State Representative from Dona Ana County in the Headlights

New Mexico State Representative Bill McCamley, District 33 (Dona Ana County)

New Mexico State Representative Bill McCamley, District 33 (Dona Ana County)

There has been a lot of anger from some people in Las Cruces over an initiative to collect signatures to recall three city council members from their positions; Olga Pedroza, Gil Sorg and Nathan Small. All three identify as liberals and have responded in typical fashion to charges of improper and unethical behavior in their elected positions; they’ve responded with defensiveness and smug self-righteousness. In the case of Nathan Small, fear of losing his position that has led him to flip-flop more desperately than a fish in the sand. There are plenty who are coming to their defense the only way that liberals seem to know how to…by attacking others. In this case, the attacks have been leveled at the people involved in the recall initiative. Many are trying to diminish the leadership of those spearheading the recall initiative by pointing out that some are not native New Mexicans and therefore, in their eyes, don’t have a legitimate right to get involved. They do this while ignoring that two of these three council members aren’t New Mexico natives, either. They’re accusing those who are collecting petition signatures of lying in order to get those signatures, misrepresenting either the wrongdoings of the council members or claiming that the petition is about an entirely different issue than the recall. Of course, none of those making those accusations have so far produced a single scrap of supporting evidence while many people, myself included, have witnessed nothing other than honest representation from these signature collectors. While this sort of behavior from the left had come to be pretty much expected, one individual has crossed the line so blatantly that it’s caught nearly everyone off guard.

As reported on the local Las Cruces radio show, The Kelly O’Connell Show on January 19, NM State Representative for District 33 (Doña Ana County) Bill McCamley engaged in what amounts to an aggressive assault against a young lady here in Las Cruces.
Earlier this month, the 19-year-old girl, who was working to collect signatures for the recall of Olga Pedroza, knocked on a door that appears now to be the address that Bill McCamley claims as his residence. A woman answered the door and, when presented with the petition, asked some questions which the girl answered. The woman then signed the petition. At that point, the girl then asked if there was anyone else at home who might be willing to sign. The woman pointed to a car that was pulling up at the house and said that the man driving might sign. She went over to talk to the man, who turned out to be Bill McCamley, although she did not recognize him. When he realized what her petition was for, he began yelling at her and then began yelling at the woman at the front door for signing the petition. In order to avoid confrontation and make matters worse, the girl began walking away from the house. At that point, McCamley started running after the girl, yelling at her again. Fearful for her own safety at this point, she called her supervisor, who was only about a block away. By this point, McCamley was right up on the girl, yelling right in her face. The supervisor arrived and witnessed this and actually stated that, as being trained and licensed for concealed carry of a firearm in New Mexico, if she had been carrying her handgun that night, McCamley’s behavior was so aggressive that she would’ve considered drawing her weapon for defense.
The signature collector was quoted on the Kelley O’Connell Show as saying after the incident, “In this job, I anticipate getting chased by a dog, but I never imagined it would be the state representative. I was pretty scared.”
A police report was filed that night, but nothing has come of this story so far. The local newspaper, The Las Cruces Sun News, hasn’t even mentioned it. Afterwards, though, McCamley did make a statement on his Facebook account that he said was an apology, but was severely lacking in the language or appearance of remorse one might expect from a sincere apology of any substance. He wrote:
“OK, so I owe an apology. A canvasser for Close the Cafe came by my house looking for signatures to remove Olga Pedroza from the City Council. I asked why, and there was no answer given. I then went and spoke to her supervisor, and asked the same thing. When no answer was given, I raised my voice and took a frustrated and intense tone of voice in the conversation.
I didn’t touch anyone, or threaten anyone. I want to make that perfectly clear. However, raising my voice isn’t right. Though I disagree passionately with that movement (as it sets a horrible precedent for elected officials), discourse should be held in a civilized and polite manner. And that young, paid canvasser who came by my house certainly isn’t responsible for this issue. You all deserve better from your public officials, especially me.
And you have my word that sort of thing will never, ever happen again.”
Apparently, McCamley thinks that because he didn’t touch her or “threaten” her, what he did wasn’t so bad. While it’s true that, had he touched the girl, he would’ve been guilty of assault and battery, if it can be proven in court that he behaved as is being reported, then he still committed a crime: assault. Typical for someone like Bill McCamley, he is trying to diminish the seriousness of his behavior and blow it off as not being a big deal, saying it will never happen again. As a rule, that defense tends to stop being at all effective once a person is more than about eight years old.
The only defense that’s come close to being even slightly substantive has come from people like local radio host Keith Whelpley, who simply says that he doesn’t believe that he’s capable of that kind of behavior. Thank God that our system doesn’t simply weight guilt or innocence on the level of belief that those that know them have regarding the charges. If that we’re the case, we’d never convict serial killers due to the testimony of others as to their character (ie. “He was always quiet and kept to himself,” and “He was a good, thoughtful neighbor.”)
So, let me make two quick points, the second one carrying no more weight than anyone else’s thoughts about ‘belief’ of guilt or innocence: 1) Anyone is capable of just about anything. Failure to acknowledge that is simply ignorant and will regularly lead to disappointment at best. 2) From the online dealings I’ve had with Bill McCamley, the way I’ve seen him treat others and what I’ve heard from other people about his behavior, I have absolutely no problem believing him capable of going after someone he perceived as weaker than him and easily intimidated by him. He has struck me as an intellectual bully from the first time I was ever exposed to him and it’s a short road from that kind of bullying to other, more hands-on types.
Should the evidence prove that Bill McCamley did indeed attack this girl, there are three things I really hope happen. First, I want to see McCamley publicly humiliated as his actions are exposed for all to see and therefore lose any chance at serving in public office again. Second, that maybe he’ll even finally realize what it feels like to be honestly regretful of his behavior instead of just playing not so subtle lip service. Finally, and most importantly, I hope this girl finds the strength inside herself and realizes that, while fear is a perfectly natural reaction to a situation like she, it was McCamley who was reacting to her and what she was representing with fear and irrationality. I hope she comes to accept that, when you shine light into dark places, those that thrive in the dark may desperately try to extinguish the light, but they only strength they can ultimately bring against you is a false strength. True strength always comes from the light, not the shadows.
Advertisements

