans an honest statement about his intentions. There should be no misleading of people, nor should he be seen as someone who is planning to undermine announced or unannounced Republican candidates.

And playing games, or making side-eye remarks to the Hobbs paper, makes Pearce appear to be doing just that, or to be thinking about doing that. That's not a good look for someone many regard as a statesman.

Pearce needs to give all current candidates—for US Senate and for US House—a firm, solid, honest warning about what he is planning do.

By making remarks as he made last week, he is at least hinting that he is implying that the current candidates are not up to speed, or that they are not worthy of the Republican nomination. That just isn't fair to them, or to the voters.

If Pearce goes against the views of most Republicans and decides he wants to run for something again, he needs to do the right thing and step down as party chairman and allow a situation to develop in which the party chooses a new chairman and a new executive director who will follow party rules, follow state law, and support all candidates equally without favor to one.

Such a change would also eliminate the overhanging fear that the party is going to unlawfully interfere in a primary. 

Coming Tomorrow: More News from the Hobbs Event

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

This is a perfect illustration, via cartoon, of what Governor Michelle Grisham and the Democrat Legislature are doing to New Mexico. (Cartoon By John Trever of the Albuquerque Journal.)

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

RPNM TAKES SIDES WITH YVETTE HERRELL LAST WEEK

We have received a lot of feedback from our story last week regarding the Republican Party of New Mexico intervening on behalf of Yvette Herrell in the Second Congressional District Republican primary. 

The RPNM definitely violated state party rules, and almost certainly has also violated state law. Nonetheless, they have apparently plowed ahead this week with the same kind of promotional activities on behalf of Herrell.

Just two days ago, headlines popped up all over the state with an Associated Press story pushing the "Herrell was wronged" angle regarding her Republican opponent Chris Mathys's advertising about the abortion issue.

That was no accident. It may be that Steve Pearce has a friendly contact (at least for this particular story) AP reporter inside the media giant, who is willing to push the story. 

After all, the AP leans very much to the Democrats, and with Xochitl Torres Small having already beaten Herrell once, the AP insiders may see it as "positive thing to do" to push Herrell to win the nomination a second time—rather than see the Republicans nominate a stronger candidate.

Who knows? We are merely trying to make sense of a very suspicious series of articles—all of which sound exactly like the Herrell/Pearce/Anissa Tinnin press releases issued almost simulaneously. The only thing we know for sure is that the articles are not a coincidental occurence. 

HOWEVER, the AP Contact Could Be Anissa Tinnin, Who has a long history of Working with Dems

Another explanation for the spate of favorable media stories for Herrell could be the RPNM Executive Director, Anissa Tinnin.

After all, Tinnin has a very long history of working very hard on a number of fronts to undercut Republicans. So she has to have developed a number of solid media contacts—most of which of course would be willing to undercut Republicans, given the chance. (Yes, Pearce knows all of this, and still hired her.)

A number of explanations may be in play here:

1) Tinnin and Pearce may actually believe that Herrell is the best possible nominee.

2) Tinnin and Pearce may be pushing her only because she's part of their clique—this (and not the well-being of conservatives) is the strongest motivation for the anti-Martinez crowd. (See the accompanying photos of the key clique.)

3) The AP may be playing Tinnin and Pearce, with the media outlet believing it's a "public service" to help Tinnin and Pearce push what the AP regards as a weak GOP nominee  

NO MATTER HOW YOU LOOK AT IT: PEARCE IS BENT ON CONTINUING TO DIVIDE THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Through Pearce and Tinnin, the RPNM appears determined to divide Republican Party voters. There is no other valid explanation for their having weighed in so hard and so frequently to push Yvette Herrell on GOP primary voters.

The result could easily be a nominee who ends up with a second loss in the 2020 CD2 race—which will be the last opportunity the GOP has to capture the seat BEFORE the Democrat legislature tears the district boundaries apart in the redistricting session, set to take place in September of 2021. 

If that happens, New Mexico Republicans will be angrier than ever. They will be like the Democrats' Bernie voters, who were (and are) so steamed that the Democratic National Committee tilted the playing field so hard that they forced Hillary on the party—leading to their November 2016 debacle.

Right now, it is obvious to many of our readers that the RPNM is trying to force feed Herrell as the nominee. And they don't like it. 

To many Republicans' perceptions, the view is that Pearce's goal has never been to win anything. Rather, he is determined only to have folks inside his particular team, whatever that is.

We are Not Anti-Herrell. Not in any way. We are FOR Party Neutrality in Primaries.

As we have said, Mathys's "argument" or "debating points" make no sense, and are arguably just plain dumb, signalling that he has no business being a candidate. HOWEVER, in a primary, it is up to his opponents to take issues head on and make the case we have made about his "reasoning skills."

One entity to whom it is NOT left to referee a primary, let alone blow a whistle or call foul, is the Republican Party of New Mexico, or any other local Republican Party. They are supposed to remain neutral, not take sides.

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

FBI INVESTIGATION: WHAT THEY MUST DO

Since there is an FBI investigation of the Ford-Kavanaugh allegations, one part has to be Kavanaugh and his friends, but another, absolutely indispensable part of the investigation has to be a deep background look at Christine Blasey Ford. The FBI investigation will not be fair or accurate in the least UNLESS they:

1. Ensure that all of her friends and acquaintances are ALSO interviewed, with questions such as:

In our view, this is a direct result of the ideology and resulting attitudes that originated within the Obama Administration, mainly pushed and then encouraged by people like former Attorney General Eric Holder, Obama advisor Van Jones, Michael Eric Dyson, and other prominent Democrats like Cory Booker.

All these individuals, in our view, are—at best—ardent “racialists,” and—at worst—overt racists. Their work has confused, and in many cases poisoned, the minds of millions of young people.

In many cases, these same young people have acted out or attempted to approximate non-existent scenarios in a manner they apparently believe will validate (in some bizarre way) what they have “learned” about the "ugly, hateful, genocide-based, country" known as the United States of America.

And despite not being able to find such a place in real life, they are attempting to show that the America that is described by the likes of Barack Obama—or perhaps Michelle Obama—really and truly does exist. Even if they have to create it themselves.

Sadly and humiliatingly, they’ve now been caught hundreds of times. But even more sadly, the race-baiters who encourage these simple souls into making fools of themselves and their families are never held to account. Instead, they are rewarded either with TV shows of their own or ever-more exposure as talking heads and "experts on American culture" at venues like CNN and MSNBC.

As a result, the hating of America and the dividing of our nation continues unabated.

Are we wrong in our analysis? Are we missing something? Let us know. Please.

MEANWHILE, here is the dreadlock-gate story from the New York Times:

VIRGINIA GIRL RECANTS STORY of BOYS CUTTING off HER DREADLOCKS

The 12-year-old-girl’s story drew national headlines and a police investigation last week. Her family has apologized. (As well they should.)

By Niraj Chokshi, Sept. 30, 2019

It was a story bound to unleash a storm of news coverage: A black 12-year-old girl reported that three white boys had pinned her down in a school playground and cut off her dreadlocks.

It was the same private Christian school in Virginia where the vice president’s wife was a part-time teacher, which only fueled the social media outrage.

The police said they were investigating. The girl and her family gave interviews to TV networks and newspapers.

But in a matter of days, the story fell apart.

On Monday, the school announced that the girl had admitted the story was a lie, and that her family had apologized.

“While we are relieved to hear the truth and bring the events of the past few days to a close, we also feel tremendous pain for the victims and the hurt on both sides of this conflict,” the school’s principal, Stephen Danish, said in a statement.

He continued:

“We recognize that we now enter what will be a long season of healing. This ordeal has revealed that we as a school family are not immune from the effects of deep racial wounds in our society.”

[NMPJ Note: These "deep racial wounds," after some 50 years of genuine healing had taken place, have been re-inflicted to a large degree, by cynical race-baiting politicians and now media hacks over just the past decade.]

Mr. Danish also thanked the Fairfax County Police Department for its “diligent work” investigating the complaint.

The school also provided a separate statement from the girl’s family, in which they apologized for her actions and asked for forgiveness from the accused boys, their families, the school and the community.

“To those young boys and their parents, we sincerely apologize for the pain and anxiety these allegations have caused,” the family said.

