John B. Strong has been in New Mexico since 1997. He is an art gallery owner in Santa Fe since 2000. Mr. Strong is a co-founder or board member at several different companies, mostly in technology, healthcare, and financial services. Mr. Strong describes himself as being “obsessed with entrepreneurship and small businesses.”

Walt Rubel is the Editorial Page editor of the Las Cruces Sun-News in Las Cruces, New Mexico. He has been with the Las Cruces Sun News since 2002 after having worked for eight newspapers in the states of Colorado, Wyoming, California and Kansas. During his many years with the Las Cruces Sun-News, his primary duties have been editing the opinion page and writing editorial opinions.

Following is a guest column by John B. Strong, an editorial by Walt Rebel published in the Las Cruces Sun News and further Commentary and Analysis. All 3 commentaries read together present a serious conversation about liquor license reform in New Mexico.

JOHN B. STRONG COMMENTARY

Many people don’t quite understand how outdated and unfair our liquor licensing laws are here in New Mexico. Decades ago the legislature created a system of a set and limited number of licenses to be able to serve or sell liquor by the drink. This is not the same as wine and beer licenses. There are currently 1,411 licenses in the state for this purpose, and they trade as a commodity and can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

The state derives no economic benefit from the purchase, sale , or leasing of these licenses at all. They simply allow the owner to then go to the State Alcohol and Gaming Commission and apply for a license that allows them to sell alcohol.

Since there are a limited quantity of these licenses there has been a constant upward push in the price to acquire them. About 10 years ago these licenses cracked the $200,000 mark. Recently the last two licenses sold were reported by the state to be $500,000 and $590,000. Originally most if not all of these licenses were owned by local small businesses scattered across the state, but over the years the increased prices began to tempt small family owned businesses to simply sell them as they became worth much more than the actual business they were attached to.

Therein begins the problem. Many of these licenses began to migrate away from small locally owned businesses to large out of state corporations. Companies like Marriott and Hilton Hotels, Cheesecake Factory, Applebee’s, and other large chains. Then groups formed here to acquire licenses and lease them out rather sell them, both in anticipation of ever-increasing values for them as well as increasing lease payments.

If you are unsure of what effect this might have consider this, in a couple of years these licenses will likely crack $1 Million dollars! At that point (if we aren’t there already) you will never again see a small family owned Mexican restaurant that can sell a Margarita, or a local Steakhouse that can sell a martini, or an ethnic restaurant that can sell beverages native to the food they prepare. Consider the International District, which is home to many great ethnic food establishments, and they are under constant pressure to compete with large chains that have this unfair advantage over them.

Replicate that scenario across the city as well as the state and you start to see the problem. Keep in mind as well that we have an interest in our small businesses, because when the large chains sell that $10 Martini, their profits go straight to a corporate bank account in New York, Chicago, or LA. When our small businesses are able to make that sale, those profits percolate through the community many times over, and that is a BIG deal.

I don’t think anyone believes that when this system was set up that it would get to this point, and periodically over the years there have been conversations about reform, but nothing ever happens. Partly because there is a lot of money at stake for the folks who own these licenses (we think about half of them are owned by out of state corporations that probably pay little attention to their value) and it’s complicated to try and change it. I am told that we have around 34 different licenses for beer, wine, and alcohol, and that is far too many.

So now that we are in this mess, what do we do about it? I have a couple of suggestions:

The legislature could simply create a class of liquor license combined with wine and beer specifically for venues of less than 75 seats that would be affordable, say $500 per year.

This would take some of the pressure off the upward increase in the large venue licenses but they would still maintain a high value, while giving small venues a chance to compete.

We could levy a tax on liquor beer and wine, and bond against that revenue stream to begin buying in and cancelling the licenses. It’s doable.

The bottom line here is that this issue has a very outsized economic impact on both our cities, particularly Albuquerque, and our state. I tell anyone who will listen that this is not a liquor issue, it is an economic development issue.

Keep in mind as well, that now that we are enjoying some real success in attracting large investments from companies like Netflix, and NBC Universal, the employees they bring here will begin to demand the neighborhoods, music venues, and social spaces that they are used to in cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Seattle and Austin. They contain neighborhoods filled with small music venues, speakeasies, coffee shops, and bistros. We won’t have any real hope of creating these neighborhoods without reforming this issue.

And if we want to keep attracting more of these companies to invest and bring their employees here, we will need to give them reasons to say YES to living here. So let’s once again start that conversation about reform, but this time lets actually do something about it.

Respectfully,

JOHN B. STRONG

WALT RUBEL, LAS CRUCES SUN NEWS , NOVEMBER 28, 2018

“When I moved to New Mexico in 2002, I was told the reason there was a set number of liquor licenses in the state was to control drunken driving and the other problems associated with alcohol abuse.

Which seemed like a strange way to approach what was a real problem, given New Mexico’s lax DUI laws at the time. Penalties topped out at the fourth conviction, meaning there was no difference between the fourth and the 40th. Unless somebody was hurt or killed in a crash, drunken drivers could expect a wrist slap.

The conventional thinking at that time was if we punished them, even by just taking away their driver’s license, it would only end up hurting their families.

Former Gov. Bill Richardson, working with Republicans like former Sen. Kent Cravens, ended that old way of thinking and dramatically reduced drunken-driving deaths in the state through a combination of tougher laws and more aggressive enforcement.

And yet the limit on liquor licenses remains.

It is now clear that the issue is not DUI or alcohol abuse, but rather protecting the investments of a small number of powerful business owners.

Last week the City Council voted 4-3 to support legislation that would crack the door open ever so slightly by allowing more restaurants to sell alcohol. But only alcohol produced by New Mexico distilleries. And, only for restaurants located within economic development districts.

While there were some public safety arguments raised during the City Council debate on the issue, the primary argument against the proposal came from those who own one or more of the prized liquor licenses, and who believe the government has an obligation to safeguard their business investments.

One business owner said he was counting on the fortunes to be made selling his licenses to finance his retirement. Another conceded that we have a broken system, but then argued that nothing could be done to fix it because it would hurt existing licenses holders.

Because of the artificial scarcity of liquor licenses created by the state government, those selling existing licenses can get up to $1 million for them. The average price is $300,000, according to the city, more than 10 times as much as in neighboring states. Obviously, that serves as an enormous detriment to new restaurants moving into New Mexico. Not to mention reducing the options for diners in the state.

Current license holders may be right when they say ending the restriction would mean more competition for their businesses and would lower the value of their licenses. But, when did it become government’s job to protect businesses from competition?

The government’s job is to promote the common good and work toward increasing the number of businesses that operate in the state. Maintaining a set number of liquor licenses to discourage out-of-state investment in order to protect a small number of current business owners does the exact opposite.

