So here is a letter I received from my U.S. Senator:

March 20, 2017
Dear Mr. Mee,

Thank you for contacting me regarding the inauguration of Donald John Trump as the 45th President of the United States. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

The peaceful transition of power is a hallmark of our democracy. Since George Washington, each United States president has peacefully turned the office over to the next. Our nation is bigger than any one person, and as a proud American, I felt it was important to attend the inaugural ceremony, as I have traditionally done during my career representing New Mexico in Congress.

I respect and understand the decision of some of my democratic colleagues to boycott President Trump’s inauguration. Moving forward, I believe now is not the time to despair, but rather to come together and organize to fight for what is right. That is why in solidarity, I attended the Women’s March on Washington to support protecting justice and equality for all.

I have serious and profound disagreements with President Trump, and continue to wish that he would take a different tone as president than the divisiveness and recklessness we have seen from him up to this point. I will be using my position in the Senate to hold the President accountable, and will work to educate President Trump and his administration about the laws and policies that matter to New Mexicans. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will continue advocating for legislation to help working families in New Mexico, for our national labs, military bases, veterans, public lands and rural communities – and to create jobs, rebuild our infrastructure and ensure our government works for all of the American people, not deep-pocketed special interests.

Please rest assured that I will fight for New Mexico priorities and the values that our democracy was founded on.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me. Please feel free to contact me with your concerns regarding any federal issue by visiting my website at www.tomudall.senate.gov. For more information, you may also visit my Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/senatortomudall and receive up to….

TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR, NM

 

WHM: I always thought him to be very progressive, a son of a true Environmentalist, so I was shocked to get the letter in March, even though we all wrote in January.  It would of made more sense not to send the letter at all.

By March 20, 2017, Trump had exposed his racist, Fascist, homophobic, etc. colors.  In fact, they were most effective in this time period of January to March (100-300 repeals of Obama regulations for example, removals of the 54 federal Attorneys, numerous if not all top diplomats, department heads, etc.) and then the “accomplishments” slowed down to a crawl.  Leaks and in-fighting made the Administration totally ineffective and dangerous to the Nation.  But back on March 20th, it was clear there was going to be NO REACHING OUT TO THE OTHER SIDE.  It was clear that impeachment or investigation was the only answer to our national leadership crisis.

By March 20th, the Trump Transition Teams had completed their work and it was evident that no Democrats (Non Republicans) were included, few people of color, and they included some pretty far, far right-wing extremists (that most would generally deem as “nuts”).   The results of these meetings were chilling—nothing of the last 84 years (Innaugeration of FDR) was to remain standing or intact.  The federal government was to be completely erased or cast in the image of a Libertarian cabal with a financial benefit to the 1%.  The whole system of Federal Administrative Law was to be cast into the trash can or at the very least made a total mockery of.  The Federal Register grew slimmer and slimmer each reading, and each read made me wonder what the motive was for including the entries that were included.  This was a political “coup” from the inside out.  Something guaranteed to change our nation forever—for the worse.

Statements had already been made, such as the idea that Native American lands should be taken out of trust status so that “they could be better utilized by the tribes” when in reality the proposers said that these are: “dumb drunk Indians who will lose these lands to us in the first year the trust is removed.”  That tribal lands may be easier to obtain than Forest Service lands because the environmentalists will put up a huge fight.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was dying the death of the 1,000 cuts.  Long term employees were retiring very day after 30-40 years in jobs they loved (and thought they were doing important things at).  You would see groups of Forest Service employees crying at conferences.   Smokey Bear was rolling in his grave at Lincoln, N.M.

 

So what was Udall protecting by refusing to confront Trump?

 

Advertisements

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe

The guy that entrapped ACORN on tape and destroyed the organization to stop it’s voter registration activities of people of color.

THE UNDERCURRENT LAUNCHES PROJECTVERITAS.EXPOSED
WASHINGTON—Today, The Undercurrent is launching a new website with 150 profiles of operatives and close associates of James O’Keefe and Project Veritas, to serve as a research resource for individual and organizational targets of Project Veritas, lawyers representing the victims, and the media.

The research also covers litigation history, fundraising, the ties between Veritas operatives and the Trump administration, and perhaps most importantly, the details of operations involving the embedding of Veritas operatives onto Democratic political campaigns.

“James O’Keefe has shown himself to be an agent of Donald Trump,” said Undercurrent Executive Producer Lauren Windsor. “Trump’s foundation donated $20,000 to O’Keefe in 2015, and O’Keefe proceeded to target Trump’s Democratic rivals for the presidency, embedding operatives within both the Sanders and Clinton campaigns. O’Keefe’s schemes conveniently fabricated ammunition for Trump talking points on voter fraud, violence at Trump rallies, and the ‘fake news’ media. This is political espionage and it’s a major threat to election integrity.”