“To the administrators and families of Immanuel Christian School, we are sorry for the damage this incident has done to trust within the school family and the undue scorn it has brought to the school. To the broader community, who rallied in such passionate support for our daughter, we apologize for betraying your trust.”

In an interview with The New York Times on Friday, the girl, Amari Allen, had said that she was attacked during recess on Sept. 23 by three boys who held her down, covered her mouth and cut her dreadlocks.

“They were saying that my hair was ugly, that it was nappy,” she said.

Cynthia Allen, Amari’s grandmother and legal guardian, said in an interview on Friday that Amari was reluctant at first to say what happened to her hair, but broke down crying on Wednesday and made the accusation against her classmates.

The family did not immediately return phone calls on Monday.

The school enrolls kindergartners through eighth-graders at its campus in Springfield, about 15 miles southwest of Washington. It was briefly in the news when Karen Pence accepted a part-time art teaching position there in January.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

2016: All Republicans are deplorable.

2017: All Republicans are Russian agents.

Yesterday, the Republican Party of New Mexico (RPNM) sent out a notice which, while accurate in identifying incorrect statements made by GOP Congressional candidate Chris Mathys, was incorrect in signaling that the party's role in primary elections is to weigh in on disputes between candidates. This is what they said:

"...the party will hold to the standard of truth. When ads or mailers are untruthful, RPNM stands ready to speak out and condemn the ads and the actions by any candidate and their team."

The RPNM is just flat wrong on this point, and all political parties will always be wrong if they weigh in like this, because it not only violates party rules, it also violates New Mexico law. 

(One exception might be in a case where a candidate for a party makes racist remarks or otherwise sullies a particular party's reputation in a similar way—but such a case would have to be in an aspect of comparing a candidate to a party platform, and not be an opinion about a dispute between two candidates in a primary.) 

Mathys, as we covered the story yesterday, did make illogical claims about a state House bill concerning late-term abortions. So the party may be correct in concluding that, just as readers of NMPJ and all voters may reach the same decision. But individual voters making comments is one thing. It's an entirely different thing for a political party to do it. 

It's just not the RPNM's role to ride herd on the campaign literature, ads, or speeches of Republican candidates, or to give their opinion as to what candidates might or might not be telling the truth. 

RPNM WARNING IS OMINOUS

In its statement released yesterday morning, the RPNM gave its opinion that Mathys "has made intentional misstatements of the facts and untrue accusations." This is actually true—except for the "intentional" part.

After all, none of us has any way of knowing if his illogical view of a bill is an "intentional" thing that he has contrived, or if he sincerely believes (because his brain works in an odd way) that a vote to prevent abortions after 20 weeks means the voter supports abortion prior to 20 weeks.

(Many voters are illogical, and they are that way sincerely. This is one of the reasons why America and New Mexico have a number of incompetent public officials.)

The problem is that it is the job of Mathys's rival(s)  — and perhaps publications (such as NMPJ), newspapers, and individual voters or the entire press — to correct any false or misleading claims that he might make. It is not the role of the party. 

HERE IS WHAT NEW MEXICO ELECTION LAW SAYS

§  1-19-1  A. No contribution of money, or the equivalent thereof, made directly or indirectly to any political party, to any political party committee, to members of any political party committee or to any person representing or acting on behalf of a political party, and no money in the treasury of any political party or political party committee shall be expended directly or indirectly in the aid of the nomination at a primary election of any one or more persons as against any one or more other persons of the same political party running in such primary election. 

 B. Any person who expends money, or is responsible for the expenditure of money, in violation of this section is guilty of a petty misdemeanor.

The New Mexico Election Code definition of contribution includes this: "a gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or other thing of value, including the estimated value of an in-kind contribution, that is made or received for a political purpose...

There can be no doubt that the Republican Party of New Mexico expended time and labor in the development and writing of its "opinion," and then followed that up with the printing and graphic framing—electronic or otherwise—of its message, and following that up with its statewide distribution.

In other words, they materially contributed to the interests of one candidate as opposed to others in the same primary contest. Effectively, they carried out what New Mexico law calls a "coordinated expenditure."

The definition of a coordinated expenditure includes:

"an expenditure that is made: (1) by a person other than a candidate or campaign committee; (2) at the request or suggestion of, or in cooperation, consultation or concert with, a candidate, campaign committee or political party or any agent or representative of a candidate, campaign committee or political party; and (3) for the purpose of: (a) supporting or opposing the nomination or election of a candidate...

Yesterday's statements by the RPNM reflect all these components. Additionally, RPNM may have gotten themselves into hot water with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) because this is, of course, a federal race, which has its own unique disclaimers and requirements for disclosure, none of which accompany the RPNM's communique.

The Herrell Campaign & the RPNM End up Being Clumsy in Concealing their Mutual Interaction

Within five hours of the RPNM's attacks on Chris Mathys, the Yvette Herrell campaign sent this message out:

My opponent has been using lies to attack my record and those who co-sponsored House Bill 390 to end late-term abortion. The twenty-three co-sponsors of this bill and I are Pro-Life and are proud of our work in the legislature to protect the unborn. 

Today, the Republican Party of New Mexico sent the following message rebutting the fake attacks: 

CD2 Candidate Makes Untrue Statements Against Republican Legislators

...Chris Mathys, a candidate for the 2nd Congressional district has made intentional misstatements of the facts and untrue accusations about many republican [sic] legislators.

It would have looked much better if they had waited, say, a week or so. The way they rolled out the two complementary messages made the messages appear to be pre-planned and coordinated. Which, of course, is illegal.

Subterfuge as to Motive

The RPNM attempted to provide something of a cover story by claiming that at least part of its motive was to protect "Republican legislators." (As opposed to the more obvious motive.) But the reality is that Mathys has only attacked Herrell, and no other Republican legislators have suffered any "harm" at all. This makes party statement look rather ham-handed.

No one has even looked at who all voted for the bill in question, and even an average voter would not reach the illogical conclusions that Mathys is peddling and somehow end up holding a vote for the bill against a Republican lawmaker.

So it comes back to Herrell and the relationship developed between State Party Chair Steve Pearce and Herrell, who has long been viewed as an acolyte or disciple of Pearce. (We have been inundated with reports of how much damage Pearce did to the Lea County Republican Party by pushing Herrell over Monty Newman, who is from Lea County and is very well-liked there.) 

Additionally, there is the continuing specter of the RPNM Executive Director Anissa Ford Tinnin involved in all of this. Many question not only her competence in producing awkward communication blunders like this, but also how much she can possibly be trusted with the RPNM's sensitive information, sensitive issues, and internal communications?

And who is overseeing the party's communications which are supposed to remain scrupulously even-handed, with even-handed application of party rules, and with no favor toward any candidate? Someone who, by resume, is entirely unsuited to that task?

With regard to access to and the sharing of inside Republican political information and stolen emails, Tinnin has quite a long and questionable political rap sheet, having secretly worked alongside former Democrat State Chair Sam Bregman to undermine Republican fortunes and to promote Democrat ones.

It is well-remembered that it was her work with convicted felon Jamie Estrada which resulted in the use of sensitive information from the Doña Ana Republican Party that helped Doña Ana County District Attorney Mark D'Antonio defeat Republican Amy Orlando.

Many Republicans cannot help but believe that the continuous misdirection, detours, and blunders from the RPNM are not accidental. This most recent hiccup is just one of an ongoing series.

ADDITIONALLY, HERE ARE THE PARTY RULES—PEARCE & TINNIN NEED TO READ THEM

EMPLOYEES OF THE PARTY—RESTRICTIONS

"No money in the treasury of the Republican Party of NM, nor in-kind aid given directly or indirectly to the party or one of its committees, agents or representatives, shall  be expended directly or indirectly to aid the nominee of a primary election of any one or more persons as against any one or more other persons of the Republican Party running in such primary election."

There can be no doubt that in sending out yesterday's message on behalf of the Herrell campaign, the RPNM used its email list it had developed over the years, as well as its entire communication systems, internet servers, internet service. And it did so through its employees who are paid by the treasury of the Republican Party of New Mexico. 

Did an employee write or transmit this email? Of course one did. 

Pearce and Tinnin—and everyone at the state headquarters—need to read the party rules.

