As college football season kicks off, woke Bud Light, which lost billions amid its partnership with radical transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney, is gearing up to celebrate with its highly anticipated limited edition college football team packaging on cans.
Among the array of team-themed designs, the University of New Mexico Lobos will be featured in the Bud Light release, among a few other schools.
Each can within this limited edition collection will have a QR code, allowing fans to scan and participate in an enticing giveaway. Winners can snag exclusive team merchandise and get a flyover in a private jet at a game of their choosing.
The brand is also about to launch the “Bud Light Backyard Tour: College Edition.” This tour is scheduled to make town stops on the Thursday or Friday nights preceding some of the most exhilarating rivalry gamedays. As part of the event, it will also feature “top DJs.”
The brand is partnering with other universities, including the University of Texas, the University of Kentucky, the University of Maryland, and the University of Wyoming, among a few others. This is apparently a new marketing strategy to try and claw back some former customers after they were alienated from the woke Dylan Mulvaney partnership, among other flubs.
UNM itself has gone increasingly woke, with its president, Garnett Stokes, backing the extremist Black Lives Matter cause, while it is offering a “Critical Whiteness Studies” course this fall. Stokes also fumed over the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision banning racist affirmative action policies for college admissions.
A new poll commissioned by the leftist NM Political Reportsheds light on the competitive 2024 landscape in New Mexico, indicating that 45th President Donald Trump is just a single digit away from securing victory against Joe Biden. The poll, conducted by Public Policy Polling, engaged 767 New Mexico voters between August 23 and 24.
Despite New Mexico’s recent history of favoring Democrat candidates, this poll presents a compelling case for a potential shift in the political tide. Joe Biden holds a modest lead with 49 percent of the polled voters against both Trump and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis. In a hypothetical rematch against Trump, the 45th President garners 41 percent of the vote, with 10 percent of voters remaining undecided.
The electoral history of New Mexico, which has leaned Democratic in recent years, cannot be denied. In the 2020 presidential election, Biden was reported to have won over Trump by a margin of 10.79 percent, garnering 54.29 percent of the vote to Trump’s 43.5 percent. Notably, the last Republican to win New Mexico was George W. Bush in 2004, marking a potential turning point for the state’s political landscape.
Breaking down the respondents, 52 percent indicated their support for Biden, while 41 percent cast their vote for Trump; 7 percent either voted for another candidate or refrained from voting altogether.
However, Biden manages to maintain his lead despite holding a higher disapproval rating than approval among New Mexico voters. The poll reveals that 45 percent of respondents approve of Biden’s presidential performance, while 48 percent express disapproval.
The poll encompassed 767 New Mexico voters, utilizing both landline and text message outreach on August 23 and 24. The survey employed a split of 35 percent landline and 65 percent text message contacts. The margin of error for topline questions stands at 3.5 percent, with subpopulations likely to have a slightly larger margin of error. This poll serves as a noteworthy indication that the political landscape in New Mexico may be on the cusp of change, opening the door for increased conservative support in future elections.
The Land of Enchantment has struggled to return to normal following the pandemic lockdowns, especially regarding workforce participation rates.
Nationally, the workforce participation rate is a dismal 62.6 percent, “one of the lowest rates in decades,” as WalletHub notes.
New Mexico ranked 10th in the WalletHub survey for states struggling the most with hiring, following only Montana, North Carolina, Mississippi, Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Alaska, which took the top spot.
New Mexico’s most recent job openings rate was 6.8 percent, while over the last twelve months, it was at 7.15 percent.
The state of New York was struggling the least, with a recent job openings rate of 4.50 percent and a rate of 4.73 percent over the past year.
“WalletHub compared the 50 states and the District of Columbia based on two metrics, the rate of job openings for the latest month and for the last 12 months. These metrics are listed below with their corresponding weights. WalletHub then used these metrics to rank-order the states and the District from those that struggle the most with hiring to those that struggle the least,” wrote the outlet.