There are many valid reasons for a state to set laws regulating the sale and consumption of alcohol, most involving public safety. Protecting the business interests of those who have invested in licenses at artificially inflated prices is not among them.”

Respectfully,

WALT RUBEL

https://www.krwg.org/post/rubel-thoughts-new-mexico-liquor-laws-and-who-laws-really-serve

DINELLI COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

New Mexico has an extensive history of attempting to restrict liquor licenses and at the same time dealing with some of the highest rates of drunken driving (DWI) in the country. The state’s liquor licensing laws impairs economic development with no real evidence that fewer licenses reduce DWI rates and increase public safety in any meaningful way.

Out of state “chain stores and restaurants”, which are now proliferating Albuquerque and squeezing out locally owned businesses, can afford whatever it takes to buy a liquor license. Smaller, locally owned restaurants cannot compete nor afford to pay hundreds of thousands for a liquor license. Any average New Mexican who wants to open a new bar or restaurant with a full liquor license cannot do so because the cost of a liquor license is so prohibitive as a result of the cap placed on the number of licenses that can be issued based on population numbers.

Albuquerque has repeatedly tried for the last 50 years to revitalize the Downtown area. Revitalization of any downtown area always includes entertainment venues, new restaurants and bars. However locally own businesses simply cannot afford the investment in a liquor license. Laws preventing alcohol sales within 300 feet of a church or school, and preventing sales before noon on Sundays make any city in the state less attractive to businesses, while serving no real public safety function. Sunday liquor sales at one time were prohibited all day with one argument made because it is considered a day of worship for attending church and not for drinking. The 300-foot restriction is somewhat of a farce and should be eliminated.

If New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham and the New Mexico Legislature truly want to encourage economic development and help locally owned businesses, liquor license reform must be included in equation.

The term “poaching” is somewhat insulting as an illegal hunting term when referring to law enforcement recruitment from other law enforcement departments and communities. On July 22, 2019, speaking before the real estate development organization the National Association of Industrial Parks (NAIOP), Mayor Tim Keller acknowledge that “poaching” is what APD has done for the last year to recruit 100 sworn police and said:

“We are done trying to poach folks. … It was something we needed to do – and I will say I did work with all the other mayors on that and, I think actually, net-net, it worked out OK and we got our additional 100 – but we’re going to have to go to other cities now.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1343616/keller-apd-done-trying-to-poach-officers.html

GROWING THE DEPARTMENT

In the last year, APD has added 116 sworn police to the force because of “poaching”. APD’s goal is to spend $88 million dollars starting last year in the 2018-2019 fiscal year, over a four-year period, with 32 million dollars of recurring expenditures, to hire 322 sworn officers and expand APD from 878 sworn police officers to 1,200 officers. The massive investment is being done in order to full fill Mayor Tim Keller’s 2017 campaign promise to increase the size of APD and return to community-based policing as a means to reduce the city’s high crime rates. Last year’s 2018-2019 fiscal year budget provided for increasing APD funding from 1,000 sworn police to 1,040. This year’s 2019-2020 fiscal year budget has funding for 1,040 sworn police.

The APD recruiting plan to grow the size of the department included the city increasing police officer hourly pay and increasing longevity incentive pay. In 2018, the Keller Administration and the APD Union negotiated and agreed to a 2-year contract. The approved contract provides that the pay rate for officers with zero to 4 years of experience went from $28 to $29 an hour. Starting pay for an APD officer right out of the APD academy is $29 an hour. Under the two-year contract, officers with 4 to 14 years of experience are paid $30 an hour. The new contract pays senior officers between $30 to $31.50 an hour. Officers with 15 years or more experience are paid $31.50 an hour. The rate for sergeants went from $32 to $35 an hour, and lieutenants pay went from $36.70 to $40.00 an hour.

The approved longevity pay scale effective the first full pay period following July 1, 2019 is as follows:

For 5 years of experience: $100 will be paid bi-weekly, or $2,600 yearly
For 6 years of experience: $125 will be paid bi-weekly, or $3,250 yearly
For 7 to 9 years of experience: $225 will be paid bi-weekly, or $5,800 yearly
For 10 to 12 years of experience: $300 will be paid bi-weekly, or $7,800 yearly
For 13 to 15 years of experience: $350 will be paid bi-weekly, or $9,100 yearly
For 16 to 17 years or more: $450 will be paid bi-weekly, or $11,700 yearly
For 18 or more years of experience: $600 will be paid bi-weekly, 15,600 yearly.

Time employed by a lateral from other law enforcement agencies qualify for the APD longevity bonuses. APD announced that officers from other departments can get credit for up to 10 years of experience they have had with other law enforcement agencies which means $3,900 longevity pay after working for APD for only 1 year. In the past, lateral hires were given credit for only half of their previous work experience. That work experience directly increases an officer’s pay in the form of yearly incentive retention bonuses.

APD’s new pay structure and increased longevity pay incentive bonuses allowed APD to recruit experienced police officers from other New Mexico law enforcement agencies. The law enforcement agencies APD recruited from did raise serious concerns about losing their officers to Albuquerque to the point many had to raise their pay structure to retain their officers. Police officers who left other agencies to join APD are some of the more experienced and highly trained officers at the agencies they left.

APD’s hourly pay is significantly higher than what officers and deputies make in other law enforcement agencies in the New Mexico. Notwithstanding, Bernalillo County Sheriff Officers (BCSO) are paid about the same as APD and the Santa Fe Police Department (SFPD) has raised their pay scale to match APD.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

NO, poaching was not something that needed to be done given the significant increase in APD budget, increases in hourly pay and the very lucrative longevity pay raises negotiated. APD’s ability to attract officers from other New Mexico Law enforcement agencies probably has peaked with the other agencies also increasing their pay to compete with APD.

The poaching was done soley as a “rush to hire” sworn police as quickly as possible. The poaching seriously impacted other communities and law enforcement agencies contrary to Mayor Keller’s claim of working with other Mayors. The problem with “poaching” is that it increases the risk of hiring problem officers from other agencies as lateral transfers, which is what caused in part APDs problems in the first place with the Department of Justice and the finding of a “culture of aggression”.

Lateral transfers are given abbreviated training and they may not be committed to fully constitutional policing practices. The city’s so called “rush to hire” cops from 2005 to 2009 is what resulted in a major lawsuit and a large payout when the plaintiff’s attorney established that an inordinate number of police shootings came from a single APD class.

Now that the “poaching” is over, Keller has said he still wants to recruit another 300 cops to reach his goal of 1,200 and to keep up with retirements. Recruiting a younger, new generation of sworn police officers and growing the size of the police department at this point will be difficult for any number of reasons including:

1. APD’s poor and negative national reputation.

2. Albuquerque’s high violent crime rates are not conducive to attracting people who want to begin a long-term career in law enforcement in Albuquerque.