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

Chris Mathys of Las Cruces, who is one of three candidates who has declared an intention to seek the Republican nomination for the Second Congressional District, is under fire from numerous sides. The reason for that is his interpretation of a Late-term Abortion bill (HB 390) that passed the State House in 2015, with all 38 Republicans and four Democrats voting in favor of it.

The bill, sponsored by Representative Yvette Herrell (R-Alamogordo), one of his current Republican opponents, expanded the existing prohibition on late-term abortion by adding protections for "a viable fetus of twenty or more weeks gestational age."

We interviewed Mr. Mathys on August 15 in preparation for our article on the CD2 race which we published on August 16, https://bit.ly/2KJ4cS0. (We also reached out to the Herrell campaign via email, the only other candidate at that time, but received no response.)

In that interview, Mathys said this of his opponent:

 “There is quite a contrast on the issue of the unborn.  Yvette believes abortion should be legal through the fifth month of pregnancy. I believe life begins at conception. That’s a big difference.

This led to a discussion for several minutes in which NMPJ asked for the source of that conclusion. Mathys said it was the bill outlined above, and we pointed out that other bills with the same language in different years had also been introduced.

We also pointed out that his argument was illogical—that any legislator's attempt to reduce the number of abortions that might occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy does not mean—under ANY rationale or form of reasoning—that the sponsor of such a bill approves of abortions that might take place earlier. 

We pointed out that if someone were to support a bill that outlawed burglaries, robbery, or theft of certain legal descriptions, it would not mean the person approved of stealing of other kinds. 

Mathys responded by pointing to his Roman Catholic faith and his belief that life begins at conception. He said if he introduced such a bill it would not say "after 20 weeks of gestation," but would, rather, say "after conception."

We pointed out that that would be futile because of existing Supreme Court rulings, however wise they may be, that there can be no such prohibitions.

We also pointed out that Herrell's approach is the only kind allowed by current law, that is to say it works to impose certain conditions or restrictions without in any way trying to have a state legislature overturn a standing ruling of the Supreme Court by means of a bill.

We again reiterated that such an approach—regardless of one's view of abortion—would be a complete waste of time and would be seen as a mere stunt—to no purpose. 

But Mathys would not budge. 

We then pointed out the "Jerry Falwell approach," and asked if he had heard of the late pastor who was very much pro-life and anti-abortion. Mathys acknowledged he was aware of him. 

Falwell was once asked if he would support a bill to outlaw abortions except in the case of rape, or incest, or the life of the mother. Falwell responded that of course he would. Such a bill would save 11,999 of every 12,000 fetuses who are aborted. Only 1 abortion in every 12,000 occurs as a result of rape or incest. 

Support for such a bill, according to Falwell, was about saving babies' lives. It would make no sense to reject such an opportunity just because, like Falwell himself, one believes that life begins at conception. And it would also NOT mean that Falwell or other abortion opponents approved of abortions in the case of rape or incest.

Mathys seemed a little disoriented as this discussion came to a conclusion, and he stuttered a bit, but ultimately was bent on staying with what he said he believed was logical. We very much disagreed that it was logical, and also shared our view that it was not politically viable.  

In the end, we published his statement as he made it. 

The Republican Party of New Mexico, however, may be wrong, either legally, ethically, or in terms of its own party rules, by weighing on the CD2 race.

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

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions, and ideas.

THE 1960 DEMOCRATIC PARTY v. THE MODERN (21st CENTURY) DEMOCRAT PARTY.

Over the past decade, we have several times pointed out how "No modern Democrat could possibly give JFK's 1961 Inaugural Address." Not only is it today the party of free stuff and handouts, in the 1980s it abandoned its original anti-communist roots and became the party of the "nuclear freeze" openly stating at their San Francisco convention in 1984 that the United States could not win the Cold War.

Reports coming into our office reflect a startling and troubling situation at the headquarters of the Republican Party of New Mexico. 

First of all, the Trump Presidential Re-election Team has made it clear that they see New Mexico as winnable in 2020 (more on that below).

However, they appeared to take one look at the RPNM staff and leadership and said: "We'll pass on this bunch." As a result, just this past week it was announced that the Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, Leslie White, will head up the Trump campaign in New Mexico.

Why did this happen?

First of all, as we have reported in our November 8, 2018 issue (https://bit.ly/2lVGCJc), with further analysis in our December 4, 2018 edition (https://bit.ly/2kQQL9S), NMPJ has set forth a historical narrative in which we have opined that the current team which is parked at the RPNM headquarters worked assiduously to destroy the New Mexico Republican Party, and to undo all that had been accomplished by former Governor Susana Martinez.*

What is well-known—to the Trump team as well as throughout the political world—is that just a few years back, the current Executive Director of the state Republican Party, Anissa Ford Tinnin, was working with the former Chairman of the Democratic Party of New Mexico, Sam Bregman, to undermine not only Governor Martinez, but the efforts of the Republican Party in New Mexico.

She colluded with Bregman to ensure the release of emails that had been stolen with her knowledge and collusion, solely for the purpose of embarrassing the governor and other Republican Party officials. She also used stolen information and worked very hard to defeat the sitting Republican District Attorney Amy Orlando in Doña Ana County. 

With all the spying, unlawful surveillance, and other efforts by so many people and agencies to undermine or destroy both the 2016 Trump campaign as well as the Trump Administration, it is little surprise that Tinnin comes off as "not someone we want to see involved." The same goes for the Republican Party State Chairman Steve Pearce.

Pearce knows ALL of this, yet he hired Tinnin.

PEARCE CLAIMS CREDIT for BRINGING TRUMP to NEW MEXICO 

In addition to other massive credibility issues, Pearce just recently claimed credit for bringing Trump to New Mexico. In a rambling interview with Politico, Pearce contradicted the Trump Team's assessment it was their own internal polling and the work of their own expert, Brad Parscale, that prompted the visit to Rio Rancho.

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale had said an earlier rally in El Paso prompted him to add New Mexico to his watch list:

“I’ve continued to say the president’s policies are a win for Latino voters across America … and one of the first symbols of this was the El Paso rally,” Parscale told reporters on a call last week. “We saw in the data thousands of voters who did not vote for the president in 2016 show up to a rally, come listen to the president and register [to vote].”

“As we started doing polling there, we saw a dramatic increase from 2016 and I went over this with the president and he said, ‘Let’s go straight into Albuquerque,’” Parscale recalled.

The Politico article went on:

By Parscale’s telling, Trump — who hasn’t visited New Mexico since October 2016 — has long been eager to return. Campaign officials believe that Johnson attracted tens of thousands of would-be Trump voters during the president’s first White House bid. And if they can just win over those voters this cycle, it will bring Trump closer to having five more electoral votes in his pocket.

It wasn’t until mid-August, though, that Trump himself was convinced of the idea. 

BUT PEARCE CONTRADICTED THIS—CLAIMING THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO HAD THE INSIDE KNOWLEDGE

Pearce, who lost the state by 100,000 votes—one of the largest margins in state history—claimed, ironically, to be expertly reading the tea leaves. Not only that, he then threw the Trump team under the bus by claiming they wouldn't believe him.  

“I started talking to them — saying they shouldn’t write off New Mexico — in January. They didn’t believe that in the least,” Pearce said.

This is a pretty bold claim by Pearce, considering the fact Pearce was not able to convince the Trump team to allow him—or anyone associated with him—to head Trump's 2020 New Mexico effort.  Yet Pearce plowed ahead with these comments:

“Eventually Brad began to watch it, and three to four months ago he said he wanted to come into New Mexico and do a little something with the party, and that morphed into Don Jr. coming with him, and then the president started wanting to come about the time of his New Hampshire rally” in August.

Right. So Pearce was the teacher and mentor for the Trump folks? And eventually they came round to seeing his wisdom and insight, and sheepishly and belatedly decided he was a genius and they had darned sure better listen to him?

We somehow doubt that. We see the Parscale narrative as vastly more plausible than the Pearce tale.

Though it is almost certain that the Trump Team, if pressed publicly, will verbally deny that they have any problems with Pearce and his personal entourage which occupies the RPNM HQ, the reality, as demonstrated by the Trump campaign's decisions, speaks volumes about what they see in New Mexico.

The true bottom line is the Trump Team definitely doesn't want the current RPNM “leadership” anywhere near the helm in New Mexico.