The Undercurrent is produced by Lauren Windsor and sponsored by American Family Voices. In 2016, Project Veritas operatives infiltrated Democracy Partners, an affiliated organization with which we share an office. In the aftermath, we launched an investigation into what happened in order to preserve evidence for litigation and to prevent others in the progressive movement from falling prey to Veritas schemes. The fruits of that investigation yielded ProjectVeritas.Exposed.

 
Send tips to tips@theundercurrent.tv.
 ###

Important to Help to Protect Your Organization from Political Espionage.
Please move around to your list serves and orgs to use as a resource!

Intercept exclusive discussing the dossier:  https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/project-veritas-james-okeefe-washington-post-roy-moore/

Facebook share:  https://www.facebook.com/TheUndercurrents/posts/977485885731861

Retweet:  https://twitter.com/lawindsor/status/948620086826491904

The dangerous mind-wanderings of Trump’s Steve Bannon and his equally insidious publication, Breitbart, are at work again, and they stand to destroy the nation (“everything you love”—to put it another way, if you are not yet awake).  The GOP masters (the 1% and White Supremacists) who are calling for Constitutional Conventions in the States, want to insert into and edit the Constitution, as follows: outlawing abortion, rolling back Civil Rights, ending regulatory authority of federal agencies (no more clean water or air), repealing the First Amendment and its freedom of religion and the press (in favor of establishing Christianity as the nation’s official religion and English as the official language), bolster the Second Amendment to allow Concealed Carry without any restrictions across the Country, Balanced Budget Amendment (really intended to remove all social programs), etc.  The problem is these NUTS all control ALL THE CARDS (My post) at this point.  They argue that “the Constitution is too archaic” (“updating an old document”) and are not advertising these controversial provisions they are proposing except in meetings with their billionaire funders and at think tanks like Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and other Koch Brothers’ events.  This is the John Birchers (their daddy’s group) on steroids.
MY VIEW

Require accountability from those who serve By Myles Culbertson Dec 23, 2017

In 1979, I was one of a couple dozen young cattlemen from across the country meeting in Washington, D.C., with the secretary of agriculture and his senior staff. That morning, they made it clear that the interest of America’s agricultural producers was no longer their focus.

We were taken aback by their condescension while the secretary, the president’s man in the room, sat timid and compliant. I raised my hand: “This is an election year, so what happens if the sitting president doesn’t return?” A career administrator rudely pointed at the secretary, “It doesn’t matter who is sitting in that chair. We are who run the department, and we’re not going anywhere.” It appears he was mistaken. A new president was indeed elected, and apparently this official had earned the attention of more than just our little bunch of cowboys. I learned he finished his career at a minor border crossing in Minnesota.

What we saw in 1979 was an aggressive acceleration of the administrative state that has, since then, grown unaccountable, with its own executive, legislative and judicial functions. I have been privileged to work with many dedicated federal professionals, true public servants who do their country proud.

However, their departments have grown out of control, with appetites demanding hundreds of billions of dollars from a Congress whose legislation reads more like platitudes than laws, providing funding with nonexistent dollars and instructing the agencies to make their own rules.

Career politicians simply write the hot check and hurry off to the next fashionable topic, casting accountability and restraint aside. The results are both predictable and suffocating. In 1979, the national debt was $827 billion (31 percent of the gross domestic product). Today it is $20.4 trillion (107 percent of GDP). Prosperity strangles while government continues to grow, regulate, dominate and “spend like a drunken sailor” as I used to say, until an old sailor reminded me that in his day, when he ran out of money, he would quit drinking.

Who on either end of the political spectrum in 1979 would have believed that, less than 40 years later, regulation would have such a stranglehold, or the direct national debt would exceed the country’s gross national product, or the unfunded liabilities added in would increase that obligation by a factor of five, or that a pandering, self-dealing Congress, more concerned with career than country, would allow any of this?

But, here we are in 2017, facing all of it. An America cast into permanent decline seems inevitable; however, the Constitution’s framers, anticipating a Congress unwilling to quash the self-interested motives of its members, gave the states the authority to bypass Congress. Under the Constitution, two-thirds of the legislatures can bring together a national convention to propose amendments that would have to be ratified by at least 38 states.

A movement is underway for a convention, under Article V of the Constitution, to consider amendments to impose fiscal restraint, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government and set term limits on federal officials. More than 3 million citizens have joined the effort, and 12 states have passed resolutions calling for a convention. Another 30 are in play.

