After scoring significant victories in the 2022 midterms, New Mexico Democrats are off to the races in their bid to completely overhaul the state’s future election administration.
In the state legislature, where Democrats enjoy majorities in both chambers, several leftist House representatives have introduced legislation that seeks to enshrine numerous Democrat-favorable voting policies into law. If successfully passed and signed by Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, the newly proposed bill (HB 4) would expand mail-in voting — the least secure and most unreliable form of voting — throughout the state.
Buried within HB 4 are provisions allowing for the development of a “voluntary permanent absentee voter list,” where county clerks “automatically send a mailed ballot to the mailing address listed on [a voter’s registration certificate] each time there is a statewide election that includes [his or her] precinct.” This absentee voter list mirrors lax no-excuse absentee voting and “indefinite confinement” rules that Democrats popularized around the country under the guise of the Covid “emergency” to the detriment of election integrity.
The bill would furthermore require counties to have at least two ballot drop boxes within their jurisdiction, with the measure allowing county clerks to request more from the secretary of state.
But New Mexico Democrats’ election takeover doesn’t stop at mail-in voting. Under the bill, convicted felons would be permitted to register to vote after getting out of prison but before completing parole or probation.
“During the reentry phase of an inmate’s sentence, if the inmate is a voter or otherwise a qualified elector, the inmate shall be given an opportunity to register to vote or update an existing registration by means of a transaction with the motor vehicle division of the taxation and revenue department prior to the inmate’s release from custody,” the bill reads.
Under existing New Mexico law, convicted felons “must complete probation or parole before registering to vote again,” according to the Albuquerque Journal.
Also included in the measure are changes creating an automatic voter registration system at the state’s driver’s licensing agency, as well as at other state and local government departments.
A similar version of the legislation was introduced during last year’s legislative session but was filibustered by state Senate Republicans. Given that the state’s 2023 session will be twice as long as last year’s, it seems probable the bill will pass.
In predictable fashion, legacy media outlets have gone out of their way to run interference for New Mexico Democrats by classifying HB 4 as a “voting rights” bill. On Wednesday, Daily Kos writer Stephen Wolf penned an article saying the legislation was designed to “broadly protect and expand voting rights in the state.”
The Albuquerque Journal’s Dan McKay used similar language, whining about how New Mexico Senate Republicans “killed election legislation at the Roundhouse in the final hours of last year’s session.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a Staff Writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He also serves as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
During the “Overtime” segment of HBO’s “Real Time,” host Bill Maher stated that Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot, New York City Mayor Eric Adams (D), and Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) have reacted to the surges of migrants in their cities and states by “saying the thing that they’re not supposed to say,” which is that despite being sanctuary jurisdictions, “we’re all full up right now.”
Maher stated, “All those three have said basically — it’s so funny, because they…were basically saying the thing that they’re not supposed to say, which is that, I know we love immigrants and we’re sanctuary cities, but we’re all full up right now.”
He added, “[E]ven Canada has restrictions.” And stated that “It’s amazing that so many issues that you talk about, if people were just not hateful toward each other and could do grand bargains like they used to…there’s got to be something in between they’re all rapists and come one, come all. And there is.”
After a dramatic launch at the 2018 Golden Globes in the wake of the Harvey Weinstein scandal, the so-called “gender rights” organization Time’s Up raked in over $22 million from many of Hollywood’s most prominent names such as Oprah Winfrey, Meryl Streep, Shonda Rhimes, and Reese Witherspoon. Just five years later, Time’s Up is now officially closing its doors after the group was revealed to be nothing more than another partisan operation that opted to protect Democrats from the very type of sexual assault and workplace inequality allegations they claimed to be fighting against. Unsurprisingly, the celebrities who enthusiastically backed the legal fund are radio silent.
“Time’s Up will formally cease its operations by the end of January and direct its remaining $1.7 million in funds to the Time’s Up Legal Defense Fund (TULDF),” The Hollywood Reporter reported this week.
Time’s Up first revealed its partisan bias during Joe Biden’s presidential campaign when former Senate staffer Tara Reade came forward accusing a married Sen. Biden of pushing her against a wall, kissing her, and forcibly penetrating her with his fingers under her skirt in 1993. Although the organization claimed Reade’s allegations should not “go ignored,” it was later discovered that its own public relations firm, SKDKnickerbocker, was headed by Anita Dunn, a top Biden campaign strategist.
Dunn was also reported to have previously given Weinstein “damage control advice.” The irony — that Time’s Up was created in response to the Weinstein allegations as an effort to stop and prosecute other predators — is lost on no one.