The legal battle surrounding the contentious congressional district map approved by a heavily Democratic New Mexico Legislature in 2021 has taken a new turn, as the state Supreme Court granted an extension of five days to a state district judge to settle a lawsuit brought forward by the Republican Party. Initially, the Supreme Court had set a deadline of October 1 for the District Court to resolve the redistricting case. However, in a recent amendment to the order, the Supreme Court has extended the timeline, stipulating that the court must take all necessary steps to resolve the matter by October 6, 2023, including the entry of a final, appealable order.
The lawsuit, filed in January 2022 by the Republican Party of New Mexico and six individuals, including Democrat Roswell Mayor Timothy Jennings, contends that the changes made to the congressional district map resulted from illegal gerrymandering orchestrated by the Democratic-majority Legislature. The case was later assigned to 9th Judicial District Judge Fred T. Van Soelen following the recusal or unavailability of all judges in the 5th Judicial District who were initially considered for the case.
At the heart of the legal dispute is the allegation that the redrawing of congressional district boundaries was aimed at diluting the influence of Republican voters in Southern New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District. The Republican Party’s argument centers on strategically shifting certain communities with substantial Republican populations into the two northern districts, where Democrats have historically held strong advantages. Simultaneously, Democrat communities were moved into the Second Congressional District in a power-grab by the far-left Legislature.
The Democrats’ gerrymandering turned the District from leaning Republican by 14 points to now favoring Democrats by four points — an 18-point swing.
This claim suggests that the redistricting strategy, rather than adhering to the principles of fair representation, was crafted to manipulate electoral outcomes for partisan gains. Gerrymandering, a political practice that manipulates the boundaries of electoral districts to favor one political party, has been a contentious issue across the United States. Critics argue that gerrymandering undermines the principles of democracy and citizen representation.
The legal battle highlights a broader debate on the fairness and ethics of redistricting processes, particularly when they appear to prioritize partisan interests over the interests of the constituents.
Legislative Democrats have obstructed the lawsuit by refusing to sit down for depositions with the plaintiffs’ attorneys, while Democrats have sought to remove Democrat Mayor Jennings from the proceedings.
As the lawsuit proceeds, the implications of the outcome could have far-reaching effects on New Mexico’s political landscape. Examining allegations of gerrymandering underscores the significance of transparent and unbiased redistricting processes, which are essential for upholding the principles of democratic representation and ensuring that voters’ voices are accurately reflected in the corridors of power.
The Legislative Finance Committee anticipates a significant fiscal boost in the coming years, with projections indicating a staggering $3.5 billion influx into the state’s coffers for the upcoming budget year thanks to the oil and gas industry, which New Mexico Democrats ravenously want to kneecap with anti-energy policies. While some of this windfall will be directed toward bolstering “rainy day” funds, policymakers are already formulating strategies to allocate the remaining funds, ranging from tax reform to healthcare initiatives, during the forthcoming legislative session.
Amid this financial abundance, the legislature’s focus extends to throwing billions more into the “Early Childhood Trust Fund,” which uses taxpayer cash to bankroll “free” daycare. State Sen. Pat Woods (R-Curry, Quay, and Union Counties) contends that certain programs have reached a point of overfunding. He aims to redirect these surplus resources towards future-oriented endeavors, asserting, “We have so much money in the program right now that we are not able to, we are about to the maximum, of what we can employ for state government… we can’t produce much more programs.”
Meanwhile, the topic of tax reform emerges as a priority for New Mexico House Republican Minority Leader Ryan Lane. He highlights the discrepancy between the state’s high personal income taxes and the existing surplus, emphasizing the need for comprehensive tax legislation that could ease the financial burden on working-class taxpayers. Lane’s perspective underscores the opportunity to enhance the financial well-being of New Mexico’s residents.
For state Democrats, higher education looms as a pivotal focus. This financial windfall is regarded as an unprecedented chance to strengthen educational initiatives while also safeguarding resources for leaner budgetary years.
State Sen. George K. Muñoz (D-Cibola, McKinley, and San Juan), the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, praised the prospect of maintaining consistent education funding and extending opportunities like the opportunity scholarships for accessible and free education. Muñoz underscores the fiscal potential that enables these progressive steps.
State Rep. Nathan Small (D-Doña Ana County), chairman of the House Appropriations and Finance Committee, aligns with the extravagant education-centric approach of his colleagues. He advocates for more money to be thrown into education. Small’s vision encompasses broader improvements in the state’s overall healthcare framework, particularly emphasizing the need to enhance behavioral healthcare services.
