Tuesday, September 26, 2023


This is what happens when liberals take over a state. Something once beautiful and majestic, becomes mired in repulsive rhetoric. The results are always the same. Normalcy and decency disappear along with common sense. What is wrong becomes accepted, and the future rapidly disintegrates into a deep and dismal void of what could have been.

New Mexico has become the latest state to step off the precipice of reality. Actually, they didn’t step off, they dove headfirst into nonsensical oblivion. Their destination is moral hell on earth and they intend to take as many of us with them as possible.

Two recent developments demonstrate how far this once proud state has fallen. First, the Governor randomly decided that she could just end everyone’s second amendment rights. Apparently Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, went to sleep Thursday night and woke up yesterday morning thinking she was royalty. A princess with magical qualities that allows her wipe away American values and Constitutional rights on an invented whim.

Her highness has decided to issue an emergency public health order that would suspend open and permitted carrying of concealed firearms in the city of Albuquerque for thirty days. Why, because of a recent run of gun violence.

At some point in time, someone within her highnesses’ royal court should explain to her that she has ABSOLUTELY no power outside of her own deluded mind to enforce this so-called ban. Also, even if she did, the bad people that commit these heinous acts would never comply, leaving only the decent, God-fearing Americans unarmed.

This cheap excuse of a public servant, tried to justify this lunacy by pulling on the public’s heart strings, citing two recent tragedies involving children. Then by spewing forth liberal rhetoric that was meant to sound authoritative.

At a strategically staged press conference, surrounded by law enforcement officials and the district attorney for Albuquerque and the surrounding area, her highness sounding more self-righteous than ever had this to say. “No constitutional right in my view, including my oath, is intended to be absolute.”

She should have stopped there, but like all liberals she continued to fully demonstrate her level of incompetent ignorance. “I welcome the debate and fight about how to make New Mexicans safer.”

Well your highness, this ban is illegal. If it ever does see a fair court of law, you will lose and you will lose ugly. This is a test of compliance. Her highness wants to count the number of sheep in Albuquerque so she can fall asleep and have another dream of grandeur.

Second, while they’re trampling on the second amendment, why not blindly take a shot at the first as well.

Upon hearing that some snowflake students feelings were hurt at the New Mexico State University (NMSU), because (God forbid), they had someone disagree with their viewpoint, lawmakers in the “bewildered state,” demanded that school officials protect the trans and queer students from …. get ready, …. “psychological damage. They insisted that the school:

“infringe on students’ First Amendment right to invite speakers that may make other students uncomfortable.”

This raised the ire of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, who sent a letter to these Nazis, explaining that every thought that enters their silly heads is not a law.

“Dubbing himself as ‘Transphobe of the Year, Matt Walsh (God bless him) makes no bones about his beliefs. But as a public institution, NMSU is bound by the First Amendment. This means it can’t take the advice of state legislators in enacting policies that discriminate on the basis of viewpoint.”

 “Higher education has long received protection as the place to hash out challenging or dissenting ideas and engage with new arguments. The Supreme Court proclaimed as much in 1967’s Keyishian v. Board of Regents, noting the Nation’s future depends upon leaders trained through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas which discovers truth ‘out of a multitude of tongues, [rather] than through any kind of authoritative selection.”

The foundation wasn’t finished administering a dose of reality to NMSU. Stating that students should be, “fully capable of choosing whether to engage with views with which they disagree and even find repulsive. Denying them the chance is not permissible for a public institution such as NMSU.”

The foundation also reminded the legislators of something that may have conveniently slipped their minds. “Importantly, the legislators here should know the very same expressive rights they seek to limit have been employed time and again to protect pro-LGBTQIA+ speech, which at one time was considered fringe expression, viewed as shocking and offensive. In the higher-education context, speech will not constitute harassment unless it is unwelcome, sufficiently targeted, and so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it effectively deprives the victim-students of their ability to receive an education.”

Need some names of losers that would attempt this nonsense? If you’re a New Mexico resident, write them down, because they don’t give a damn about your rights.

Carrie Hamblen, Angelica Rubio, William Soules, Kasandra Gandara and others, demanded, “We would welcome a serious conversation about the rationale for allowing this type of event that would knowingly frighten and harm part of the student population, learn who in the administration supported this, and what policies or actions will be taken in the future to prevent further emotional and psychological damage to some of the most vulnerable in your student population.”

LOL, seriously? College students can’t hear an opposing viewpoint without suffering emotional damage?

The foundation brought the university back to reality:

“Were the university to censor speakers as the legislators suggest, it would violate the First Amendment, which bars government actors like NMSU from interfering with students’ right to discuss, listen to, or invite to campus speakers with a wide range of viewpoint, even when those views offend some, many, or even most members of the university community. The Supreme Court has repeatedly, consistently, and clearly held that the First Amendment protects expression others find offensive, or even hateful, precisely because, as a Nation we have chosen . . . to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. While the First Amendment, of course, does not protect all speech, carveouts for unprotected speech are strictly limited. The legislators here are mistaken to suggest that an invited speaker like Walsh who expresses broadly anti-queer or anti-trans views—even while those views may be deeply offensive.”

The left’s views are offensive to the large majority of Americans, yet they want you to believe that the bruising of a few radical snowflake egos justifies violating the First Amendment.

Liberals are disgustingly sensitive and nauseatingly demanding at the same time. It’s time to introduce them to a new word.

NO! (There are more, but this is a family column.)