“I actually cried a little because I felt really betrayed,” Reade told Law & Crime at the time. “They never told me that their public relations was run by Anita Dunn. I found out in real-time reading Ryan [Grim]’s article.”
“From my perspective: the payments look like a way to silence me further from getting my story heard,” Reade said of the conflicting interests between SKDKnickerbocker and Biden’s campaign.
It wasn’t that they were staying out of politics. Time’s Up was of course proud to take bold stands against politicians such as Donald Trump and figures like Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, over whom it organized a “national walk-out” based on the thinnest of allegations.
But Time’s Up’s silence on Biden and other Democrats such as Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax would be small potatoes compared to revelations found in New York Attorney General Letitia James’ 2021 report that Time’s Up chief, Tina Tchen, and TULDF co-founder Roberta Kaplan were asked by former Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s office for guidance on how to respond to sexual harassment allegations brought by a former Cuomo aide, Lindsey Boylan.
Kaplan resigned from the Time’s Up board after the AG’s investigation found that Kaplan gave input on a letter Cuomo’s office drafted to rebut Boylan’s allegations.
“[Cuomo aide Melissa] DeRosa reported back to the Governor that Ms. Kaplan and the head of Time’s Up thought the letter was okay with some changes, as did [Cuomo ally Steven] Cohen, but everyone else thought it was a bad idea,” the AG’s report reads.
Less than a month after the AG’s report came out in the fall of 2021, Time’s Up’s A-list advisory board quietly dissolved. Celebrity names on the 71-member board included Witherspoon, Jessica Chastain, Natalie Portman, Janelle Monae, Brie Larson, Tessa Thompson, Padma Lakshmi, Laura Dern, America Ferrera, Kerry Washington, Tarana Burke, Alyssa Milano, Gretchen Carlson, Amy Schumer, and Julianne Moore.
According to Variety, Time’s Up co-founder Nina Shaw wrote an email to the members instructing them, “There is no need for your individual resignations, as the group no longer exists.” Further, she explained that “The goal behind a quick dissolution of the GLB [Global Leadership Board] was to shield all of you from unfair scrutiny.”
In other words, no need for the public handwringing and apologies that would normally be necessary had the accused not belonged to the Democratic Party. You may go quietly into the night.
Time’s Up’s disgusting partisan leanings ultimately disparaged and put an end to their own cause. They got what they deserved, but what about Hollywood’s most vocal and prominent #MeToo defenders and fundraisers? Will there be any repercussions or mea culpas about how their money went to support alleged predators like Cuomo? No, of course not.
Madeline Osburn is managing editor at The Federalist. Contact her at firstname.lastname@example.org or follow her on Twitter.
Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) has introduced the “PELOSI Act” which would ban members of Congress, as well as their family members, from holding or trading stocks.
The legislation, known as the Preventing Elected Leaders from Owning Securities and Investments (PELOSI) Act, references former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) who was called out last year after her husband, Paul Pelosi, bought up to $5 million in stock in a semiconductor company right as the Senate was passing legislation to massively subsidize the semiconductor industry.
Pelosi was also among a group of Republicans and Democrats who beat the market in 2021 with hundreds of millions of dollars in stock trades. Others who faired the best include Reps. Austin Scott (R-GA), Brian Mast (R-FL), French Hill (R-AR), John Curtis (R-UT), and Dan Crenshaw (R-TX).
Hawley, who introduced similar legislation last year, said the practice must end.
“For too long, politicians in Washington have taken advantage of the economic system they write the rules for, turning profits for themselves at the expense of the American people,” Hawley said in a statement.
“As members of Congress, both Senators and Representatives are tasked with providing oversight of the same companies they invest in, yet they continually buy and sell stocks, outperforming the market time and again,” he continued.
I have just released the full trading report on politicians in 2021.
In short, many beat the market.
They traded more than ever before.
And they made numerous unusually timed trades, resulting in huge gains.
Hawley’s PELOSI Act would ban members of Congress and their spouses from holding, acquiring, or selling stocks while in office. The legislation gives members and their spouses six months after taking office to divest stocks they hold or put them in a blind trust.
If members of Congress or their spouses are found to be in violation of the legislation’s rules, they would have to forfeit any profits to the United States Treasury. Violators would also be prohibited from deducting those losses on their income taxes.
The legislation gives the House and Senate ethics committees full power to fine members of Congress for such violations and would be required to publicize them to the American people. In accordance with the bill, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) would be required to audit members of Congress to ensure they are complying with the rules.