3. The increased dangers of being a police officer in a violent city such as Albuquerque.

4. The DOJ oversight requirements.

5. Many recruited lateral hires may also be looking to retire sooner rather than later, coming to the City to increase their high three salary to retire with a more lucrative pension and collect the longevity pay bonuses, and

6. From a personnel management standpoint, it is highly likely that many APD police officers who are eligible for retirement now have decided to stay on and continue for a few more years with APD because of the significant increases in hourly pay and longevity pay and increasing their retirement benefits but still plan on retiring in three years once they get their high 3 years of pay.

APD consistently has thousands of applicants that apply to the police academy every year. The overwhelming number of police academy applicants fail to get into the academy for any number of reasons including failing to meet minimum education and entry qualifications, unable to pass criminal background checks, unable to make it through psychological background analysis, failing the polygraph tests, lying on the on the applications or failing a credit check. Once in the police academy, many cadets are unable to meet minimum physical requirements or unable to handle the training and academic requirements to graduate from the academy and drop out.

CONCLUSION

Keller and Geier and the APD command staff need to realize that APD must recruit a new generation of young, committed police officers to start their law enforcement careers with the city who are fully trained in constitutional policing practices. Otherwise all that has been accomplished with the DOJ consent decree may have been for nothing and APD will revert back to old habits and destructive practices. APD needs to curb its efforts of hiring even more lateral hires from other agencies in the country and concentrate on hiring a younger new generation of police officer to begin their law enforcement career and to continue rebuilding APD from the ground up.

For a related blog article see:

APD Adds 116 Officers To Force; Recruiting And Training A New Generation Of Police Officer Will Be Harder And Take Longer

In mid May of this year, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raúl Torrez proposed a new constitutional amendment that would require defendants accused of certain crimes to show and convince a judge that they should be released pending their trial on the charges. There are 29 states that have rebuttable presumptions of detention for defendants charged with specific violent crimes.

According to Torrez, cases where a defendant would be required to show they do not pose a threat to be released pending trial would include “the most violent and serious cases” such as murder, first-degree sexual assault, human trafficking, first-degree robbery, crimes involving a firearm and defendants who are on supervision or parole for another felony. The Constitutional amendment would allow detainment of a person for dangerousness, flight risk or obstruction of the criminal justice process.

A presumption of dangerousness would be applied to specific charges, including violent felonies, firearm possession, intimidation of witnesses and felonies committed while on probation or parole. With the presumption of dangerousness, the legal burden of proof will be on the defense to prove the person is not dangerous and would be required to collect and present compelling evidence to a judge that the accused should be released pending a trial, if a trial ever in fact occurs and the charges are not dismissed.

Under such presumption, a person who is merely charged with a violent crime is presumed violent and an immediate danger to the public and must be held in jail until trial. Such a shift of burden of proof could conceivably require a defendant to take the stand during a detention hearing before their trial and a waiver of their 5th Amendment Constitutional Right against self-incrimination.

Torrez argues the changes will simplify and strengthen the detention process, restore it to its original public safety purpose and rebuild confidence in the criminal justice system.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1318399/da-to-unveil-new-pretrial-detention-proposal-ex-some-defendants-would-have-to-prove-they-should-be-released-pending-trial.html

UNM STUDY OF “PRESUMPTION OF NO BAIL” CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT

The University of New Mexico Institute for Social Research studied and reviewed the proposal by DA Torrez to change by constitutional amendment the way pretrial detention is handled in New Mexico. The study was done at the request of former New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Charles Daniels who pushed for the current pretrial detention system which voters approved overwhelmingly in 2016. The final report was prepared by Paul Guerin the director of UNM’s Center for Applied Research and Analysis. The study called into serious question the effectiveness and outcomes to change the way pretrial detention is handled in New Mexico thereby discrediting the arguments made by District Attorney Raul Torrez.

The UNM study found no evidence that Torrez’s proposal would improve public safety. Based on a review of cases in which a defendant was released despite the DA’s requesting detention, Guerin found that preventive detention motions filed by the District Attorney’s office did not have “substantively” improved public safety as opposed to those cases in which no detention motions were filed.

Guerin’s study report recommends that the rebuttable presumption proposal be scaled way back by saying:

“If rebuttable presumption use is limited to cases in which defendants are charged with offenses punishable by life imprisonment, and other pretrial detention decisions are left to judges’ discretion and informed by risk assessment tools like the PSA, they can ensure reputation protection [for the criminal justice system] and align with national standards without undermining public safety. ”

Guerin cites research showing that a defendant’s current charge alone does not predict involvement in future dangerous crimes. He reported that some of the offenses or statutes the DA lists in his pretrial detention proposal “are arguably questionable indicators of dangerousness.” It was noted that many of the factors are already taken into consideration by the Arnold Venture’s Public Safety Assessment, a tool judges use when deciding to detain someone.

SURPRISING FINDINGS

The UNM study looked at more than 7,000 cases filed from July 2017 to August 2018 as part of the review. There were 1,500 cases that had preventive detention motions filed by the District Attorney’s Office. Of those preventive detention motions, 46% were granted and 54% were denied.

The review found no substantial differences in failure to appear and in new criminal activity rates between defendants for whom the DA did not request detention and those who were released despite the DA’s requesting detention. In all, the study found that 17% of those denied cases picked up a new charge. Only 2.9% more of those defendants in denied motions failed to appear in court, and only 2% more picked up new charges.

The UNM Institute for Social Research Study reported that the rebuttable presumptions of detention being proposed could actually jeopardize public safety in two ways:

First, limited detention resources are used on those who could be released or supervised while more dangerous defendants are released.

Second, the report found that studies show unnecessary detention can lead to higher recidivism rates if defendants lose their jobs or their homes, or suffer other disruptions because of their detentions.

DEFENSE BAR REACTION TO REPORT

Richard Pugh, the president of the New Mexico Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, quickly jumped on the findings and said:

“This study shows there is no place in the criminal justice system for broad generalizations and a one-size-fits-all approach. … The study further shows that the district attorney’s proposal to expand pretrial detention is not grounded in statistical support.”

Assistant Public Defender Jonathan Ibarra made a somewhat harsh comments about the District Attorney office when commenting on the Guerin report by saying:

“I know the judges take very seriously the detention hearings – different judges have different ideas – but they all take that responsibility very seriously … I think the issue is that the district attorney over files and underperforms.”

A DEFIANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

DA’s Office spokesman Michael Patrick disputed the UNM study and defended Torrez’s proposed constitutional amendment by saying:

“[The community is upset with the] catch-and-release system that routinely puts armed and dangerous criminals back on our streets. … Rather than trying to prop up an obviously broken system, leaders in Santa Fe should listen to the community and follow the lead of other progressive jurisdictions – like California – that have enacted responsible bail reform measures that also include presumptions for armed and violent offenders. … There are numerous examples of dangerous criminals we have tried to detain, only to see them be released to commit a new violent crime. Enough is enough.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/1342255/review-casts-doubt-on-das-bail-reform-proposal.html

DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT HE SAYS HE WILL DO UNTIL HE DOES IT

On May 10, 2019, Bernalillo County District Attorney Raul Torrez and Albuquerque Mayor Tim Keller wrote a joint letter to the New Mexico Supreme Court requesting it to intervene and stop the plans of 2nd Judicial District Court (SJDC) to shift away from the use of grand jury system to a preliminary hearing system. On May 31, 2019, Chief Justice Judith Nakamura responded to the Torrez-Keller letter urging District Attorney Torrez to work with the Bernalillo County Criminal Justice Coordinating Council (BCCJCC) to resolve his concerns about ongoing cuts to the grand jury system. The BCCJCC consists of 11 council members, including the chief judges of the District and Metropolitan Court, the DA’s office, the district public defender, the sheriff, police chief and others.

On June 6, 2019, DA Torrez wrote back to Chief Justice Nakamura asserting he has no confidence that the concerns of prosecutors and police will have an effect on the members of the BCCJCC proclaiming it has repeatedly opposed the request for increasing grand jury time. Torrez wrote:

“Despite these misgivings, I will personally ask the BCCJCC to vote on a resolution that we maintain sufficient grand jury capacity to handle no less than 1/3 of our current felony referrals and that no additional cuts be considered until the crime rate in this community matches the rest of the state … ”

Confidential sources have confirmed that DA Torrez attended the last meeting of the BCCJCC. Despite his assurances to the Supreme Court, Torrez failed to present a resolution to the BCCJCC to increase grand jury time. To the surprise of many on the BCCJCC, Torrez did not even raise the issue of scheduling and increasing grand jury time despite the fact that news media were attending to report on the meeting.

THIRD TIME DA TORREZ DISCREDITED

The UNM Institute for Social Research study is the third time in the last 2 years that the ideas and positions of District Attorney Raul Torrez have been discredited with review and analysis. The other 2 are as follows:

FIRST: Soon after being elected DA, Torrez began to blame the courts for the rise in violent crime rates and many, including many in the news media, bought into his bogus argument that the “revolving door” is the courts fault. Less than six months after being sworn in as Bernalillo County District Attorney, Torrez had the DA’s Office issue a report that outlined the problems he perceived since the issuance by the Supreme Court of the Case Management Order (CMO). The main points of the DA’s 2016 report were that defense attorneys were “gaming” the systems discovery deadlines, refusing to plead cases, demanding trials or dismissal of cases when not given evidence entitled to under the law. The District Court did their own case review of statistics that discredited Torrez. The District Court found that it was the DA’s Office that was dismissing the majority of violent felony cases, not the courts.

SECOND: The 2nd Judicial District Court has been shifting from grand jury use to implementing “preliminary hearing” schedule since mid-2015. Raul Torrez was sworn in as District Attorney on January 1, 2017 and from day one Torrez has resisted the change over from grand jury to a preliminary hearing process to charge people with serious felonies. DA Raúl Torrez notified District Court that his office would no longer schedule preliminary hearings in State District Court after writing the New Mexico Supreme Court asking it to intervene and require the District Court to schedule increases in grand jury time. The District Court responded and told the Supreme Court that preliminary hearings were necessary, would require better screening of cases by the District Attorney. The District Court provided statistics that the DA’s Office has a 65% combined dismissal, acquittal and mistrial rate with cases charge by grand juries. It is the DAs office that was “gaming” the system by overcharging cases it was unable to get convictions on resulting in the office voluntarily dismissing cases, acquittals or mistrials.

COMMENTARY AND ANLYSIS

When DA’s Office spokesman Michael Patrick disputed the UNM study and said “enough is enough” he should have been talking to his boss Raul Torrez. Three times Raul Torrez has been discredited. DA’s Spokesman Michael Patrick needs to deliver that message to Torres and tell him to cease his assault on the courts and the criminal justice system.

Torrez needs to recognize it is way too easy to ignore the United States Constitution when you are pandering and running for office and essentially say “catch them and lock them up and throw away the key” or “to hell with constitution, that person is guilty and should be in jail until trial”. Vilifying the judiciary is a pathetic, ignorant tactic of politicians who seek to divide in order to get elected and to ingratiate themselves with voters and to garner publicity. To deny one-person due process of law, no matter how much we think they are guilty, is to deny us all of the constitutional rights we cherish in this country.

Sooner rather than latter, Raul Torrez should get the message that if he continues his assault on the courts, he will face an uphill battle for reelection if he does not get his act together and stop the under performance of his office. District Attorney Raul Torrez needs to buckle down and just do his job instead of looking for television cameras and reporters to blame judges and the courts for all his problems.

DA RAul Torrez needs to mend fences with the Courts if he truly wants to by ordering his prosecutors to commence preparing cases for preliminary hearings. Otherwise there is no end in sight to the political saga that is damaging the image of DA Raul Torrez and ruining his chances for another term.

President Donald Trump is continuing his assault on “The Squad” which is the nickname given to the four, young Democrat United States Representatives to Congress who are all women of color. All four were elected in November, 2018 to their first terms in congress. “The Squad” are Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley(D-Mass.).

WHITE HOUSE CABINET ROOM

On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, President Donald Trump took questions in the White House Cabinet room from the media and used the opportunity to again attack the 4 congresswomen who he said need to “go back” to the countries they came from. Of the four, who strongly oppose many of Trump’s policies, one is black, one is Hispanic and two are Muslim. All are American citizens, and three were born in the United States and one is a naturalized citizen.

A reporter noted that Trump had said the Democratic congresswoman should leave if they’re not happy and asked “Where should they go?”

The President’s response was quick and he said:

“It’s up to them. Go wherever they want, or they can stay. But they should love our country. They shouldn’t hate our country. You look at what they’ve said, I–I have clips right here. The most vile, horrible statements about our country, about Israel, about others. It’s up to them to do what they want. They can leave, they can stay, but they should love our country and they should work for the good of our country.”

Another reporter then asked: “Mr. Trump, would you be willing not to use the ‘phrase go back to your country’ to citizens and women of color who are citizens who have been born in this country? Would you be willing to defend?”

Trump responded:

“I think it’s terrible when people speak so badly about our country when people speak so horribly, I have a list of things here I’m not going to bore you with it because you would be bored. You wouldn’t write it anyway but I have a list of things here said by the congresswomen that is so bad, so horrible that I almost don’t want to read it it’s so bad. I think what you do is you have the same lists that I do.

You should repeat some of that when the Democrats didn’t want to mention the name of the Congresswoman not so long ago and what they did and the way they are treating Israel is a disgrace but not only Israel, it’s what they say about our country. It’s my opinion they hate our country and that’s not good. It’s not acceptable.”