Dona Ana County Treasurer May Yet Lose His Job

Dona Ana County Treasurer David Gutierrez

Dona Ana County Treasurer David Gutierrez

While there is currently a petition drive in the city of Las Cruces to recall three city councillors, there may be another initiative shortly to recall the Treasurer for Dona Ana County, David Gutierrez. Unlike the city recall efforts, in this case, Gutierrez has actually admitted to committing the acts he’s been accused of.

On August 18, Gutierrez had gone to the post office with a female employee on Treasurer’s Office business, then to a bank. Afterward, Gutierrez offered her $1,000 to “spend a couple of hours with him at a hotel.” The employee said no and then told a supervisor what had happened on August 20. The two then reported to Deputy County Treasurer Rene Barba. Gutierrez walked in on the meeting and, when he asked what was going on, the employee told him she was reporting him. He then asked the employee to leave the room and asked Barba and the supervisor not to report the incident to county management to give him time to “resolve the matter with the employee,” a request that was immediately denied as it would’ve been a gross violation of proper procedure. In the course of the investigation, Gutierrez admitted to propositioning the employee and even clarified that the reason for going to the hotel would have been for sex.
Gutierrez didn’t attend the county commission meeting where the incident was to be discussed, but instead had county attorney John Caldwell read a statement that said, “I apologize to the commission for not being here today. Please do not take my absence as a sign of disrespect to you. I will respect the decision that the board makes today.” However, when the commission called for Gutierrez’s resignation, he refused and, since the commission doesn’t have the authority to force his resignation, they instead censured him, which simply amounts to a public reprimand with no actual punishment.
Prior to voting for censure, County Commissioner David Garcia said “I’m very sad today these kinds of things have to happen, but when they do happen, we have to move on it. I’m glad the procedures we have in place work.”
While the procedures may have worked, they also had absolutely no impact. Gutierrez committed two violations; soliciting an employee for sex and attempting to delay the investigation. Another thing that no one seems to be talking about right now is that David Gutierrez committed an actual crime as well by soliciting for prostitution. Yet, in the face of all of this, he has continued in his position as if nothing had happened. The lack of consequences for his behavior has not gone unnoticed, however.
Friday on both local Las Cruces AM radio shows, The Kelly O’Connell Show and Speak Up Las Cruces, Dolores Connor and Francis Williams came on to talk about the course of action they’ve decided to take on this issue.  Connor, a former Las Cruces City Council member and previous candidate for Mayor, and Williams, who has had a career investigating sexual harassment claims and is currently an appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights New Mexico State Advisory Committee, are very unhappy that, even after admitting to his behavior, Gutierrez remains in his position and is still collecting his $65,500 annual salary.
After waiting four months to give Gutierrez a chance to take appropriate action on his own, Dolores Conner went to the county commission on Tuesday to inform them that she has found a state statute providing for the removal of an elected official under these kinds of conditions. NMSA 10-4-2 lists a cause, among several others, for removal from office as:
” [6] G.  any other act [or acts which] that in the opinion of the court or jury [amount] amounts to corruption in office or gross immorality rendering the incumbent unfit to fill the office.”
They argue that offering a female employee $1,000 for sex is a perfect example of “gross immorality.” Connor and Williams say they are currently looking into taking action through the courts and a possible abbreviated petition drive to have Gutierrez removed from office. They will be meeting with Gerald Byer, an attorney at the Third Judicial District Attorney’s Office in Las Cruces, NM to look at the law to explore those options in the coming week.
Connor also wants to propose a change to the NMSA at the upcoming legislative session to add sexual harassment to the allowed reasons for removal from office. At this point, the only actions that have been taken against David Gonzalez has been a censure that didn’t actually affect him outside of a little bad publicity and action taken by the Democrat Party Central Committee to remove him from his position with them but it is possible that, ultimately, his actions could result in not only his removal from office, but also an important and fundamental change to state law and the level of behavior required of our elected officials.