Small notes, “Substance use treatment, investments in health care, investments to expand reimbursement, so that there are more health care professionals who can see and serve New Mexicans.”
As policymakers prepare to convene for the upcoming legislative session, allocating these massive funds remains a critical discussion. The potential to address a spectrum of issues, from education and healthcare to tax reform, holds the promise of enhancing the well-being of New Mexico’s citizens and the state’s overall trajectory.
The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is about to launch a campaign against far-left U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez of the Second Congressional District over his vote against lowering gas prices via American energy independence.
“The hybrid billboard and digital advertising campaign will appear in close proximity to gas stations in NM-02 and comes as the AAA average nears $4 a gallon,” wrote the group.
The billboard will look like this:
NRCC Vasquez Ad.
Vasquez and 20 other vulnerable House Dems will be in the line of fire for the vote that has kept gas prices high.
In June 2022, following Joe Biden’s cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline, exploitation of the United States’ strategic oil reserves, and reduction of land leases for drilling, among other policies, gas prices soared, hitting a high of $4.831 in New Mexico for regular unleaded gasoline while diesel jumped to $5.602.
“Rising gas prices are a fresh gut punch to millions of Americans already struggling under Bidenomics,” said NRCC Communications Director Jack Pandol. “Every trip to the pump is a reminder that extreme House Democrats put their radical war on American energy ahead of working families’ wallets.”
Vasquez faces a fierce race against GOP former Congresswoman Yvette Herrell, who has the support of Republican House leadership, including Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana and Speaker Kein McCarthy of California.
Protect the Public’s Trust (PPT) has taken a significant step by filing an ethics complaint that calls upon the Department of the Interior (DOI) Inspector General to thoroughly investigate a potential ethics violation involving DOI Secretary Deb Haaland. The complaint arises from Secretary Haaland’s recent exercise of regulatory authority to implement a contentious moratorium on oil and gas leasing near Chaco Canyon National Historical Park. This move has raised concerns about pre-determined decision-making, prompting PPT to question whether the Secretary fulfilled her impartiality and ethics obligations.
Secretary Haaland’s involvement in the documentary film Our Story: The Indigenous Led Fight to Protect Greater Chaco, narrated by her child, Somah Haaland, has raised eyebrows regarding her impartiality in this matter. The film features footage of Secretary Haaland expressing opposition to oil and gas leasing at Chaco, including what seems to be a one-on-one interview near the site. PPT sought a comprehensive investigation into whether the Secretary adhered to her ethical responsibilities.
Somah Haaland, a media organizer and lobbyist with the Pueblo Action Alliance, an organization dedicated to challenging various systems of oppression, is associated with the film that features Secretary Haaland.
However, documentation obtained by PPT through a Freedom of Information Act request disclosed that Interior ethics officials contacted the Sierra Club and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) – two organizations involved in promoting Our Story – requesting the removal of the Secretary’s official title and photo from promotional materials. Despite these actions, the Video Project website promoting the film continues to list Secretary Haaland with her official title.
Numerous stakeholders, including NGOs with both friendly and critical perspectives, lawmakers, media outlets, and the Navajo Nation, have expressed skepticism regarding Secretary Haaland’s capacity to render an impartial decision on the matter. Nonetheless, on June 2, 2023, Secretary Haaland issued an order that placed a 20-year moratorium on new oil and natural gas leasing within a 10-mile radius of Chaco Canyon.
Michael Chamberlain, Director of Protect the Public’s Trust, emphasized the importance of impartiality in governmental decision-making: “The American public deserves the assurance that official decisions at the Department of the Interior and other agencies are made in an impartial manner. Despite her unequivocal public statements as a federal official, her child’s leadership position at the loudest advocacy group calling for a moratorium, and even her ‘participation’ in a documentary arguing for such a policy, as Secretary, Deb Haaland pushed forward in the apparent misconception that people would believe she could be ‘impartial’ in the matter. Not only could people knowledgeable about the facts have reason to question her impartiality on this matter, many already have. Is it any wonder the public has so little trust in our government?”