DEPARTING FOR A CAMPAIGN RALLY

On Wednesday July 17, 2019, as President Trump was leaving the White House for a campaign rally in North Carolina he said that he did not regret the statements he’s made telling the 4 congresswomen to “go back” to the countries they came from. Trump escalated his attack by proclaiming they “hate our country” and are pushing socialist ideas.

Trump tore into Congresswoman Ilhan Omar when he was asked whether she had committed fraud by marrying her brother for him to become an American citizen and said:

“I know nothing about it, I hear she was married to her brother. … You’re asking me a question about it. I don’t know, but I’m sure that somebody would be looking at that.”

NORTH CAROLINA MAGA CAMPAIGN RALLY

During his July 17, 2019 North Carolina “Make America Great Campaign Rally” Trump repeated inflammatory criticism against the 4 congresswoman and said of them all:

“Let ’em leave… they’re always telling us how to run it, how to do this, how to do that. You know what? If they don’t love it, tell ’em to leave it.”

Trump then proceeded to sharply and viciously criticized each one of the 4 congresswomen.

Trump went after Representative Ilhan Omar (D-Minn) by saying:

“[She] smeared U.S. service members in ‘Black Hawk Down.’ She slandered the brave Americans trying to keep peace in Somalia.” Trump’s remark was a clear jab at her Somali-American heritage. Trump also said Omar blamed America for the economic crisis in Venezuela and refused to condemn Al Qaeda. As Trump continued to criticize Representative Ilhan Omarof, the crowd began to shout, “Send Her Back” an obvious rewrite of the “Lock Her Up” slogan used against Hillary Clinton.

Trump went on to blast Representative Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) in his speech by saying she “used the F-word to describe the presidency and your president. That’s not nice, even for me. That’s not somebody who loves our country.”

With respect to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez(D-N.Y.) he mocked her for the use of “three different names” and went on to say she inaccurately described the migrant holding facilities at the southern border as concentration camps.

When it came to Representative Ayanna Pressley(D-Mass.), Trump said the congresswoman “thinks that people with the same skin color all need to think the same. She said, ‘we don’t need any more brown faces that don’t want to be brown voices, we don’t need black faces that don’t want to be a black voice, … Can you imagine if I said that?” It was a reference to remarks she gave at a conference during the past weekend.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-holds-maga-rally-in-north-carolina-after-feuds-with-house-dem-squad-pelosi

TRUMP CLAIMS HE TRIED TO STOP “SEND HER BACK” CHANT

On Thursday, July 18, 2019 while in the Oval Office talking to reporters, Trump said “I was not happy with it” when his supporters started to chant “send her back” during his North Carolina rally the night before. Trump claimed with a straight face that he tried to stop the chant which came after he tore into Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, who fled to the U.S. as a child with her family from violence-wracked Somalia.

News coverage of his campaign speech shows Trump pausing and looking all around at the crowed during his remarks as if to take time to witness the crowd’s reaction to what he was saying. Not once did Trump tell his supporters to stop the chant of “send her back”. In no way did Trump caution or admonish his supporters who he had just ginned up to stop chanting.

After criticism of the chant at the rally from two prominent Republican, Trump said he “would certainly try” to stop the chant should it return at a subsequent rally.

Republican Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois tweeted that the “send her back” chant was:

“ugly, wrong, & would send chills down the spines of our Founding Fathers. This ugliness must end, or we risk our great union.”

Rep. Tom Emmer, who heads the House GOP’s campaign organization, told reporters:

“There’s no place for that kind of talk. I don’t agree with it.”

Finally two Republicans with a little backbone to condemn Trump’s remarks. No doubt Trump will say the 2 Republicans are not loyal to him and they do not love their country.

https://www.abqjournal.com/1342046/some-in-gop-chastise-send-her-back-chant-but-not-trump.html

TRUMPS HISTORY OF INCITING VIOLENCE

On January 23, 2016, Donald Trump said at a rally in Sioux Center that his supporters are so loyal that he would not lose backers even if he were to shoot someone in the middle of downtown Manhattan, New Yorke City and said:

“I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, okay, and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? … It’s, like, incredible.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-could-shoot-somebody-still-maintain-support-n502911

On February 21, 2016, Trump told a crowd of his supporters in Cedar Rapids that he would pay their legal fees if they engaged in violence against protesters and said:

“If you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them, would you? Seriously, OK? Just knock the hell out of them … I promise you I will pay for the legal fees. I promise, I promise.”

http://time.com/4203094/donald-trump-hecklers/

On March 9, 2016, as a protester was being escorted out of a Trump rally in Fayetteville, North Carolina, the protester was sucker-punched by another attendee and Trump said nothing when it was brought to his attention.

At a Las Vegas campaign rally in March, 2016 Trump said security guards were too gentle with a protester and said “He’s walking out with big high-fives, smiling, laughing. … I’d like to punch him in the face, I’ll tell you.”

In yet another campaign rally in March, 2016 in Warren, Michigan, Trump said of a protester “Get him out. …Try not to hurt him. If you do, I’ll defend you in court. Don’t worry about it.”

In July 2017 during a speech to police officials, Trump encourage law enforcement officials to be more violent in handling arrested offenders when he said:

“When you see these thugs being thrown into the back of a paddy wagon, you just seen them thrown in, rough. I said, ‘Please don’t be too nice … When you guys put somebody in the car and you’re protecting their head you know, the way you put their hand over [their head],” Trump continued, mimicking the motion. “Like, don’t hit their head and they’ve just killed somebody, don’t hit their head. … You can take the hand away, OK?’”

During a rally in Montana ahead of the 2018 midterms, Trump praised Republican Greg Gianforte for body slamming a reporter while running for his congressional seat in 2017 and said “any guy who can do a body slam, he is my type!”

PIPE BOMBS SENT TO TRUMP CRITICS BY TRUMP SUPPORTER

It was less than 9 months ago that the New York Times reported that on October 26, 2018 Federal authorities made an arrest in connection with the nationwide bombing campaign against outspoken Democratic critics of President Trump. At least 14 pipe bombs were sent to Democratic outspoken critics of President Trump and people who he has vilified at his political rallies and people he vilified on TWITTER.

Pipe bombs were sent to the home addresses of:

Former President Barack Obama
Former Vice President Joe Biden
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Former United States Attorney General Eric Holder
Former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) John O. Brennan
California Congresswoman Maxine Waters
Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Billionaire philanthropist George Soros
Actor Robert Di Nero

A pipe bomb was also delivered to the offices of CNN in Midtown Manhattan, New York City.

On Friday, October 26, 2018 Federal authorities made an arrest in connection with the nationwide bombing campaign against outspoken Democratic critics of President Trump. The suspect was identified as Cesar Sayoc Jr., 56, of Aventura, Florida. Sayoc is a registered Republican, he has a lengthy criminal history in Florida dating back to 1991. Sayoc’s criminal record includes felony theft, drug and fraud charges, as well as being arrested and accused of threatening to use a bomb.