*An attorney for Anissa Galassini Ford Tinnin sent NMPJ a heavy-handed, chilling letter, attempting to intimidate NMPJ by threatening a lawsuit. However, our repeated requests (ten of them) for her attorney to identify any errors or to provide any opinions contrary to our own have gone unanswered. As a standard policy, NMPJ always welcomes contrary opinions.  

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

THIS JUST IN:

NMPJ EDITOR EMERITUS, former State Senator Rod Adair, will appear on a live Town Hall Broadcast tonight on KOAT-TV, Channel 7 in Albuquerque.

KOAT has a series called "KOAT Community Comment." Tonight's episode is titled "Immigration and Employment."

The segment will air from 7:30 PM to 8:00 PM. Adair will appear with "immigration attorneys," ACLU representatives, as well as alongside Lt. Governor Howie Morales.

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

By Gerald A. Loeb, Special Correspondent to New Mexico Political Journal (see Gerald's website at the bottom of the story.)

Thirty thousand devotees parked in the prickly fields, climbed over fences and braved the gray threatening skies in Rio Rancho on Monday night as they waited patiently in line to see President Donald J. Trump make his second New Mexico appearance since winning office.

Although only a third of them got inside the Santa Ana Star Center, the rest watched the President speak on a JumboTron screen outside. Kelly and Kim Christensen from Jamestown, New Mexico said they made the journey and “made their own parking spot” because they believe in the man they voted for. “He is a good man and needs our support,” Kelly remarked.

Social media chatter before the event had raspy overtones of possible violence and intimidation by counter-protestors. One vowed to “kick the nasty Trumpers asses.” Only a few angry sign-waving lefties showed up, as the Rio Rancho Police and New Mexico State Police kept a watchful eye. Except for a few small verbal clashes with Trump supporters, there were no incidents at all. No arrests were reported and no tear gas was needed.

Compared to the President’s two other stops here in the Land of Enchantment, this was a relatively sedate affair. In May 2016, Democrat protestors clashed with Trump supporters in a full-scale riot at the Convention Center in Albuquerque. Protestors also disrupted another Rally in the Desert in 2017.

 This was much different.

It was a very New Mexican and Very American event. The smell of green chile mixed with the sounds of 20th Century, old-time rock and roll created an atmosphere of a 21st Century Trump version of Woodstock, minus the naked people dancing in ponds of water and smell of marijuana in the air.

New Mexico Proud Boys leader Bradley Burris was impressed by the event as he waited in line to enter the Star Center. “I don’t want to see violence. Nobody does. There’s already too much violence in society now.” He added his group, although only numbering in the fifties, is growing by the week and is "not a bunch of 'angry racists.' We have folks of all colors and races. We are just Americans fed up with a lot of things.”

Meanwhile, demonstrators yelled “No hate, no fear, immigrants are welcome here,” but were often drowned out by the loud rock music and virtually ignored by the rally-goers.  Twice the Rio Rancho police warned the counter-protestors to stay within a designated “First Amendment Area” and as the event progressed, they were generally held in check.

“We are here to show that we will not be bullied,” said a Resist member who refused to be identified. (Though it was unclear who was attempting to "bully" anyone.)

Zachary Davis, 16, said he showed up at the rally to support the president in his policies. “He stands for us, so we can stand for him. He is great for America. They are not,” he said as he pointed to the protestors.

Tanya Ansley said, “The entire state is on a Gimme Train here. It has to stop. If you take all the water out of the bucket, soon it will be empty.”

“With a turnout like this, we might have a chance to turn this state red,” commented Renee Weldon as she watched Trump give his speech on the jumbo screen. Others agreed with her and added this rally was a very good start.

“We love Donald Trump and we want him to know it,” she said.

“I am sorry the folks who are standing outside can’t get in here,” President Trump said at one point in his speech. “We have to get a bigger boat,” he added.

Judging from the response from the crowd and the high turnout, he might just be right.

Gerald Loeb website: http://www.themodernpoliticalderelict.com

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

TRUMP RALLY in RIO RANCHO: Covered by NMPJ

New Mexico Political Journal has a credentialed correspondent prepared to attend the Trump rally scheduled for 7:00 PM this evening in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. No one from the editorial staff, nor any of our regular writers or contributors will attend, but we do have someone who has filed a couple of stories for us. He has told us he anticipates some sort of hubbub, ruckus, or disturbance, possibly caused by an Antifa or BLM group, or possibly sponsored by the Democratic Party of New Mexico.

To AR-15 OWNERS: Please be civil and respectful when Beto shows up to confiscate.

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

And a major political party—the DEMOCRATS—actually SUPPORT this illogical proposition.

And they do so very aggressively—ALL of their PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES SUPPORT THIS!

(It could be part of the reason Trump is, more or less, hanging with them in the polls.)

Your thoughts?

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

“Women earn 80¢ for every $1 that men earn for exactly the same work.”

The US government is inviting lawlessness.

"Tulsi is home from Nat'l Guard duty overseas & hitting the campaign trail in Iowa! Our grassroots movement rests on small $ donors like you."

Tulsi Gabbard.

YOUR THOUGHTS?

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

Claire Chase of Roswell will run for the #CD2 #GOP Nomination to take on Democrat incumbent Representative Xochitl Torres Small.

For much more information, you can click on her announcement shown below.

As an aside, exactly six months ago, New Mexico Political Journal---without any contact with Chase or anyone associated with her---was the first news outlet to suggest that she would be a formidable candidate should she ever decide to run for office. (As always, stay tuned to this site for accurate analysis and insight you won't find anywhere else.)

MUELLER EXONERATED: “No Charges will be Brought” by DOJ AGAINST FORMER FBI CHIEF

(D.C.) Former FBI Director Robert Muller has today been cleared of all “wrong-doing” regarding the 22-month investigation he was long alleged to have been conducting.

A DOJ spokesperson said:

“We have concluded that Mr. Mueller is not only innocent of any crimes committed during the investigation, it is very clear he had no involvement, and indeed no knowledge, of any aspect of the effort.”

In November 2018, when all the dust settled and all the votes were counted in the CD 2 race, the final count looked like this:

So the Republicans had lost CD 2 for only the second time in 38 years.

News reports late into the night of the election announced that absentee ballots had been “found” in Doña Ana County. More than 8,000 to be specific. It raised suspicions, and eventually a review of the ballots and the entire procedures of the Doña Ana County Clerk’s office was conducted.

That review found a startling number of irregularities, and an election procedures compliance firm subsequently published a 44-page report which detailed what had taken place in the greater Las Cruces area.  

However, the study, which was limited only to Doña Ana County, and did not look at the other 17 counties, did not conclude that there were enough irregularities to overturn the election.

FAST FORWARD TO EARLY 2019

Almost immediately, Herrell announced she would run again. One of her 2018 primary opponents, the third-place finisher Gavin Clarkson, made it known he would switch to running for the US Senate. Then a former PRC candidate, Chris Mathys, announced that he would run. Mathys had lost the PRC GOP primary to former PRC Commissioner Ben Hall.

HERRELL 2018

In her 2018 effort spearheaded by Steve Pearce, a lot of legislators and party establishment figures lined up behind Yvette Herrell early-on and she secured the Republican nomination impressively, 49-32 over former GOP State Chair Monty Newman.

It is important to remember that Pearce’s aggressive campaigning over the previous 20 years and his willingness to debate and speak everywhere in CD 2 had allowed him to win huge swaths of soft Ds, so much so that he had racked up 25-point wins, by margins of nearly 60,000 votes.

The district was drawn to give an edge to Republican candidates (Trump carried it, despite losing the state overwhelmingly). And Pearce had built on that edge so much that many Republicans saw the district as un-lose-able.

But Yvette Herrell ended up running what many saw as a mediocre campaign, with Republicans expressing concern that she repeatedly refused to debate Torres Small. Democrats used that fact to assert that Herrell did not have command of the issues and could not go toe-to-toe with Small.

This appeared to have a decisive effect on independent voters and both the soft Ds and soft Rs that Pearce had essentially made part of his base. But they weren’t part of Herrell’s. It appeared that in the end Small simply ended up out-working her.