As the ethics complaint against Secretary Haaland moves forward, it is poised to reignite discussions about ethical responsibilities, impartiality, and transparency within governmental decision-making processes.
Democrat state legislators are obstructing justice by asserting their right to legislative privilege in the escalating legal conflict surrounding New Mexico’s gerrymandered congressional map. As tensions mount, several legislative leaders have made it clear this week that they won’t participate in the depositions scheduled by the Republican Party of New Mexico and other plaintiffs who oppose the redistricting efforts. The lawmakers have also submitted motions to invalidate the GOP’s subpoenas, according to the Albuquerque Journal.
The crux of their argument hinges on a specific clause within the state Constitution. This clause stipulates that legislators “shall not be questioned in any other place for any speech or debate or for any votes cast” in either legislative chamber. The Democrats’ assertion of this legislative privilege underscores their belief that they are shielded from external inquiries regarding their legislative actions and statements.
On the other hand, the plaintiffs contend that their requests for information are within the parameters of standard practice in gerrymandering lawsuits. They have also indicated a willingness to narrow the scope of their information requests. This conflict over depositions coincides with District Judge Fred Van Soelen’s looming deadline of October 1, as ordered by the Supreme Court, to settle the case. A trial is scheduled from September 27 to 29 in Lovington.
The legal dispute revolves around allegations made by the Republican Party of New Mexico and other parties, including Democrat Roswell Mayor Timothy Jennings, who claim that Democrat lawmakers and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham unlawfully diluted the voting power of Republicans in the newly redrawn congressional districts following the 2020 census.
The core of the matter is illustrated through an extensive 80-page legal submission by attorneys supporting the maps. They claim that the GOP and other plaintiffs are demanding deposition and record submissions that could “transform this case into an unconstitutional circus that cannot be completed” by the October 1 deadline. The legislative privilege is portrayed as an unassailable foundation of the separation of powers, protecting the legislative branch from external encroachment by the judiciary or executive branches.
The Democrats also attempted to boot Democrat Mayor Jennings from the lawsuit, claiming he does not have standing despite his community being chopped up in multiple pieces and cracking the voting power of the people in Roswell.
Republicans’ legal representatives counter that legislative privilege can be counterbalanced with other constitutional rights. They argue that courts have occasionally overridden privilege claims in cases involving partisan gerrymandering, citing the potential deprivation of citizens’ equal participation in the political process due to redistricting.
The litigation has led the state’s Republican Party and other plaintiffs to assemble an extensive list of potential witnesses among Democrat lawmakers and political insiders. These individuals could be called upon to provide testimony under oath during depositions or at the trial. However, key legislative figures, including Senator Joseph Cervantes (D-Las Cruces), who co-sponsored the gerrymandering legislation, have formally informed the court that they will not participate in the scheduled depositions. This decision stems from their assertion of legislative privilege and other legal defenses.
The opportunity to question Democrat legislators under oath holds significant weight in the case. Opponents of the map, primarily Republicans, are striving to demonstrate that Democrat lawmakers crafted the gerrymandered plan with the intention of consolidating their party’s grip on power. Ultimately, the judge will likely assess whether a nonpartisan rationale exists behind the map’s formation.
Leading Democrat lawmakers involved in the challenge to the state’s gerrymandered congressional districts are seeking to have Democrat Roswell Mayor Timothy “Tim” Jennings and two other individuals removed as plaintiffs from the case, prompting a debate over legal standing and representation.
The motion, filed by attorneys representing New Mexico Speaker of the House Javier Martinez and Senate Pro Tem Mimi Stewart, contends that Jennings, along with fellow plaintiffs Dinah Vargas and Pearl Garcia, have failed to establish sufficient legal standing in the lawsuit. Legal standing, which enables an individual plaintiff to bring a specific claim to court, has become a central point of contention in the ongoing dispute over the redrawing of New Mexico’s congressional districts through S.B. 1.
Jennings speaking at a City Council meeting in 2022.
In a detailed 23-page motion, the Democrat legislators’ legal team argues that the plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated that they have personally suffered harm due to the passage of SB 1. The motion asserts, “None of these three plaintiffs — allege— nor could they demonstrate— that their votes have been diluted under SB-1 or that relief the plaintiffs seek would redress any alleged harm. Accordingly, they should be dismissed from this action.”