During his arrest, Sayvoc’s white van was also seized as evidence. The van’s windows were plastered with a thick collage of pro-Trump stickers. Photos of the van showed that one of the stickers depicted President Trump standing in front of flames and the American flag. Another was of Hillary Clinton’s face in the crosshairs of a rifle scope. A third said: “CNN SUCKS.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/26/nyregion/cnn-cory-booker-pipe-bombs-sent.html

Photos and video emerged of Sayvoc attending a February, 2017 Trump Rally in Melbourne, Florida. He was holding a placard reading “CNN SUCKS”. Social media posts maintained by Cesar Sayoc Jr., contain conspiratorial memes promoting President Trump and mocking, criticizing and threatening virtually every prominent Democrat he sent a pipe bomb.

One post involving former Attorney General Eric Holder appointed by President Obama said “See you real soon. Tick Tock”.

In a September TWEET to former Vice President Joe Biden he wrote: “Hug your beloved son, Niece, wife family real close every time U walk out your home.”

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/mail-bomb-suspect-sayoc-shared-social-media-posts-about-targets

On Wednesday, October 24, 2018, after a briefing with FBI, DOJ, Homeland Security and Secret Service and during a subsequent White House function, President Trump had this to say about the “pipe bomber”:

“The safety of the American people is my highest and absolute priority. … The full weight of our government is being deployed to conduct and bring those responsible for these despicable acts to justice. We will spare no resources or expense in this effort. And I wanted to tell you that, in these times, we have to unify, we have to come together, and send one very clear, strong, unmistakable message, that that acts or threats of political violence have no place in the United States of America.”

https://deadline.com/2018/10/donald-trump-suspected-bombs-sent-to-his-favorite-targets-no-place-in-united-states-1202488702/

On Thursday, October 25, 2018, the very a day after CNN and Democrats were the targets of the pipe bombs, Trump in a TWEET blamed the media for much of the “anger” in society by saying:

“A very big part of the anger we see today in our society is caused by the purposely false and inaccurate reporting of the Mainstream Media that I refer to as Fake News. It has gotten so bad and hateful that it is beyond description. Mainstream Media must clean up its act, FAST!”

https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/25/politics/trump-blames-media-for-anger-after-attacks/index.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

There is no doubt that President Trump promotes hostility, mistrust and violence towards the press as well as his critics with his words and conduct at his rallies. Trump promoted violence, hostility and mistrust when he first ran for President and he is doing it again at his reelection political campaign rallies. What is disturbing is he has added one more dangerous ingredient to his speeches: overt racism.

Trump repeatedly uses harsh rhetoric targeting journalists and political opponents during campaign rallies creating and inflaming an extremely tense and divisive political environment of hostility, mistrust and violence. Trump refuses to take any responsibility for promoting hostility and mistrust, and at times violence, in this county and against his critics and American citizens.

Trump’s proclamation that he tried to stop the chant “Send Her Back” and that he was not happy with it is such a blatant lie on his part when he did nothing to stop the crowd after he ginned them up. The most disturbing and very real possibility is that he could easily promote violence as a form of protest against any one of the 4 congresswoman he is now trying discredit and accusing them of hating this country. It is likely if something happens to any one of the congresswomen, he will say he is not responsible for the actions of his supporters, the way he did with the serial pipe bomber and blaming it on the media.

The Republican US Senate and Republican US House leadership do not object in any meaningful way Trump’s comments thereby condoning his words and actions. Republicans in the House of Representatives would not even vote to condemn his remakes against their Democratic colleagues.

Voters need to hold Trump accountable for his words and actions of promoting racism, hostility, mistrust and violence towards others by voting him out of office. Sooner rather than later, Trump our “Reality TV host” and our “Racist in Chief” will get someone killed shooting off his mouth, but to him, being elected to a second term is all that matters unless of course it’s his money.

The slogan “Love It Or Leave It” is nothing new and was widely used by supporters of the Viet Nam War in the 1960’s and 1970’s and used by conservatives against Viet Nam War protesters and liberals opposed to the war. Just because an American takes issue against any President or policy does not mean that an American hates their country. Free speech guaranteed by our constitution does not mean it must be all positive and supportive of the President and his policies without any objection.

Saying “Love It or Leave It” “when it comes to our country is like saying “I love you drunk or sober.” If a loved one has a serious drinking problem and is suffering from the disease of alcoholism and you truly love them and want them to continue living, you have an intervention to get them help and counseling .

In the case of President Trump, he is the disease this country is suffering from as is the racism and the violence he promotes. The American voter needs to do an intervention and remove him from office so that the country can heal itself. Make no mistake, Americans who protest Trump, his policies and his racism love their country. The only love Trump has is for himself.

JULY 19, 2019 NEWS UPDATE:

A New York man is in custody after having been arrested and charged with threatening to assault and murder Rep. Ilhan Omar, according to the US Attorney’s Office for the Western District of New York. Patrick W. Carlineo, Jr., 55, of Addison, New York, threatened to kill Omar because of her Muslim faith, according to a criminal complaint and accompanying affidavit. Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, is one of the first two Muslim women serving in Congress after being elected in the 2018 midterms. A call was placed to Omar’s Washington, DC, office on March 21, an FBI agent stated in the affidavit. During the call, an individual, who identified himself as Pat Carlineo, said to a staff member: “Do you work for the Muslim Brotherhood? Why are you working for her, she’s a (expletive) terrorist. I’ll put a bullet in her (expletive) skull.”

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/06/politics/ilhan-omar-new-york-threat/index.html

JULY 21, 2019 NEWS UODATE

Exactly one week to the day, Trump opened his big mouth again and ripped into four freshmen Democratic congresswomen who’ve been the target of his sustained attacks all week, calling them “weak” and “insecure”. Just minutes before, he blasting a Washington Post story on the fallout over his initial comments about the members a week earlier. With regard to the 4 woman Representatives, Trump said:

“I don’t believe the four Congresswomen are capable of loving our Country. … They should apologize to America (and Israel) for the horrible (hateful) things they have said. They are destroying the Democrat Party, but are weak & insecure people who can never destroy our great Nation!”

For a related blog article see:

Trump Tells American “Squad” To “Go Back To The Countries You Came From”; It’s Now Racism Against Americans Of Color: Make America White Again (MAWA)

John B. Strong grew up in Tulsa, Oklahoma and moved to New Mexico in 1997. He started and Art Gallery in Santa Fe in 2000 that he now operates with his partner Carlos Acosta. John Strong has been investing in startups since 2004. He is a co-founder or board member at several different companies, mostly in technology, healthcare, and financial services. Mr. Strong was recently the Chairman of Scout Security, a company that was taken over from Kickstarter to an IPO and listing on the Sydney Stock Exchange. Mr. Strong describes himself as being “obsessed with entrepreneurship and small businesses.”