New Voter ID Law Passes in Hobbs, New Mexico

voter id ballot hobbsVoters in Hobbs New Mexico today voted to approve a measure that would require identification  to be presented in order to vote in municipal elections. The vote was decisive with 78% of voters in favor of the measure in spite of efforts by opposition, including the NAACP. B.J. Choice Sr., a member of the NAACP and Hobbs resident, said, “It’s an effort, in my opinion, to suppress people coming to the polls.” He said the legislation is like “the poll tax and the literacy test that minorities and poor whites had to go through.” Opponents, including Choice, have also compared it to the Jim Crow laws and say that groups like African Americans, Latinos and the elderly will have a harder time obtaining photo IDs in order to vote.
Just for the record, poll taxes were instituted by Democrats to require that voters pay in order to register to vote…unless their father or grandfather had been registered previously. This specifically targeted blacks, whose fathers and grandfathers had generally been slaves with no right to vote, while whites were much more likely to qualify to have the poll tax waived. The same thing with the literacy tests; they were designed to exclude blacks, who had a much higher rate of illiteracy than whites and could be disqualified even if they were literate. As an example, in Alabama, blacks were asked to answer questions such as: name all 67 county judges in the state, name the date when Oklahoma was admitted to the Union, and how many bubbles are in a bar of soap. Jim Crow laws, also passed by southern Democrats, established the concept of “separate but equal” and severely disenfranchised and limited the civil liberties of blacks.
By contrast, this voter ID law requires every voter to present an ID, proving that they are who they say they are. That’s all. Among other things, you must have a valid photo ID to:
  • buy cigarettes, alcohol or an “M” rated video game
  • open a bank account
  • apply for a mortgage, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment or government assistance including public health insurance (ie. Obamacare)
  • drive, buy or rent a car
  • get on an airplane
  • get married
  • adopt a pet
  • rent a hotel room
  • apply for a hunting or fishing license
  • pick up prescriptions
  • donate blood
  • get a job
  • cash a check
  • or even get a library card.
While they haven’t been vocal about these requirements for ID, Civil rights groups like the NAACP argue that voter ID laws target blacks, latinos, senior citizens and the poor by unduly restricting voting and imposing unnecessary costs. However, anyone who can prove who they are and that they are legally authorized to vote, gets to vote. The new legislation also ads that, if voters don’t have identification, the city will provide it for no charge. So, apparently, the NAACP believes that blacks, latinos, seniors and the poor are either too stupid to go down and ask for an ID, pose for a picture, or follow the same rules as everyone else or they believe that they’re too poor to afford a free ID. Or it could just be that the they’re using this issue to further promote class warfare and racial division and score political points on an issue that has nothing to do with race or class. It’s not like they have a reputation for pulling those kinds of stunts, right?
Even at the state level right now, any citizen can acquire an ID by providing 1) a document of their identity (birth certificate, U.S. passport, military ID, etc.), 2) a document proving their identification number (Social Security card), 3) two documents proving New Mexico residency (rental or mortgage agreement, utility bills, bank statement, etc.) and 4) a thumbprint and signature. It then costs $10 for four years or $18 for eight years. Citizens who are 75 or older get the ID free. That’s not what I’d call restrictive requirements. It is nothing more than establishing the identity of those the state is providing proof of and I pay more for my gym membership than either $10 or $18 a year (not to mention what I pay for my drivers license).
Secretary of State Dianna Duran has called the Hobbs special election encouraging and said that she will again push state lawmakers to consider a voter ID law. If that were to happen, such legislation would very likely include making those state IDs available at no charge, as well.
Hobbs is also not the first city in New Mexico to pass a voter ID law. Albuquerque and Rio Rancho also require photo ID for local elections. We currently have 34 states with laws requiring voters to show identification at the polls. The Hobbs vote is not an isolated incident and these laws are not designed to keep anyone from the polls…other than those who are attempting to perpetrate fraud on our election process. The voting rights of those who actually have the right to vote will be protected through these laws. The ones who are not registered to vote, who have had their right to vote revoked through Due Process, who try to vote under someone else’s name or who are simply not residents or even citizens? They have no right to vote anyway, nor should they, so there are no rights there to protect.
Congratulations to Hobbs, New Mexico on passing a voter ID law and may the rest of us come to our senses and follow your example soon.