“While Wall Street and Big Tech work hand-in-hand with elected officials to enrich each other, hardworking Americans pay the price,” Hawley said. “The solution is clear: we must immediately and permanently ban all members of Congress from trading stocks.”
Banning members of Congress and their family members from trading stocks is hugely popular among likely American voters.
Last year, a Trafalgar Group survey revealed that 76 percent believe Congress has an “unfair advantage” when it comes to the stock market. Only five percent support permitting congressional stock trading.
John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at email@example.com. Follow him on Twitter here.
The Vermont Supreme Court ruled Friday that noncitizen residents in its capital city of Montpelier may continue to vote in municipal elections. The court argued that allowing noncitizens to vote does not violate the state Constitution because citizenship requirements only apply to federal elections.
“The statute allowing noncitizens to vote in local Montpelier elections does not violate Chapter II, § 42 because that constitutional provision does not apply to local elections,” the Supreme Court wrote.
In 2018, the city of Montpelier voted to allow noncitizens to cast votes in local elections if they were in the United States legally. In 2020, the city of Winooski did the same. In 2021, the Democrat-controlled Vermont legislature approved such changes to both city’s municipal charters, over Republican Gov. Phil Scott’s veto. As a result, the Republican National Committee filed two lawsuits asking judges to declare noncitizen voting unconstitutional in those two cities.
While federal law prohibits noncitizens from voting in federal elections for races such as the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, several jurisdictions across the country, including San Francisco and multiple towns in Maryland, allow noncitizens to vote in municipal elections.
Such a system can cause chaos in local election offices and their administration of elections, as city clerks would have to keep two sets of voter rolls and put in place procedures to distinguish who can and cannot vote in an election that has both federal and local offices on the ballot. This would muddle already messy state voter rolls, especially at a time when confidence in American elections is at an all-time low.
Colorado offers a warning to state and local jurisdictions looking to adopt noncitizen voting. During the November midterm elections, the secretary of state’s office erroneously sent out 31,000 postcards to foreign nationals on how to register to vote (for both municipal and federal offices) in the Nov. 8 election. This was the result of a mismanagement oversight with the state’s voter rolls.
While blue cities such as New York, Boston, and Washington, D.C. are all looking at implementing noncitizen voting, Louisiana and Ohio became the latest of eight states that have passed laws banning noncitizen voting in municipal elections.
Victoria Marshall is a staff writer at The Federalist. Her writing has been featured in the New York Post, National Review, and Townhall. She graduated from Hillsdale College in May 2021 with a major in politics and a minor in journalism. Follow her on Twitter @vemrshll.
House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-MN) expects Republicans to craft “creative solutions” in the coming months to address the nation’s debt ceiling while President Joe Biden stands firmly against negotiating with the GOP on the matter.
Emmer spoke about his position on the looming fight during an interview with Breitbart News in his Capitol Hill office Wednesday, one day before the U.S. was expected to reach its statutory debt limit.
“I think our members are already working on solutions. I think we’ll be proactive,” Emmer said. “And, you know, I know the press loves the drama, but I just don’t think there’s going to be a lot of drama on this side. I think the House will lead. I think the House will put together something that makes sense.”
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen wrote to Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) last week that the U.S. was expected to reach its $31.4 trillion debt limit on January 19 and that the Treasury Department would then resort to “extraordinary measures” to avoid defaulting on its debts. Yellen estimated the department could take such measures through roughly early June before the U.S. would run out of options.
On Thursday, Yellen confirmed to McCarthy that the U.S. had indeed hit its debt ceiling and that she had begun taking measures to stave off a default.
Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen speaks at the Treasury Department in Washington, January 10, 2023. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster, File)
House Republicans have pledged, as a result of conference negotiations during their prolonged speaker race fight, to offset raising the debt ceiling with substantial federal spending cuts, while the White House has vowed not to entertain giving Republicans any such concessions.
Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated in a press briefing this week, “This is something that should be done without conditions. We have been very, very clear about that. We are not going to be negotiating over the debt ceiling.”
The stalemate marks the early stages of a fight reminiscent of 2011 between the House GOP and President Barack Obama’s administration over government spending, which lasted until the two bodies agreed — after what appeared to be a period of heightened financial turmoil and anxiety — to temporarily suspend the debt limit.
Warnings at the time about grave repercussions of a default and Standard & Poor’s historic decision to downgrade the U.S. credit rating proved, as explained by Breitbart News’s John Carney, not to have lasting negative real-world impact.
Yellen in her correspondence to McCarthy nevertheless warned of “irreparable harm” to the U.S. economy if the country could not pay its bills, saying the “livelihood of all Americans” and “global financial stability” were at stake.