John B. Strong submitted the following guest column for publication:

“Most citizens of Albuquerque can at this point agree that the ART transportation project is a complete failure. It’s time now to assess what this really means for our city going forward, because it’s much more than just a failed capital works project. In addition to causing many business failures, job losses, and increases in both petty and violent crime along the Central Avenue corridor, it has caused a great deal of skepticism on the part of the electorate that our city leaders are capable of or deserving of our support in spending our money going forward. Let’s be clear, this is not just a onetime failure. So the real damage from a failed project of this type, where the citizens were deliberately not allowed a voice in this, is a complete loss of support for much needed capital projects going forward, because of a lack of trust in our elected officials.

Another thing to consider is that none of the cities mentioned here solved difficult crime problems by placing a police officer on every corner, which is little more than a bandaid, they did it by economic development in blighted areas, which is proven to crowd out crime. And that is the real damage caused by the failure of the ART project, that when we need a couple of over the top large transformational public projects, the public will not be able to trust our elected leaders to be good stewards of our money.”

Respectfully,

John B Strong

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

The words of John Strong are so true when he writes “It’s much more than just a failed capital works project … it has caused a great deal of skepticism on the part of the electorate that our city leaders are capable of or deserving of our support in spending our money going forward.” As was noted, the ART bus project was never put to a public vote for approval. Instead, ART was crammed down taxpayer’s throats by former Mayor Richard Berry and the Albuquerque City Council and this is how elected officials lose credibility with the voters and voters start to rebel by voting against projects regardless of need or justification and object to tax increases of any kind.

In February of this year, voters overwhelmingly voted NO to the Albuquerque Public Schools’ two mill levy and one proposed bond questions. The initiative was voted down that would have raised real property taxes by around 5%. Had all three initiatives passed, they would have generated $900 million for APS over six years to help implement the school district’s capital improvement master plan. The first failed ballot initiative, for $190 million, was to repair and maintain 142 aging APS schools. The biggest factors that contributed to the defeat of the three initiatives were the very real public perception that the elected APS board and the APS administration is wasting taxpayer money and resources on projects and facilities not helping students. APS has now announced that it will be placing on the November, 2019 ballot for a renewal of the property tax levy for repairs to the school districts aging facilities which is desperately needed by the school district.

A gross receipts tax increase that was not put to a public vote was last year’s public safety gross receipts tax. In 2017, then candidate for Mayor Tim Keller made the promise during a debate and in order to get elected that he would not increase taxes without of public vote. Just a few weeks after Tim Keller was sworn in as Mayor, the Keller Administration announced a $40 million dollar deficit. Soon after the deficit was announced, the Albuquerque City Council enacted a $50 million dollar a year gross receipts tax increase. With just 4 months into office Mayor Keller broke his promise to put tax increases on the ballot and signed the tax increase without a public vote. The problem is that the $40 million dollar deficit never materialized. (See: https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/03/02/breaking-a-promise-on-public-vote-for-tax-increase/)

What needs to be remembered is that in the not too distant past, Albuquerque voters did in fact vote YES to impose two separate tax increases on themselves to improve things in Albuquerque.

In 2014, Albuquerque and Bernalillo County voters overwhelmingly voted to impose a one-eighth percent gross receipts tax to improve access to mental and behavioral health care services in the county. The one-eighth percent gross receipts tax voted by taxpayers for mental health is now being used for the purpose of providing more mental and behavioral health services for adults and children in the Albuquerque and Bernalillo County area, and to provide a safety net system that develops mental health care not otherwise funded in New Mexico.

During the 2015 municipal election, Albuquerque voters wisely approved with an overwhelming majority the voter petition drive initiative to increase the gross receipts tax that will raise $255 million dollars over 15 years for the BioPark. The BioPark, with its zoo, aquarium and botanical gardens, is the number one tourist attraction in the State of New Mexico and in need of $20 million in repairs and $40 million in upgrades. Voters are now seeing the benefits of both taxes beginning first with the opening of transitional services and counseling services and second the opening of the new, state of the art penguin exhibit at the BioPark.

When John Strong asks the question ‘How likely is it that Albuquerque voters will get fully behind a new or larger capital project such as the redevelopment of the rail yards, or maybe a downtown arena and convention center?” it is likely we will find out in just a few months when on the November ballot there will be 2 major initiatives of capital improvement spending, one for the Albuquerque Public School System and the other for City of Albuquerque projects. Because of the actions of the former Mayor and current Mayor Tim Keller, as well as the actions of the Albquerque city council, there is a real possibility that voters will once again rebel and vote NO.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/03/12/can-city-and-aps-win-tax-votes-in-november-and-more/

The Albuquerque City Council has approved the Keller Administration “2019 Decade Plan and General Obligation Bond Program”, which lists over $800 million worth of taxpayer-funded bond projects for the next 10 years. All the funding is not voted upon at once, but in increments every two years. The City Council will place $127 million of the projects on the November ballot for final voter approval.

Over $53 million in bonds will be on the November, 2019 ballot for spending on community facilities and includes:

• $13 million toward the historic Rail Yards property through 2029.
• $11 million for various projects at the Albuquerque Museum over the next decade.
• $7 million to a new APD southeast substation at Kathryn and San Mateo.
• $7 million for a year-round homeless facility.
• $5.5 million for the International District Library.
• $5 million in funding for Family & Community Services Section 8 Affordable Housing.
• $2.8 million for Community, Health, Social Services Centers.
• $2.5 million for a new exit off I-25 to Balloon Fiesta Park.

If both the APS extension of the property tax levy for school facility repairs maintenance and the City’s Capital Improvement bonds fail in November, you can probably attribute in part the losses to what John Strong called “the public not trusting our elected leaders to be good stewards of our money.” If both fail, it will be years before “over the top large transformational public projects” will be approved by voters. Such rejection could have been and can be avoided if the the former Mayor, the current Mayor and the Albuquerque City Council had more faith in voters and listen to the needs of their constituents.

You can review more blog articles on the ART Bus project at the following link:

Breaking A Promise On Public Vote For Tax Increase

Any Raid On BioPark Tax Funds Political Bad Faith, Betrays Voter’s Trust

Dinelli Blog Articles On ART Bus Project Listed

Not very long ago, I asked New Mexico Congressman Ben Ray Lujan point blank why he is running for the United State Senate and giving up his very safe Second Congressional District in the United States Congress as well he leadership position under Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Following is the email response received from him:

“This is why I’m running for Senate:

I’m running so we can expand coverage for all Americans by moving to Medicare for All. I’m running to ensure we repeal the Hyde Amendment and that women have the right to choose, no matter what. I’m running to protect our public lands. And I’m running to fulfill our responsibility to combat climate change by enacting the Green New Deal.