By invoking Article V, Americans can require accountability from those who were sent to serve, not to rule. Those in the deep-rooted political and administrative establishment may presently believe they are not going anywhere but, like the fellow who sat out his career at that remote Minnesota border crossing, they ought not be so secure about where they think they are not going. Information on the Convention of States Project can be found at www.conventionofstates.com.

Myles Culbertson’s background includes agriculture, banking, international trade, economic and technological development, regulation and law enforcement. He lives in Las Cruces.

 

Simon Percival ·Various at Self-Employed

I am with Myles on this. Clearly, the Consitution and the philosophy behind it determined that the Republic be such that the influence of the masses be limited to local representation ONLY. The influence of the several States was to be via the Senate but that effectively ended with the 17th Amendment. And today, the Electoral College is increasingly being watered down through measures to ignore the popular vote in some States and appoint Electors to the Electoral College according to the national popular vote, regardless of the will of the people of those States.

The second and yet unused provision in Article V includes the phrase, “or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures” makes it entirely clear what the intention is. The only role the people have in this regard is who they choose to represent them in their State’s legislature. Ample opportunities would present to voters every two years based on commisioners (delegates) that legislators would support ahead of the Convention of States.

I see little evidence, so far, to suggest FOAVC is not simply another attempt to confuse the issue and arrest the momentum of the Convention of States grassroots effort to save the Republic.

MC: I am not familiar with FOAVC, and don’t know the motives behind the meandering convoluted rants in their website. The only thing I can see is they are desperately opposed to the exercise of a very simply stated remedy provided by the Constritution’s framers. https://www.archives.gov/fede…/constitution/article-v.html

Bill Walker

If you are considering supporting convention of states please go to www.foavc.org/Pages/Page_Five.htm. You will discover that COS has nothing to do with the people having any say in the amendment process and instead the state laws creating COS feature felony arrest of delegates and complete exclusion of the American people from any part of the delegate selection process.
ROUNDHOUSE ROUNDUP

Call a convention? The House says it’s a bad idea By Steve Terrell, 

Last week, the state House of Representatives did something that might actually have national impact — or, to be more accurate, lessen the chances of national impact.

The House on Wednesday night voted 35-33 to rescind votes by the Legislature made in 1951, 1965 and 1976 calling for a convention of states to amend the U.S. Constitution. House Joint Resolution 10, sponsored by House Speaker Brian Egolf, D-Santa Fe, now goes to the Senate. All House Republicans plus Democrat Candy Sweetser of Deming voted against the resolution.

So why did Egolf want to spend the time and debate on a highly partisan fight to go back in time and wipe out legislative actions going back more than six decades? Currently there 27 states, including New Mexico, with active applications to call a constitutional convention. If seven more states hop on, (and no other state hops off) then Congress would have to a “convention of the states” to look at amending the Constitution.

And Egolf told the House that in the present political climate he’s uneasy about calling a convention to start messing with the Constitution. “With the current climate of the country, I have a hard time believing this would ever be a good idea,” he said. He said he was worried about such a convention overhauling the Bill of Rights.

Indeed, while almost all of the discussion on Egolf’s resolution entered around the balanced-budget proposal, the real fear of Democrats is that a constitutional convention might open up a box of Pandoras, as the late Bruce King would say — barring all abortions, taking away gay marriage rights, taking away privacy rights or the rights of criminal defendants.

He didn’t come out and say it, but I’m pretty sure the “political climate” he was talking talking about referred to the political climate in which someone with the authoritarian tendencies of Donald Trump could be elected president.

Although the 1976 vote was to call a constitutional convention specifically for a “balanced budget” amendment, Egolf said that once a convention is called there’s really no limit to the ways you can tinker with the Constitution.

Several Republicans argued that Congress has proved that it’s incapable of stopping the national debt and balancing the budget. “All we’re addressing is federal overreach,” said Rep. Paul Bandy, R-Farmington.

Rep. Jim Dines, R-Albuquerque argued, “What I’m hearing is that we don’t trust the people, under the Constitution, to deal with Congress.” Dines said that by eliminating the call for a constitutional convention, New Mexico would be removing an important way for New Mexico to protect itself from the federal government.

Egolf disagreed, saying there is current legislation being considered in this session that is aimed to stand up to the federal government. One specific example he mentioned was House Bill 284, sponsored by Rep. Debbie Armstrong, D-Albuquerque, which would require health insurance providers in the state to make available at least one type of all federally approved birth control options without a copay in case Congress repeals the Affordable Care Act.

Rep. Yvette Herrell, R-Alamogordo, brought up the fact that some liberals like the idea of a constitutional convention — as long as it’s for other things. For instance, as Herrell pointed out, Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino has his own resolution, Senate Joint Resolution 12, which calls for a constitutional convention to “permanently protect free and fair elections in America” by overturning the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision that allowed corporations to make unlimited contributions to “independent political action committees.

