An Albuquerque man agreed to plead guilty to a dozen child pornography charges, provided that he be allowed to perform his civic duty and vote.
Patrick O'Hara, 66, had been facing 180 years in prison if convicted of the 70 charges of sexual exploitation of children he was indicted on in November.
His son, Timothy O'Hara, 42, was also indicted on 20 similar charges.
If he asked you to let him vote in the upcoming election, would you? Me Neither. Unfortunately, we're not sitting on the bench. However, District Judge Charles Brown is, and here is how he ruled:
Before accepting the plea, O'Hara had a question for state District Judge Charles Brown.
"Prior to your sentencing, can I vote in the June election?" he asked, referring to the June 3 primary election.
O'Hara added that he is "working on" obtaining an absentee ballot.
Brown approved the request, partly because O'Hara is not set to be sentenced until July 16.
State District Judge Charles Brown, also appointed in August, will oppose longtime Albuquerque attorney Gail Prosser in the criminal division.
New judges must stand for the first partisan election following their appointments. After that, they are subject to retention races every six years.
As a Republican, I can't vote against District Judge Charles Brown, but many of you reading can. I don't know anything about Gail Prosser, but if she doesn't think its a good idea to grant special requests to child predators, I'd say she HAS to be better than District Judge Charles Brown.
Days after he took office in January 2007, Attorney General Gary King told me, through a spokesman, that an investigation of the scandal that toppled most of the state’s affordable housing system in 2006 would be a top priority.
Sixteen months later, some are beginning to wonder.
It’s not that nothing has happened. The AG has successfully obtained court orders to boot three tenants from homes owned by the Albuquerque-based Region III Housing Authority because they didn’t qualify for affordable housing. Two were employees of the authority and one was a board member.
What do you think? Could this have all been avoided if only we had had an ethics commission in place to "provide training for public officials and public employees" involved in this scandal?
Unfortunately, there are those that choose to ignore their gut. Those people are criminal. Those people should be prosecuted and thrown in jail. We don't need a commission to educate them on what is ethical, we need a prosecutor willing to do their job.
Matt, my friend, the people's government can be held accountable every day. We don't have to wait until an election. We can draw attention to prosecutors who fail to prosecute. We can shine a spotlight on those who conduct their unethical behavior in the shadows. We can even demand justice.
But, what we must not do is create yet another government commission that makes people feel like they don't need to be diligent and civilly active because of the assumption that some third party is going to take care of it for them. Just because many other states have chosen to rely on this crutch, does not make it right.
Eli Lee on Clearly New Mexico answers why we need an independent state ethics commission. Shorter Eli: Manny Aragon.
Indeed, are we to believe that since 1992 not one member of the Legislature has had a conflict of interest or used influence inappropriately? Must questions of misconduct rise to the level of a state or federal indictment and prosecution before they are addressed?
We have a solution - a citizen driven, a personal responsibility solution. It's called elections. Every two or four years we have an opportunity to dump the riff-raff. Regardless, of the power an individual legislator may have hold in Santa Fe, they can be beat by a superior candidate.
Of course, people have to care enough to vote. And, people who are not going to be defined by holding an elected office need to run.
New Mexico Democratic Party Chairman Brian Colón on Saturday threw his support behind Barack Obama's presidential bid - the 4th New Mexico superdelegate to endorse the U.S. Senator from Illinois.
"He really does represent what the youth in this country want to see in terms of the direction of this country," said the 38-year-old Colon, one of the youngest state party chairs in the nation.
Colon's decision capped months of heavy lobbying by backers of both Obama and his opponent, Hillary Clinton: Colon told the Journal he's received hundreds of phone calls and "thousands" of e-mails since New Mexico's Feb. 5 Democratic presidential caucus on Feb. 5, which Clinton won by a sliver.
Hmm, I believe that "sliver" is called a majority. I wonder what message this sends to that majority?
The Federal Reserve and other regulators are planning tighter rules to stop credit card companies from unfairly raising interest rates and to make sure they give people enough time to pay their bills.
-Placing unfair time constraints on payments. A payment could not be deemed late unless the borrower is given a reasonable period of time, such as 21 days, to pay;
-Unfairly allocating payments among balances with different interest rates;
- Unfairly raising annual percentage rates on outstanding balances;
-Placing too-high fees for exceeding the credit limit solely because of a hold placed on the account;
-Unfairly computing balances;
-Unfairly adding security deposits and fees for issuing credit or making credit available;
-Making deceptive offers of credit.
This is more unnecessary regulation. Credit cards are unsecured debt. If you don't like the terms being offered, don't get a credit card. If you're not happy with the fees and penalties of one credit card company, then switch to the another. As to "deceptive offers of credit," I'm sure we already have laws that deal with fraud. If it's fraudulent, then the government should prosecute those committing fraud as opposed to creating new regulations for an entire industry.