I have had the privilege of representing New Mexico’s Third Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives for the last decade, and it has been an honor to serve hardworking New Mexican families.

In the House, I helped lead the fight for the Affordable Care Act — the most progressive expansion of health care access this country has ever seen — which cut the number of uninsured individuals in New Mexico in half. But far too many people are still one illness away from financial instability.

I’ve introduced the only major health care legislation that explicitly repeals the Hyde Amendment banning doctors from having honest, medical conversations with their patients. But we’ve seen Senate Republicans block bills like mine and use their majority to pack the courts with conservative judges that don’t believe in a woman’s right to choose.

I have been a proud defender of our public lands, from pushing for a one-year moratorium on oil and gas drilling around Chaco Canyon to helping create Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument. These lands are our birthright, but threats against them remain. President Trump has overseen the largest decrease in federally protected lands in history, selling access to these natural wonders to oil and gas companies that only care about their profits.

I signed onto the Green New Deal and introduced my own legislation to move the U.S. toward net zero emissions in the coming decades because climate change is already impacting our environment. But Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has dubbed these efforts “dead on arrival.”

I’m proud of everything we have accomplished, but I want to do more for our families and for New Mexico. I hope I can continue to count on your support to tackle these issues and find solutions in the Senate.

Thank you,

Ben Ray Luján

THE CONGRESSMAN’ S REACTION TO TRUMP’S TWEETS AND COMMENTS

On July 14, 2019, during a FOX New interview with Chris Wallace, U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján slammed President Donald Trump for a series of tweets he made, telling four Democratic representatives, “Why don’t they go back and help fix the totally broken and crime-infested places from which they came, then come back and show us how it is done.” The four Democrats Trump was referencing were Lujan’s first term colleagues United States Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Ayanna Pressle who are all women of color. The four are also among the most liberal members of the chamber and frequent critics of Trump and been nicknamed The Squad.

Luján reacted with genuine surprise when “Fox News Sunday” host Chris Wallace read part of Trump’s Sunday morning tweet-storm to him at the end of the interview. Without hesitation, and with emotion, Congressman Ben Ray Lujan said:

“Chris, that’s the first I’m hearing of that. That’s a racist tweet! … Telling people to go back where they came from? These are American citizens elected by voters in the United States of America to serve in one of the most distinguished bodies in the U.S. House of Representatives. I think that’s wrong.”

Congressman Luján also connected the tweets with “the horrendous detention facilities that we have across the country,” referring to the detention facilities for asylum seekers, highlighted after a visit to a camp in Texas by Vice President Mike Pence.

https://nmpoliticalreport.com/2019/07/15/lujan-slams-trump-for-racist-tweets/

The July 14, 2019 interview was not the first time Congressman Ben Ray Lujan has said the truth that Trump is a racist. On January 14, 2019, at a town hall meeting in Santa Fe billed as a discussion on the Republican tax overhaul and its likely effects in New Mexico, Democratic U.S. Rep. Ben Ray Luján condemned the president’s vulgar comments as racist and went further and actually saying Donald Trump is a racist.

On December 24, 2017, The New York Times reported that President Donald Trump described Nigerians as people living in huts and that they would not want to return to them. He referred to African countries as “Shit Hole Countries.” He reportedly said 40,000 had come from Nigeria and would never “go back to their huts” once they had seen America. The New York Times also reported in December, 2017 that President Trump said in a meeting about immigration that Haitians “all have AIDS”. Asked during a question-and-answer session about the uproar over Trump’s derogatory descriptions of the African nations, as well as Haiti and El Salvador, and their citizens who immigrate to the United States his answer was unequivocal when he said:

“I think that President Donald Trump has clearly not just said racist things, but he is a racist.” The congressman went on to speak of Trump’s attack on U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel of California, a person born and raised in Indiana, as well as the president’s ban on immigrants from certain predominantly Muslim nations:

“Those are all attacks based on race. [When Trump announced he was running for President] he went after Mexican immigrants in the most ugly way anybody could by calling them rapists and murderers and whatnot.”

https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/new-mexico/2018/01/14/trump-racist-rep-lujan-says-town-hall-meeting/1032621001/

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

During my 42 years of practicing law and as a public servant, including as a prosecutor and serving as a Judge, I have been appointed to positions working for 3 Governors, one United States Senator, one Congressman, 2 Attorney Generals, 2 District Attorneys, and one Albuquerque Mayor. Some were Republicans. All but one I have seen grow and mature and make a positive difference during their years of elective office. One was an embarrassment to the State of New Mexico.

Ben Ray Lujan is one elected official who I have never worked for during my entire 42-year public service career. I first met him when I was a finalist for Superintendent of Insurance and interviewed for the position when he was a Public Regulation Commissioner. Notwithstanding not getting the job, I have watched Ben Ray Luján mature, grow into the offices he has held and has served with distinction. He has indeed made a difference for New Mexico and has never been an embarrassment to the state.

Congressman Ben Ray Lujan has served as the U.S. Representative for New Mexico’s 3rd congressional district since 2009, and became the Assistant House Speaker in 2019, appointed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was elected to be Chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in 2014, and led the Democrats to win a majority in the US House in the 2018 elections. Luján previously served as a member of the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission from 2005 to 2008.

Lujan is extremely well liked within the Democratic party and is running an effective state-wide campaign and raising the necessary money to run. All congressman usually have ambitions to become United States Senators, unless they rise to the top in a leadership position such as Lujan has done in the House of Representative. However, congressmen have to run every two years while a Senate seat is far more powerful and is for a six-year term. New Mexico has not sent an Hispanic to the United States Senate in decades and Lujan’s voice that has deep roots to New Mexico is desperately needed this day and age in Washington. Lujan is no fan of Trump, and his vote will be needed in the Senate if there is ever an impeachment trial in the Senate. With his election to the United States Senate, New Mexico will have a United States Senator who knows how Washington works and what Donald Trump truly is in the eyes of so many New Mexicans: a racist.

On April 6, 2019, I ran into Congressman Ben Ray Lujan, at the Bernalillo County Democratic Party Convention. He went to the convention all alone. He is 4th in line to the US Speaker of the House. I point this out because many of the elected officials I worked for in the past were always accompanied by an entourage. The one’s who did not need an entourage or a security detail were the humble ones not caught up and self-absorbed with themselves and self importance and easily approachable by the voters. Such conduct says a lot about a person’s character and self-confidence.

New Mexico needs Ben Ray Lujan in the United States Senate and he will make one fine New Mexico United States Senator.

For a related blog article see:

Trump Tells American “Squad” To “Go Back To The Countries You Came From”; It’s Now Racism Against Americans Of Color: Make America White Again (MAWA)