HERRELL 2020

As we noted last winter, we didn’t think Herrell had cleared it with Pearce before she made her announcement for a second-go at CD 2. In public appearances, he appeared taken off-guard, almost as if he didn’t think it was a good idea, or that he was, perhaps, considering stepping back in himself. (Recently, however, we have been informed there are personal considerations that have ensured that Pearce won’t do that.)

So Herrell has moved forward aggressively. The same group that surrounded her in 2018 have circled the wagons again. Her campaign has sent out a couple of very hard-hitting letters—one signed by Herrell and one signed by Republican State Representative Jim Townsend of Artesia. 

LETTER ONE: A VICIOUS ATTACK ON MATHYS

In the first letter, Herrell called her only announced opponent a “liar,” writing:

“Chris Mathys is up to his old antics.”

And: 

“Lying Chris has been spreading nasty and untrue things about me…”

(The words “old antics” seem odd in that Mathys has only run for office once, and the person he lost to by 27 votes is now his campaign chair and has said they had nothing but a positive campaign together.)

Herrell went on:

“Probably the most disappointing lie Chris has decided to spread is that I introduced a bill that would allow abortion up to 6 months…”

She closes with what appears to be a very impressive list of endorsements, which she claims is for her current campaign. The endorsements include such conservative luminaries as Congressmen Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows. She closes with:

"We are tired of the same, deceptive antics of my opponent. Lying Chris is so desperate to be elected to anything that he’s willing to put aside the truth…”

Ouch!

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

Mathys has lived in New Mexico about five years and is a commercial lender, operating Chris Mathys Properties in Las Cruces. He has a B.A. and an MBA and has about $160,000 on hand, according to FEC reports. (Herrell has about $200,000.)

We asked if there were any differences between Herrell and him on any issues. He told us there were “about five” that he wanted to mention. They were:

• Veteran status: “First of all, I’m the only veteran in the race. And while I don’t believe it’s a requirement to have served in the military, I do believe there are special advantages and experiences that come from military training and service. New Mexico has 58,000 veterans, and many of them live in southern New Mexico.”

• Abortion:  “There is quite a contrast on the issue of the unborn.  Yvette believes abortion should be legal through the fifth month of pregnancy. I believe life begins at conception. That’s a big difference.”

• Business experience: “I am a businessman, I have met a payroll. I believe that managing a business is critical for someone in politics. I believe it’s one of the things that makes President Trump successful. It also appears that Yvette was partner in a business that received over $400,000 in rent from the state of New Mexico, and she did not disclose the income in her financial reporting disclosure when she ran for Congress. I have not and will not enter into any contracts with the state or federal government other than when I enlisted in the United States Army. We must make sure elected officials do not in enrich themselves when serving in public office.”

• Debates:  “Yvette Herrell turned down all four debates with Xochitl Torres Small. Why? No one knows. But it also hurt her very badly with independent voters wanting to know what she stood for and how she contrasted with Small. I guarantee you that I will debate Torres Small at any venue on any day.”

• Second Amendment: “With regard to gun ownership, Yvette is on record as favoring more background checks. I believe we already have sufficient laws on the books. We don’t need any more.”

 BACK TO HERRELL: AN UNUSUAL LETTER SIGNED BY REPRESENTATIVE TOWNSEND*

There have been rumors that the Herrell campaign is spreading misinformation about Roswell Republican Claire Chase, saying that she is considering a run for the US Senate, and will not run for CD 2. Along those lines, State Representative Jim Townsend's signature went out over some unusual language in a fundraising letter just a couple of days ago. It opened with:

“I am asking for your trust and support for Yvette Herrell to be the Republican nomneee in 2020.

All well and good so far.

It then listed a bunch of impressive endorsements. (Again, all okay.)

Then the letter goes off into what some will probably interpret as tacit admissions that the 2018 campaign was not very well done. To wit:

Let me share with you why the 2020 campaign will be different and will result in a victory next November:

... Her new team is ready for the fight in 2020. They have made substantial changes to the operation and she intends to:

• Challenge Xochitl Torres Small to debate, before ballots go out 
• Raise more money to combat the Democrat's out-of-state money machine
• Focus on grassroots development and getting our voters to the polls

This is about as straightforward an acknowledgment that the "old team" (whoever that was) had not done those things. The decision to debate (this time around) stands out pretty starkly. But while these are good things to do now, they also can end up raising serious questions about Herrell's strengths as a candidate.

But within the letter there were these—potentially even more troubling—passages:

"Unite to Win…It’s time we dispel the rumors and unite this party to win in 2020.  There are those who wish to judge Yvette's last campaign and create conflict.  Their goal is to divide our Republican party, and I am speaking out because we can't let that happen.  I am asking for your trust and support for Yvette Herrell to be the Republican nominee in 2020...

There is too much at stake to allow division in our party.  Let’s UNITE to win and restore Conservative values to Washington.  I humbly ask you to vote for my friend Yvette Herrell!

WHY THOSE PASSAGES ARE POTENTIALLY TROUBLING FOR THE REPUBLICANS*

We received some complaints from Southeastern New Mexico about the last phraseology.

It appears that the message the Herrell campaign is trying to send to Republican voters is that Herrell is the only candidate that is "acceptable," and that any other GOP candidate—whether it is Mathys or any other Republican who may get in—is stepping on the concept of “unity” and is creating "division."

Any number of political observers (you don’t even have to be an activist) may see that that’s quite a stretch. The overall message of the letter could easily be interpreted as saying, in essence:

“Hey, we got beat when we shouldn’t have, but we are going to do a lot of things differently this time, and we aren't going to be afraid of debating either. We are cleaning up our campaign, and we will win.  And, oh by the way, if anyone else is thinking about getting in, well, that would be “divisive.”

That would sort of be a pretty cool narrative if you could sell it. But it will almost certainly not go over big with a lot of Republican activists, donors, and primary voters. For many, this isn't their first rodeo. 

A number of key political actors—in both major parties—believe in "keeping your powder dry" so to speak. In other words, let's not go all-in from the get-go about any candidate just because he or she is the first, or second, to declare.

This is especially true if that candidate has lost the same race already. It is certainly logical for the Republican faithful to inquire: If Candidate A cannot beat Candidate B when there is no incumbent, why should Candidate A be able to beat Candidate B when Candidate B is now the incumbent? (This question is as old as politics itself. And we are sure it has occurred to people before.)

Forbidding a "Critique" of Your Campaign—AFTER Your Own Letter Critiqued Your Own Previous Campaign

So the second letter, trying to scare off any competition—by asserting that even the act of considering an alternative candidate is "divisive"—carries with it the very seeds of divisiveness that it purports to try to avoid. And forbidding any "critique" of the previous campaign while the candidate's own letter goes to great lengths to critique her own previous campaign seems somewhat strange, or at least awkward. 

This is without even mentioning that Herrell's campaign has very strongly attacked Mathys. These after-the-fact "prohibitions" and before-the-fact "warnings and admonitions" don't make a lot of sense. 

We certainly don't believe that Representative Townsend believes these things, but rather these confusing and self-contradicting messages appear to be a part of some sort of strategic effort by the "new team."

For our part, the old adage, keep your powder dry and see who all files come next February is probably the wisest course of action.

Herrell may in fact be the best choice for Republicans, who knows? But making that decision, and making it final and uncontestable in August—6 months before filing and 10 months before the election—certainly seems an unwise approach to the Republican primary.

* EDITOR'S NOTE: NMPJ reached out to the Herrell campaign for comment, but we received no response.

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

Elizabeth Warren TODAY: At a Native American Presidential Forum in Iowa:

We have it from a solid source that after a fundraising pitch, Republican US Senate hopeful Dr. Gavin Clarkson was turned down by a prominent eastern New Mexico banker—but not because of Clarkson's qualifications or ability. Rather, it centered on Clarkson's appearance, specifically the outfit he was wearing. 

On July 17, we received a call from a prominent eastside Republican, who informed us that the banker who has banking interests in three counties listened to about a10-minute spiel from Clarkson and then told him he sounded fine, but he wasn't going to give him any money for the campaign. He reportedly said:

"You just can't win, and can't be taken seriously in that outfit. And no real cowboy wears a hat like the one you're wearing."

We were amazed at the report precisely because we have said the exact same thing before. And over the past eight months, we have received no fewer than 20 comments from solidly loyal Republican activists—people who would unquestionably support him if he were to become the nominee—who have made either nearly the exact observation or something very close. 