The answer to the credit card problem is education, not regulation. Teach financial literacy to children in math classes, and then let personal responsibility trump govern behavior.
We're a battleground state. We're a battleground in the Presidential race, and we're a battleground for at least two Congressional seats and one Senate seat. There is a lot at stake here. And, if you're a businessman, on either side of the aisle, there is no better state in which to make a political investment. The odds are in your favor. So, I don't blame George Soros for choosing the Land of Enchantment for his playground.
This all reeks of politics as usual. And, George Soros is adding the icing to the cake by launching, albeit through a proxy, an attack ad on a candidate in a fight that hasn't actually begun. Then to top it all off, the organization to which he has given millions, launches the attack based on the same set of lies and purposeful misrepresentation that the Democratic National Committee has been trying to seed with the American public.
But, hey don't take my word for it. Watch the latest video to be launched by MoveOn.org:
The clear implication is that if McCain is elected, we can expect to be battling in Iraq for many decades to come. But the admakers cut off the rest of McCain's response, which provides some badly needed context:
McCain, town hall meeting, Jan. 3: Maybe a hundred. ... We’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me, as long as Americans, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. It’s fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world.
The DNC ad doesn't mention that McCain was speaking specifically about a peacetime presence. And the text of the ad paired with images of Iraq under siege leave a clear impression that McCain proposes to allow a century more of war, with U.S. involvement. That's not what he said, in New Hampshire or in other settings when he's been asked about it.
Pretty convenient to leave out the context, isn't it? It's also pretty sad. If they want to attack Senator McCain, they should do so on the facts. Instead, Soros & Co. show a disturbing commitment to purposely misleading the public.
Which, conveniently brings us full circle back to beginning of this post. I don't have a problem with George Soros trying to influence the outcome of New Mexico politics - that's just the way the game is played. I do have a problem with his tactics - lies and distortions.
After my last Soros post, I received a couple of nice notes from New Mexico Independent's paid contributors. As a result of those communications, I feel I should set the record straight. I don't judge any of those folks for taking a stipend. I don't have a problem with the left leaning tendencies of the majority of the contributors. I don't even have any problem with most of their views, despite the fact that they are contrary to my own. I believe we are all contributing to a discussion.
However, to pretend this site just accidentally in a non-partisan way happened to bring several left-leaning bloggers under one banner is not exactly being truthful. As to those who have commented that I'm listed on the blogroll... Yes, I've been aware of that from the get go. I'm also listed on the blogrolls of Democracy for New Mexico and State Senator Dede Feldman's blog. Are you going to tell me those are also non-partisan sites?
There is nothing wrong with being partisan. A partisan system is what makes our government work. It's all part of checks and balances. It is the failure to disclose that is the problem here.
Do you think it is just an oversight that MoveOn.org's latest ad is not analyzed on this "independent" site for what it is. Now, in all fairness, after my last Soros post I did receive an offer to submit articles to New Mexico Independent for consideration (as proof that they're a truly unbiased site).
So, I'll be happy to submit this one for publication. Please just let me know where to pick up my $1,500 stipend.
Two months after Arizona enacted a law punishing employers who hire illegal immigrants, the law is already achieving one of its goals: Scores of immigrants are fleeing to other states or back to their Latin American homelands.
Gaby Espinoza, who has been unemployed since November, is among those affected. She gave up looking for a job because of the law and may have to return to Mexico.
Business groups succeeded in getting the bill to narrow the employees to whom the law applies and to create protections for employers who make good-faith efforts to follow the rules. Even so, they don't think the state should have its own employer sanctions because they said cracking down on illegal hirings is the responsibility of the federal government.
The original law, which took effect in January, was intended to lessen the economic incentive for foreign workers to sneak into Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point along the nation's southern border. An estimated one in 10 workers in Arizona is an illegal immigrant.
Personally, I think the state should hold strong and continue to back a policy that was making a difference. To argue that this is a federal government problem is ridiculous. Too many businesses are willing to look the other way in order to pad their bottom line, and that's not just not right.
I was born a New Yorker and have lived in more places than I can count on one hand. My wanderings included a total of more than two years in Ecuador and nine years in California. The latter being significant as that is where I met the love of my life. Of course, she determined that our progeny would be the tenth generation of her family to be raised in New Mexico. So, this is where my roots will grow long.
DISCLAIMERS: A company in which I hold an interest is providing campaign consulting services to Heather Wilson's Senate campaign and Aubrey Dunn's campaign for the 2nd Congressional District in New Mexico.