Egolf told Herrell he would not support that resolution if it gets to the House and would tell Ortiz y Pino that his proposal is a bad one.

Contact Steve Terrell at 505-986-3037 or sterrell@sfnewmexican.com. Read his political blog at www.santafenewmexican.com/news/blogs/politics.

Correction: This column has been amended to reflect the following correction. A previous version of this column incorrectly said that there were two memorials in 2012 passed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans that were similar to Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino’s current joint resolution calling for a constitutional convention to overturn the Citizens United decision. Actually the 2012 memorials called for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United but did not call for a constitutional amendment.

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/local_columns/call-a-convention-the-house-says-it-s-a-bad/article_b828695a-84f2-5e88-bfab-86e8fb573287.html

BW: The author needs to make another correction. He fails to mention the state have already applied in sufficient number to cause 11 convention calls or the fact Congress is currently counting the applications and already arrived at its first set thus mandating a convention call. See: www.foavc.org. BTW the FOAVC website is undergoing an upgrade which will be released later this week.

Hawaii to PAC 12: Great reasoning by the House. I hope Con-Con fails for the sake of democracy and national unity.

Proponents of the Convention will also say that the Convention is only for proposing amendments and that there is a 3/4 state ratification to ensure some balance. However Article V allows for state legislatures OR state ratifying conventions to ratify. Which direction the states take is per state law, mainly from 1933 era for the ratification of the 21st Amendment (overturning Prohibition). Don’t be fooled into comfort about the 3/4 ratification process. There is more to it. Research “state ratifying conventions”.

 

 

There is a certain bit of craziness within the country as people try to justify what the Resident of the White House says in his Tweets and sometimes even worse in person. I call them Trumpisms, the literal ravings of a lunatic. Although they are crazy talk, apparently at the beginning there were carefully planned out to distract from RussiaGate.

Someone was defending Trump, and they seemed like an ordinary person trapped in some myth of MAGA and America First; so I responded with:

Let me know how that works out after he destroys the Earth with Climate Change, the country with his lack of leadership and then takes away your house and every thing you own with his fake Tax Plan.

He (trump) is right there is no “Collusion.” There isn’t a charge of that in federal law. He has to have broken a law like: treason, sedition, conspiracy, fraud, etc. Which it is pretty evident he did.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/365396-cnn-sources-trump-insisting-hell-be-cleared-in-russia-investigation

Reagan is a god (little g) to the Republican Party and a scoundrel (capital S?)to the Democratic Party. To everyone else he can probably be blamed for everything that is wrong in the United states today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/04/AR2011020403104.html?sid=ST2011020403674Reagan

My degree was in Public Administration or learning how to govern. Because it is a “composite” degree it basically minors in Business Management. So I took a lot of business courses.

I forgot the dates but it was about ten years ago the national “Living Wage” was pegged at $20 an hour. Now it is over $25 an hour. There is something “structurally” wrong in our economy that may never be fixed. Henry Ford and other industry leaders subscribed to the teachings of Frederick Taylor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Winslow_Taylor. These said that the CEO salary should be no more than 35 times the average entry level salary of the front line production worker. We have seen accounts of it being 350 times and 900 times currently, but the goalposts have been moved and they talk about the average top management and the lowest salaried employee. The ranges are quickly moving into the 1,000 to 3,000 times range especially when stock options and golden parachutes are added to the mix.

I’m a member of CARTA the El Camino Real association. An interesting thing I learned at their annual conference in 2013 in El Paso (where I presented on Agua Fria Village as an obscure settlement on the trail, like so many thousands that must exist), is that there are Camino Reals in Mexico, Central and South America. In Spain, there is a dock from where the ships left that says: El Camino Real started here (or words to that effect). The very rich in Mexico no longer go to the beaches where the Cartel kidnaps people for ransom, but they are traveling El Camino Real and stopping at bed and breakfasts along the way. Often in their original home community.  They come all the way up to Santa Fe and make up 60% of the ski crowd. We need to embrace this tourism based on our environment but also our history.  Stop chasing the idea of using the Santa Fe River to float iron ore and raw material barges and our railroad hub and Interstate crossroads (clue: we don’t have one); to support manufacturing and a new Detroit auto industry.  We need to advertise and support an El Camino Real tourism instead.

The N.M. Tourism Department recently shifted 60% of it’s advertising budget from our traditional targets of California and Texas to Mexico.

One participant at that 2013 CARTA Conference was from South America and he said that Camino Real in 16th Century Spanish does not mean King’s Road but instead Royally Licensed Road.