The Democrat-controlled Senate, the Republican-controlled House, and the White House must all be in agreement to be able to pass a law that addresses the debt limit, but Emmer said he deems most Senate Democrats and the Biden administration untrustworthy on the issue.
“That’s the other thing — is, you can’t believe a word that comes out of their mouth at this point. They’re going to try and do as little as possible for as long as possible, and they’re going to try to use the press to convince the rest of the country that they’re the ones that actually hold the high ground,” Emmer said.
Asked if he is concerned that a handful of centrist Republicans could eventually succumb to pressure over the actual or purported risks of a default and side with Democrats on the matter, effectively handing Democrats a debt ceiling increase or suspension without Republicans’ desired spending offsets, Emmer said no.
“Our team showed you last week that it doesn’t matter how you want to characterize one of our members and his or her political perspective. … Every voice matters in this conference,” he said.
The majority whip said he looks forward to seeing some members, such as Budget Committee chair Rep. Jodey Arrington (R-TX) or RSC chair Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) or some group of “fiscal Hawks,” emerge as leaders for Republicans as they come up with “some very creative solutions” to modifying spending in the coming months.
“And by the way, even the more moderate members are looking at this stuff, in terms of you cannot continue the spending,” Emmer said.
Australian police are the opposite wanting to disarm the entire population
(Natural News) A growing group of sheriffs in Illinois are vowing not to enforce provisions of a new gun control law passed by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly and signed by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker this week.
The statute, which is being heavily criticized as anti-Second Amendment and potentially unconstitutional, not only calls for banning new sales of so-called “assault weapons,” but while it allows current owners to keep the weapons they have, they must register them with the Illinois State Police, and that is where the sheriffs have drawn a line.
The Democrat-controlled state legislature imposed a ban on a variety of semiautomatic guns, magazines, and devices that allow a weapon to fire more quickly on Monday.
The Protecting Illinois Communities Act passed the Illinois Senate on Monday night by a vote margin of 34–20. The bill makes it illegal for Illinois residents to purchase, transfer, or manufacture “assault weapons” and extended magazines. According to the bill’s language, an “assault weapon” is a semiautomatic rifle that can accept a detachable magazine and has a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, a barrel shroud, or other characteristics.
“I’m signing this legislation tonight so it can take immediate effect,” Pritzker said in a press conference, local media reported on Tuesday.
In a letter posted to Facebook, Greene County Sheriff Rob McMillen wrote that he plans to follow his “morals, beliefs, and obligations concerning protecting the rights” of the citizens of his county.
These types of laws put law enforcement officers and prosecutors in a very precarious box, with us having to decide to not enforce laws that were passed by government bodies,” McMillen wrote. “But, as your Greene County Sheriff, I cannot sit back and let laws strip Greene County citizens of their constitutional rights, and not take a stance supporting the citizens against a government that wants to trample on their rights.”
Meanwhile, Iroquois County Sheriff Clinton J. Perzee noted in a letter of his own, “The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people. I, among many others, believe that HB 5471 is a clear violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”
His letter followed a Dec. 13 vote by the Iroquois County Board implementing a measure that forbids the “use of county funds, appropriation, personnel, or property” to enforce the law, The Epoch Times noted further.
Perzee said that neither he nor his office will be checking to ensure that “lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting or housing law abiding individuals that have been arrested solely with non-compliance of this Act.”
Clinton County Sheriff Dan Travous, Macoupin County Sheriff Shawn Kahl, and Monroe County Sheriff Neal Rohlfing all made similar statements and commitments to their residents.
“In the meantime, we remain focused on reducing violent crime,” their letter reads. “Therefore, pending further direction by the courts, the Madison County Sheriff’s Office will not expend its limited resources to check whether otherwise law-abiding gun owners have registered their weapons with the State, nor will the Madison County Sheriff’s Office be arresting or housing otherwise law-abiding individuals solely due to non-compliance with [the law].”
Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe also took to social media with an almost identical vow not to enforce the law.
“Part of my duties that I accepted upon being sworn into office was to protect the rights provided to all of us, in the Constitution,” Boewe wrote on Facebook. “One of those rights enumerated is the right of the people to KEEP and BEAR ARMS provided under the 2nd Amendment. The right to keep and bear arms for defense of life, liberty and property is regarded as an inalienable right by the people.”
Logan County, Kankakee County, Piatt County, LaSalle County, Knox County, Pike County, Putnam County, St. Clair County, Union County, Wabash County, Woodford County, Williamson County, Wayne County, Shelby County, Ogle County, Jo Daviess County, and more posted similar letters.
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes.The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.