While the plaintiffs counter that their grievance stems from the alleged cracking of conservative communities, particularly Roswell, among the three newly delineated districts, the lawmakers’ motion claims there needs more proof for plaintiffs to substantiate how their votes have been diluted and how the relief sought will address this issue.
In an interview with the Roswell Daily Record, Mayor Jennings expressed strong disagreement with the motion, stating, “That’s bull. There is no reason I shouldn’t have standing.” Jennings, a Democrat who joined the Republican-backed challenge to the congressional map, contends that his community’s interests have been negatively impacted by the redistricting.
The heart of the dispute lies in Jennings’ claim that his community of Roswell was adversely affected by the redistricting. His argument emphasizes that the redistricting process has split his like-minded community among multiple districts, thereby diluting their collective voting power. The plaintiffs argue that this division prevents them from uniting to elect a candidate of their choice, directly opposing the central principle of equal representation.
The gerrymandered districts, which chopped up multiple communities and resulted in snake-like shapes, shifted the lone Republican district from leaning Republican by 14 points to now favoring Democrats by four points — an 18-point swing. This is a classic sign of partisan gerrymandering, along with the sprawling districts, as evidenced by the new Third Congressional District, which stretches from Jal in the extreme southeast corner of the state to Four Corners in the extreme northwest corner of the state. It would take nine hours and eleven minutes driving nonstop to reach both communities, which are all jumbled in the same district.
Legal experts weigh in on the debate, emphasizing that standing, while crucial in federal courts, is rooted in state constitutions for state court cases. Although the legislators’ strategy to challenge plaintiffs’ standing might not result in the case’s dismissal, the focus on the plaintiffs’ representation highlights the complexity of the legal and political battle surrounding the redistricting dispute.
As the case progresses, the ongoing debate over legal standing and its role in determining representation in state court cases continues to unfold.
Amidst an ongoing influx of patients from Texas, where pro-life policies protect children from abortion, Planned Parenthood centers in New Mexico have finally admitted their true purpose: performing abortions — not true health care.
The overwhelming demand has led to modifications in services and referrals, according to a report from MedPage Today titled “Planned Parenthood of New Mexico Limits Non-Abortion Care Due to Surge From Texas.” This situation, however, raises concerns regarding the allocation of resources and priorities in reproductive healthcare.
“Planned Parenthood clinics in New Mexico are prioritizing abortion” services due to an increasing number of patients arriving from Texas. The state’s life-affirming laws have prompted individuals to seek services in New Mexico, where abortion up to birth is legal.
In response to the surge in demand, Planned Parenthood has been redirecting non-abortion patients to neighboring clinics for family planning, wellness exams, and other maternal health needs. This strategic move aims to “keep wait times down for abortion care. Currently, the wait time is 14 days for an abortion appointment at one of their clinics,” as reported by the outlet.
Adrienne Mansanares, President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains, highlighted what she perceived to be staffing shortages.
One of the most contentious aspects of the situation lies in the clinics’ approach to abortions. While one location in Albuquerque provides procedural abortion care, three locations attend to medication abortion in person and through telehealth appointments. The timing of appointments for medication abortion is limited to four weeks.
Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains has reported similar challenges in Colorado and Nevada, which are also part of the organization’s network. The surge in out-of-state patient volume from Texas following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization U.S. Supreme Court decision, which put the abortion issue back to the individual states, has increased New Mexico’s abortion patients due to the anti-life laws employed in the Land of Enchantment. “56% of New Mexico’s Planned Parenthood abortion patients are from Texas, according to data from Planned Parenthood,” the report notes.
During the 2023 legislative session, far-left Democrats rammed through $10 million in state funds to open a new abortion mill in Las Cruces to service Texas as its back-alley abortion mill. It had bipartisan opposition but still passed due to anti-life Democrats holding a comfortable majority in both chambers of the New Mexico Legislature.
In conclusion, the surge in demand for abortion care in New Mexico highlights the complexities of reproductive healthcare access and allocation of resources. The prioritization of abortion services due to out-of-state patients underscores the need for comprehensive reproductive health planning to ensure timely and equitable care for all patients.