We also happen to believe that Clarkson is qualified, intelligent, well-spoken, and articulate on all the issues of the day. And if he should be pitted against either Ben Ray Lujan or Maggie Toulouse Oliver, he would be the overwhelming choice as he is vastly more intelligent and cogent than either of those are, or can hope to become.

But, just like the eastside banker, we don't believe he can be taken seriously in his get-up. 

For those who are part of Clarkson's team, who may offer the cliché-driven pitch along the lines of "Oh, this is trivial stuff, it's the issues that matter." You would be wrong. Issues do matter, but voters frequently can't get to those considerations when their minds are blocked by other factors. This is one of those factors. 

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

“Hey guys, colonialism wasn’t all that bad!”

“Bring back the British!” 

We just heard that Epstein's guard, who was on break for four hours, was killed in an automobile accident tomorrow.

Stay tuned to this station for updates.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

Rosie Tripp, the long-time and much-beloved Republican National Committeewoman for New Mexico, has decided to retire from her position at the RNC following the 2020 Republican National Convention next year.

Tripp, who is from Socorro, was elected in 1996 following the resignation of Committeewoman Laree Estes Perez of Corrales. She has been re-elected five times, and will have served six terms, or 24 years in the position. She has been very popular throughout the state, and faced an opponent only once during her tenure.

Tripp has also let it be known she is supporting a current county chairwoman to succeed her at the RNC. (More on that below.)

The terms of Republican National Committeewomen begin and end at the end of the national convention, so even though Tripp’s successor will be chosen in June or July of next year, Tripp will continue to serve through the end of the Republican National Convention, which will be held in Charlotte, North Carolina from August 24th to August 27th, 2020.

ROSALIND FRANCES GIVENS TRIPP

Tripp, who will turn 73 this October, moved with her family to Socorro when she was six-years-old. She attended the public schools in Socorro, graduating from Socorro High School in 1964. She later attended the New Mexico Institute of Mining & Technology in Socorro. At the beginning of her senior year in high school, she met Don Tripp, who had moved to town with his family from Ruidoso.

On Tuesday, August 13, they will have been married for 53 years. The Tripps have two children, six grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren. Rosie and Don own Tripp's, Inc., a jewelry manufacturing business based in Socorro. They also own a number of other business and real estate interests. (Don Tripp served as a state representative from 1998 to 2018. From 2015 through 2016, he was the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the first Republican to hold that position since 1954.)

POLITICAL CAREER

Rosie Tripp has always been an active, hard-working Republican, promoting and supporting Republican candidates and causes. She became Chairwoman of the Socorro County Republican Party back in 1987, serving until 1991. She has continued to be very active in the New Mexico Federation of Republican Women, and even served as Secretary of the New Mexico state FRW from 1993 through 1995.

She served as a member of the New Mexico Governor's Business Advisory Council from 1986 to 1990 under Governor Garrey Carruthers and from 1995 to 1997 under Governor Gary Johnson. She was also a member of Gary Johnson's Victory Club in 1995.

In 1996, Rosie was elected to the first of her two terms on the Socorro City Council, being reelected in 2000. And in 2002, she was elected to the first of two terms on the Socorro County Commission. For a brief period in 2003 and early 2004, she served in both positions simultaneously. She chaired the county commission for two years.

NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN

Since her first election in 1996, Tripp has served on several RNC committees, including the Committee on Contests in 2000, the Site Selection Committee in 2004, and the Redistricting Committee in 2010. She also served as the Assistant Secretary for the 2008 Republican National Convention.

More recently she has been serving on the Temporary Committee on Elections, the Rules Committee at the 2016 National Convention, and the all-important Committee on Arrangements, which is tasked with the multiple logistical challenges of a national convention, including lodging, transportation, security, and the delegate experience.

2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

During the 2016 New Mexico GOP state convention, Tripp expressed support for 2016 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and encouraged party members to support Trump's campaign, saying:

"It’s essential for our chances in November that we coalesce around Donald Trump. Politics is a team sport and we can’t win unless we rally around all of our candidates.”

Tripp was an RNC delegate to the 2016 Republican National Convention from New Mexico and was one of 24 delegates from New Mexico bound by state party rules to support Donald Trump at the convention. She was also a member of the RNC Rules Committee, a 112-member body responsible for crafting the official rules of the Republican Party, including the rules that governed the 2016 Republican National Convention.

TRIPP SUPPORTING TINA DZIUK for NATIONAL COMMITTEEWOMAN

Rosie has come out in support of Tina Dziuk (pronounced jook—as in “cook” with a "j") to be the new National Committeewoman beginning in August of 2020.

Dziuk, who is originally from Valencia County, graduated from Belen High School in 1989, and attended both California State University, Chico and the University of New Mexico.

She is currently serving as Chairwoman of the Republican Party of Roosevelt County.  She is also currently on the Rules Committee of the Republican Party of New Mexico.

Dziuk, at 48, has had a long career in business, including a trucking company and commercial real estate interests. She is currently the President of White Rock Crushing, LLC, an aggregate processing company located in Portales, which makes road base for the construction of New Mexico highways.

Tripp noted Dziuk’s long activism in the Republican Party of Valencia County and her work, including grassroots door-to-door campaigning, on behalf of numerous Republican candidates.

Additionally, she serves on the board of LifeQuest USA, Inc., an Albuquerque-based, non-denominational Christian non-profit that mentors incarcerated and at-risk youths. Dziuk also serves on the board of the Roosevelt County Hospital Foundation. She has two grown sons and a 10-year-old daughter.

According to Tripp, New Mexico has a strong voice on the Republican National Committee:

“They listen to us, and Tina Dziuk is a firmly-grounded young woman who has the kind of background, education, and understanding of issues that can help us continue to have influence at the RNC.”

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

Brian Williams perpetrated one of the most infamous media personality hoaxes in world history—claiming:

“the helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG.”

Only in his dreams. Just as he dreamed up stories about his “experiences” in Hurricane Katrina and other fanciful events that never occurred.

"Poor kids are just as bright as white kids."

We have noted several times in our columns that Joe Biden—regardless of what the polls say—will not get the Democrats' nomination.

IS BETO THE FIRST-EVER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE TO OPENLY and PUBLICLY TAKE THE LORD’s NAME IN VAIN ON THE CAMPAIGN TRAIL?

We would really like to know.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

(Here is their consistent message)

TRUMP FINISHES UP DEADLY WEEKEND AT HOME

CNN/MSNBC—President Donald Trump shot and killed 20 people in El Paso, Texas, Saturday, while wounding 24 more before then boarding his plane for Dayton, Ohio, where he stopped off to kill another 9 individuals and wound an additional 27.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS AWARD WINNER

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND

Caught flat-footed pondering something else (we have no idea what) and couldn’t respond for about 15 seconds.

BEST "NEW WORD" AWARD GOES TO:

Gov. Jay Inslee, for his incomparable

“anti-diluvenal”

Bill de Blasio:

“Kamala Harris and Joe Biden are the same as Trump. Nothing will change.”
(crowd bewildered)

MAYOR BUTTEGIEGE JUST SAID THIS:

"If you apply for a job and you are black you are less likely to be called just because of the name on the resume."

Are we the only outlet in America which believes that CNN Anchor Victor Blackwell’s tearful, semi-bawl-bag, “outrage” directed at President Donald J. Trump’s comments about #Baltimore was one big acting job? And not all that convincing either?

We not only thought it was fake from the very beginning, we believe it was merely another effort by media to join the Democratic Party in trying to claim that every single thing Trump—or any Republican anywhere for that matter—says is automatically and immediately “racist.”

This coming Wednesday, we will get a second opportunity to see if the Democrats have a longing for the candidate trumpeted as the first Asiatic presidential candidate in US history—Andrew Yang.

Shall we take mauls to all the malls of America? Smash them to smithereens?

NEW RULES—Next week there are hearings on the “new rules” being proposed by the New Mexico Secretary of State. We strongly recommend the three articles on those rules—posted yesterday by The New Mexico Justice Project.

The rules will adversely affect the information provided to voters and, as a result, the way in which voters are allowed to weigh their decisions about ballot questions.

