Tag Archives: politics

Queen Michelle Lujan Grisham

Posted on by
Reply

New Mexico Reina Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham has said the quiet part out loud: the solemn word of a Progressive-Democratic Party politician is worthless.

Reina Grisham has taken it upon herself to completely suspend our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, and with that, she is actively barring the open or concealed carry of firearms in her realm, even by New Mexico citizen-subjects who are duly licensed to do so.

What’s also—and possibly more broadly—dangerous is that Grisham’s suspension demonstrates her belief that her oath of office is not absolute. She can walk away from any part of it whenever that oath, or anything her oath binds her to and to do, becomes inconvenient to her and/or to her politics. Here she is as plain as can be (listen to the whole four minutes, or scroll ahead to about 2:25):

No constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.

This is what the New Mexico constitution requires in the way of an oath of office. Article XX, Section 1:

Every person elected or appointed to any office shall, before entering upon his duties, take and subscribe to an oath or affirmation that he will support the constitution of the United States and the constitution and laws of this state, and that he will faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office to the best of his ability.

She is required to support…the constitution and laws of this state. There is no caveat giving the governor of the State an out for whenever she doesn’t feel like keeping her oath. Further, that bit about faithfully and impartially discharge the duties of his office explicitly demands that the State’s constitution and laws be enforced fully; no part of either of them can be set aside whenever they become inconvenient to the governor.

With specific reference to our Federal Constitution’s 2nd Amendment, the New Mexico governor also is explicitly sworn to support the constitution of the United States, again without exception, caveat, or instance of inconvenience.

This is the degree of integrity of the members of the Progressive-Democratic Party. Grisham has made it explicit: Party member commitments, promises, even oaths of office are utterly worthless. They—each of them—will walk away from their promises the moment that promise becomes personally or politically inconvenient to them.

Oh, and one more thing. This is what Article IV, Section 36, of New Mexico’s constitution says about impeachable offenses:

All state officers and judges of the district court shall be liable to impeachment for crimes, misdemeanors and malfeasance in office….

Grisham’s conscious, deliberate violation of her oath of office is, very clearly, malfeasance in office, and so she is plainly impeachable and convictable for her violation. However, with strong Progressive-Democratic Party majorities in both houses of the New Mexico legislature, that will never happen.

A Simple Response

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden is looking at requiring illegal aliens to remain in Texas [and/or other border States] while they wait out their asylum screening.

The plan would force migrants to remain in Texas, or possibly other border states, by tracking their location through GPS monitoring devices, such as ankle bracelets, the officials told the [LA] Times.

This seems to me to be naked retaliation for Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s (R) penchant for transporting illegal aliens who volunteer for the trip to other cities and States that have invited them via their sanctuary city/State status. And about which some Mayors have started to whine and cry about being taken at their word.

Retaliation or not, there’s no reason Texans, or the citizens of other border States, should have to bear the costs of Biden’s No Southern Border policy.

Accordingly, here’s my suggested response: move the illegal aliens Biden is forcing held in [Texas] to each of the Federal buildings (which include more than just courthouses…) that are scattered around the State. Force the Feds to do the housing and bear the costs of that.

To The Extent That’s True…

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams claims to be worried about the destruction of New York City by the illegal alien migrant (Adams’ term) “crisis.”

Let me tell you something, New Yorkers. Never in my life have I had a problem that I did not see an ending to. I don’t see an ending to this. I don’t see an ending to this. This issue will destroy New York City. Destroy New York City. We’re getting 10,000 migrants a month.

Along with a total of 110,000 illegal aliens coming into the city over the last year, plus.

One hundred ten thousand illegal aliens pour across our southern border in a couple of weeks—that’s what the small, non-sanctuary cities along our southern border are faced with routinely.

…it’s been brought on by none other than Adams himself with his proudly supported sanctuary city status and his resulting open invitation to all illegal aliens to come ahead on into the city.

Were Adams serious about the fate of NYC, he’d end the city’s sanctuary city status, end his open invitation to illegal aliens, and bar them from the city’s and the State’s welfare programs (as far as he can within State law). He’d be moving to support their prompt deportation, instead.

The Judge Got It Wrong

Posted on by
Reply

Matthew Whitaker, former Acting US Attorney General, disagrees with a Puerto Rico bankruptcy judge’s ruling regarding the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority’s bankruptcy and the subsequent handling of the utility’s creditors. He wrote in his Fox Business op-ed that

[US District Judge Laura Taylor] Swain…concluded that special revenue bondholders do not hold a secured claim on current and future net revenues. As The Wall Street Journal explained in March, “A federal judge curbed Puerto Rico bondholders’ rights to the electric revenue generated by its public power utility.”
Furthermore, the ruling stated that the original legal obligation of the borrowers is not the face value of the debt, but rather what the borrower (in this case “PREPA”) can feasibly repay.

This is wrong. Whitaker is right. The borrower committed to repay what it borrowed, not what it might feel like repaying be able to repay in some speculative future.

This judicial error, though, has much broader implications than just the damage done PREPA’s creditors. Her ruling sets the ugly precedent that no borrower is liable for what he borrows, only for what he might be able to repay. That drastically altered risk terrain can only mean that lenders will be more reluctant to lend, particularly to lower income (and so with higher debt risk) folks and businesses, and that those lenders that do lend will do so only at markedly higher interest to account for the risk the amount they lend will not be recoverable in any guise, especially in the public—municipal—arena.

Union Evidence Tampering

Posted on by
Reply

The Jefferson County Education Association, the teachers union representing the teachers of Colorado’s Jefferson County school district, has instructed its members to destroy

evidence of students’ transgender information

Leaving aside the fact that the union has no authority to order this—that’s the sole purview of the school district’s board and superintendent—there’s this much larger problem: it’s evidence tampering, which is a serious felony.

The union even anticipated the fact that the docs might be called into evidence in some future proceeding:

The email said, “if you do a questionnaire, please make it a paper and pencil activity – any digital records are more permanent and may be requested under federal law.”

This is another teachers union that needs to be decertified.