Ballot questions are the up or down votes on Tax proposals, Bond Issues, Constitutional Amendments, Local Ordinances, and other Public Policy Decisions voters must make in the voting booth.

"Pundits Fry Mueller for ‘Shaky’ Performance" 

— Even CNN and other Leftish Commentators are Attacking the incomprehensibility of Mueller's responses and what appears to be an unfamiliarity with even the most basic components of his own report.

HERE IS WHAT EVERYONE IS MISSING:

MUELLER DID NOT COMPILE, RESEARCH, OR WRITE THE REPORT

As we have noted, warned, documented, and otherwise made known for over 2½ years, Trump's re-election has been in his own hands since the beginning of his term. But, frustratingly for many who support his administration and its manifold accomplishments, Trump has stubbornly refused to grasp the gold ring of re-election. Instead, he has continued to do everything in his power to leave it up to the Democrats.

What this means is that he has relentlessly continued to undercut his administration's achievements with his remarks, tweets, and personal interjections and asides. Almost unfailingly, at the very moment when he is riding a major success or his opponents are falling all over themselves with the almost daily permutations of the inanity and insanity that has become the Democrat Party, Trump will step on the story. 

He almost constantly draws attention away from the amazingly positive accomplishments of his first 30 months and refocuses the national attention on some sort of inaccurate tweet, statement, or unforced error of some sort. 

PLEASE NOTE: We are not in any way saying that the media coverage of what he says or tweets has been, is, or will be fair, balanced, or even remotely accurate. The media have not been fair, are not fair, and will not be fair in future. That said, Trump has had every opportunity to note and learn from that and take those very lessons to heart. But he hasn't. And it's pretty clear he won't. 

FURTHER NOTE: It is absurd to examine Trump's remarks to "The Squad" and then label them as "racist." It is also ignorant—no lexicographer, no philologist, no etymologist can or would credibly agree with that. Telling someone to "go back and help fix the totally broken and crime infested places from which they came" contains no "racial" connotation whatsoever. Like many many Trump statements, the media have to shape, describe, label, and finally force an interpretation of the remarks on the American people by dint of repetition. Doing that, despite the media's belief, does not, however, transform the remarks into something they are not. They may, however, do so for the most ignorant voters who never heard them to start with, or who allow the media to interpret events for them—and, sadly, there are more of the latter voters than is healthy for the democratic process.

FURTHER FURTHER NOTE: No, Trump's remarks were not "racist." But they WERE dumb. And ignorant. (And no, please stop with the "grand plan," or "brilliant strategy" arguments. It wasn't that either.) It was an unforced error based on the fact that he had not done his homework prior to speaking. (What else is new?) And another reason the remarks were super dumb—besides the inaccuracy—was that they (once again) took the focus away from the Pelosi-Squad intramural fight, and united them. 

THE LESSON FOR 2020 

What this portends for the election next year, is that the outcome will largely (if not totally) depend on what the Democrats do. On who they nominate. On what he or she says. On what they put in their platform or what they campaign on. 

If it were going to be about accomplishments, Trump would be at 60% in approval ratings right now, and would be headed for 50-52% of the popular vote next year (up from the 45.94% in 2016). His administration has been THAT SUCCESSFUL. Yes, it has. The reason he doesn't stand in that position right now is because he has refused to speak and act in a competent way that is consistent with the level of competence of the administration and its accomplishments to this point. 

All the major indicators are truly astounding in most cases and very successful in others: total employment, unemployment rates, employment by every single minority group possible, inflation rates, interest rates, growth rates, Middle East policy, the reversal of the stupid Iran deal, policy toward Israel, unprecedented talks with North Korea—leaving aside the fact that there is no concrete achievement yet (Democrats and media would be fawning over the dialog if it had been opened by Obama), immigration policy (everything that is happening at the border is, in fact, a result of the Democrats' aggressive efforts to tell the world we have open borders. 

The competence of the administration's achievements contrast sharply with the incompetence of Trump's personal conduct, speaking, and tweeting. Thus the explanation for the level of support not being where it is. 

TRUMPISTAS WILL DISAGREE

Trump's most intense supporters will angrily and wildly disagree. But what they don't understand, and refuse to understand, is that THEY are not the target audience. Trump had the Trumpistas at "hello." He still has them. It doesn't matter what he says or does. They will "analyze" everything he does or says as an act of genius. He has always had to expand his supporters beyond the combined numbers of the Trumpistas and the non-Trumpista Trump supporters in order to be able to win in 2020.

What is, always has been, and will continue to be Trump's target audience has been, is, and will continue to be the 5% to 8% of the electorate who habitually decide national elections. They are the most uninformed, least educated voters. And they are the voters who are least attached to any world view or philosophy or any logical coherent. 

Those voters are the most susceptible to media manipulation and, for them, verbal and Tweetal gaffes can continue to hold Trump down, even though his administration's record deserves more support.

DEMOCRATS TO THE RESCUE

In 2016, the Democrats nominated Hillary Clinton. She was the key to the outcome of the election. Guess what? The Democrats could very well do it again: Nominate someone who simply cannot put together an Electoral College majority. It is very possible they will do that. And at this point, it appears that is what the Trump supporters have to hope for. Trump continues, stubbornly, selfishly, and egotistically, to believe he can tweet or say anything that pops into his head. Speaking to groups of 15,000 or 18,000 in various arenas, feeds Trump's view that what he says is great. But he does not realize that those are radical fans, and are not his target audience. 

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

THIS JUST IN: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi Channels the late Country Music icon Tammy Wynette: Sings D-I-V-O-R-C-E to the House Democrat Caucus:??

“Our D-I-V-O-R-C-E comes final today
Me and little A-O-C
Will be going our way
I love you all,
But she’s been H-E double L for me
I’ve wished that I could rush this
D-I-V-O-R-C-E 

Email us with your feedback, comments, questions and ideas.

We believe the DOJ should have stood by their own recommendation and should have pursued civil rights charges in the case of Eric Garner. Let a jury decide.

We also believe President Trump should weigh in on this issue and urge a second look. There are at least two reasons to do so.

ABSENTEE BALLOT DROP-OFF BOXES

This is the 9th in a series of articles addressing the changes made to the New Mexico Election Code during the 2019 legislative session.

Provided by: THE NEW MEXICO ELECTION INTEGRITY PROJECT (a task force sponsored by The New Mexico Justice Project). The New Mexico Justice Project began posting these articles on July 4 and has gained over 450 followers in the past 10 days. We appreciate the support and the opportunity to provide information on the New Mexico Election Code and the electoral process.

Article #9:

ABSENTEE BALLOT DROP-OFF BOXES

Changes to the Election Code enacted in 2019 will allow for absentee ballot drop-off boxes. The new statute, 1-6-9 (E) of the Election Code now provides new language that says:

E. The official mailing envelope may be returned by depositing the official mailing envelope in a secured container made available by the county clerk to receive voted mailed ballots for that election; provided that:

(1) the location of the containers and the days and times the containers will be available to receive ballots are posted by the county clerk at least ninety days before a statewide election or forty-two days before a special election;

(2) the location of a secured container is considered a polling place for purposes of electioneering too close to the polling place in violation of Section 1-20-16 NMSA 1978;

(3) all secured containers shall be monitored by video surveillance cameras and the video recorded by that system shall be retained by the county clerk as a record related to voting pursuant to the provisions of Section 1-12-69 NMSA 1978;

(4) signage at the location of a secured container shall inform voters and those dropping off ballots at the location:

(a) that it is a violation of law for any person who is not an immediate family 
member to collect and deliver a ballot for another person;

(b) that electioneering is prohibited within one hundred feet of the secured container; and

(c) of the dates and approximate time[s] the ballots will be collected; and

(5) at least once a day, the county clerk or a full-time deputy county clerk shall collect the ballots from the secured containers, register the date and time stamp on each official mailing envelope and identify the location of the secured container in the ballot register.

Once again, the amendments that increased the security for these drop-off boxes were made at the urging of House Republicans. Republican Greg Nibert of Roswell particularly requested subsection (3), requiring that the containers be monitored by video surveillance cameras and that the video be recorded and retained as a public record under 1-12-69.

One of the objections to these types of collection boxes is that in New Mexico it is illegal to collect and deliver another person’s ballot unless you are an immediate caregiver or family member, and there are concerns about the containers being used to facilitate “ballot harvesting.”

“Ballot harvesting” occurs when groups, campaigns, or individuals go around collecting a bunch of ballots and turn them in to be counted. Our Election Code does not allow it.

Under the old law, absentee ballots had to be mailed in or delivered to the county clerk's office by the voter, the voter’s immediate family member, or the voter’s caregiver. So while legislators wanted to make ballot delivery more convenient for voters, in the process of doing so they did not want to enact a provision which would open the door to illegal ballot harvesting.

With today’s technology, these “secured containers” could become something more than just old-fashioned drop boxes. New Mexico voters should support the adoption of rules with will require the collection boxes to be equipped in such a way that the delivery of a ballot into the box results in an automatic date and time stamp on each ballot. This same process takes place when ballots are hand-delivered to the county clerk's office. Automation of the "drop-off" boxes would make the handling of ALL ballots uniform and non-discriminatory, which should be the goal in every step of the voting process.

Automatic date and time stamping in the drop-off boxes, combined with video surveillance of the boxes, will ensure that the new provisions in the Election Code do not lead to ballot harvesting or other forms of abuse or fraud. Or if there are attempts to violate the law, video surveillance evidence will exist to prosecute the perpetrators.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

Democrats have moved, almost unconsciously, to take increasingly Hard Left positions—without stopping to think or reflect.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

PRESIDENT TRUMP’S EXECUTIVE ORDER CREATING A CITIZENSHIP DATABASE—AND ITS POTENTIAL VERY POSITIVE EFFECT ON THE NEW MEXICO STATEWIDE VOTER FILE

[The 8th in a Series of Articles about Changes in the New Mexico Election Code]

President Trump announced yesterday that, by Executive Order, he is:

ordering every department and agency in 
the federal government to provide the 
Department of Commerce with all 
requested records regarding the number of 
citizens and non-citizens in our country. 
They must furnish all legally accessible 
records in their possession immediately.

The President said:

“We will utilize these vast federal 
databases to gain a full, complete, and 
accurate count of the non-citizen
population, including databases maintained 
by the Department of Homeland Security 
and the Social Security Administration.”

He also specifically mentioned the administration of elections, saying:

“This will greatly inform a wide array of 
public policy decisions...Elections 
administrators have long known that there 
is no available database which contains full 
information as to who is a citizen and who 
is not. There’s no such thing at the 
national level or the state level.

The President’s actions yesterday appear to be creating exactly such a database by lifting restrictions on data sharing between the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, and the Department of Commerce, among other agencies, to allow for the creation of a database to generate an accurate count of the number of “citizens, non-citizens and illegal aliens” in the United States.

The President estimated that 90% of the information is contained in various federal databases.

NEW MEXICO ELECTION LAW AND OUR ABILITY to CROSS-MATCH WITH FEDERAL DATABASES

Prior to 2019, the New Mexico Election Code had a provision which allowed the Secretary of State to match information in the statewide voter file with information contained in the Motor Vehicle Division Database, as well as the database of the Social Security Administration.

But the provision was discretionary, not mandatory. This year, however, in House Bill 407, because of an amendment made by Republican House members, the “may” in paragraph C of that statute was changed to “shall.”

The statutes, 1-4-1.1 (B) and (C), now say:

[Note: CAPITALIZATION in the statutes has been added for emphasis only.]

B. The secretary of state MAY enter into a written agreement with an agency or political subdivision of this state or with a department of the federal government pursuant to which the state agency, political subdivision or federal department shall provide to the secretary of state information that is in the possession of the state agency, political subdivision or federal department and that the secretary of state deems necessary to maintain the statewide voter registration list.

C. The secretary of state SHALL enter into a written agreement with the secretary of taxation and revenue to match information in the database of the voter registration electronic management system with information in the database of the motor vehicle division of the taxation and revenue department to the extent required TO ENABLE EACH OFFICIAL TO VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON APPLICATIONS FOR VOTER REGISTRATION. Upon the execution of the written agreement, the secretary of taxation and revenue SHALL enter into an agreement with the federal commissioner of social security pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 15483 (now 52 U.S.C. Section 21083), FOR THE PURPOSE OF VERIFYING APPLICABLE INFORMATION.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE EXECUTIVE ORDER.

Should the executive order survive all legal challenges and go into effect, the result—it would appear—would be that the Department of Commerce will be able to develop a database which would provide the states with a critical resource that would allow them to verify the information contained in voter registrations.

Perhaps the most significant value coming from this database would be that it would prevent non-citizens from registering to vote. Non-citizens would be prevented from doing so regardless of whether they are legally present in the country or unlawfully residing in the United States.

This would provide important protection for non-citizens. As pointed out in a previous article, it is the non-citizens themselves, rather than the unscrupulous registrars who sign them up, who suffer the consequences of unlawful registration—by being disqualified from seeking citizenship, or even facing deportation or criminal charges.

And non-citizens who become registered to vote have usually been misled or just flat-out lied to about whether or not they are eligible to vote.

Additionally, absolute accuracy is critical to the integrity of the voter file. The ability to have a single, thoroughly cross-matched database would provide each state with the kind of critical resource that has been missing for years. Such a resource has always been needed in order to assure the voting public that their state’s voter file is a clean, honest, accurate reflection of eligible voters. At this time in our history, no state is truly able to say that.

REFERENCE TO THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION IN THE EXECUTIVE ORDER

If the executive order survives all legal challenges, it appears that the resulting database may become available as files that are maintained by the Department of Commerce and the Social Security Administration. This is especially ignificant because of the reference to the Social Security Administration in the 2019 amendments added to the New Mexico Election Code.

Under those recent changes (again with amendments by House Republicans) New Mexico is REQUIRED to match the voter file against the Social Security Administration database for the purpose of verifying information, including citizenship, on the voter registration application. This would make a dramatic difference in the accuracy of our database, just as it would in the other 49 states as well.

Several articles ago, we referenced the list of unregistered voters at MVD, and its use by the Secretary of State to confirm voter information. We cautioned that that list must not be used in such a way that the information becomes public information as part of the public voter file. Such usage could contribute to fraud and identity theft. The Social Security Administration database, on the other hand, already contains those types of protections for individual privacy and should not be vulnerable to the same concerns.

However, adequate protections must be in place to protect ANY database of personally identifiable information of citizens and voters, and ensure that the database is only used for legitimate purposes.

(advertisement)

FULL COMPLIANCE CONSULTING, LLC — Research and Analysis of Elections-Related Issues in New Mexico

Assisting candidates, elected officials, committees, PACs, lobbyists, and law firms in navigating Campaign Finance Reporting, Campaign Practices, the Governmental Conduct Act, and the details of the New Mexico Election Code.

 ♦ Petitions ♦ Ballot Access ♦ Petition Challenges ♦ Recounts ♦ Contests ♦ Impoundments ♦ Research

Statewide Offices • Congressional Races • Legislative Races • Municipal Elections • School Board Elections • County Offices • Judicial & Regional Offices • Ballot Questions • Ballot Petitions and Signature Verification

Email: fccllc@terrcomm.net   Full Compliance Consulting, LLC    P.O. Box 2163 ♦ Santa Fe, NM 87504

(advertisement)

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

Are all Democrats really that ignorant? 

Or are they just playing game after fraudulent game? 
Is it all just a big campaign scam which they believe will win them votes right now? 

Or is it because they fear they cannot win a majority among American voters, and have decided to import a new voter base for the years to come?

The Silver City Event Center was packed last night with Republicans, Democrats, independents, and leading citizens and voters of all stripes. The crowd was estimated at 630. The Republican fundraiser was mainly to support the candidacy of Republican legislative candidate Luis Terrazas who is challenging incumbent Democrat Rodolpho "Rudy" Martinez.

It is our understanding that Republican State Representative Rebecca Dow of Truth or Consequences was also a beneficiary of the event.

The stated ticket sales goal was a seemingly lofty 500, but as reported last night, event organizers had to scramble to set up even more tables for the overflow crowd. 

DEMOCRAT OFFICIALS in ATTENDANCE

Former Silver City Mayor Mike Morones, a Democrat, was in attendance, as well as current Democrat Sheriff Frank Gomez. Morones is even said to be the campaign treasurer for Terrazas.