The ugly face of abortion suddenly has an intense spotlight on it.

****WARNING: THE CONTENT BELOW IS VERY GRAPHIC AND POTENTIAL UPSETTING AND/OR OFFENSIVE****

I knew that, after the second amendment gun issue had been addressed this time around,  it wouldn’t be long before abortion came up again. There have been rumblings and people addressing the issue in smaller, almost probing ways for a while now, but with one single court case full of horror and atrocity that could turn the stomach of any person with even the smallest amount of compassion and empathy in them, this issue exploded into our national consciousness. Kermit Gosnell has now been convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the overdose case of an adult patient and three counts of first degree murder in the deaths of three babies who he killed after birth. He’s been sentenced to three consecutive life sentences, an additional two and a half to five years for the manslaughter charge, and other concurrent sentences for 229 violations of Pennsylvania abortion regulations. Needless to say, he will never be a free man ever again. Let’s take a closer look at what we’re talking about here.

First, Gosnell has been found guilty for the death Kamamaya Mongar, who came into his clinic in 2009 and died of an anesthesia overdose. The thing is, Gosnell’s staff were not trained doctors, nurses or anesthesiologists. They were untrained employees that he had conducting medical duties even without the proper training and certifications. So, Ms. Mongar died. She trusted her health to this man and his staff and they failed her utterly.

And the three babies? Gosnell had no problem conducting late-term abortions, including pregnancies that had gone on beyond 24 weeks (6 months), which is the legal cut-off in Pennsylvania. The term that pro-abortion people bandy about, viability, comes into play a lot here. The problem with late-term abortions: Babies at this stage are viable; do have a chance at surviving outside of the womb and it’s far from being a rarity that attempting an abortion at this point will not work…the baby will often come out of the womb alive. That’s what happened with these three. Forget morality, as that went out the window WAY before we got to this point, but legally, the doctor is then supposed to treat the baby like a patient in need and no longer like a mass of unwanted tissue, but not Gosnell. He stayed the course. Instead of helping these children who were lying on the table in distress, he picked up a sharp pair of surgical scissors, brought them to the back of these babies necks, sliced through their flesh and cut through their spinal columns in order to kill them. I’m sorry for the graphic content of that sentence. Just writing it made me a little nauseous, but that’s what he did. There’s no sugar-coating it, no easing the impact. He cut their spinal columns. He joked about killing these babies as if it was nothing important. He even kept dead babies stuffed inside a refrigerator at the clinic and a collection of feet that he cut off of babies that it’s believed were born alive during the abortion procedure. According to John Taggart, a Philadelphia crime scene investigator, the clinic would also shove body parts down the garbage disposal to get rid of them. Kermit Gosnell was as far away as you can get from the image of an abortionist as Planned Parenthood and other similar clinics try to present.

Now think about how you feel after reading the above. This is what Eric Ferrero, the vice-president for communications of Planned Parenthood Federation of America had to say: “The jury has punished Kermit Gosnell for his appalling crimes. This verdict will ensure that no woman is victimized by Kermit Gosnell ever again. This case has made clear that we must have and enforce laws that protect access to safe and legal abortion, and we must reject misguided laws that would limit women’s options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.” Did you hear what he actually said? He focused on the victimization of women, which is of course a terrible thing, but didn’t mention a single word about babies being victimized. If you have any doubt about how these abortion-based operations feel about babies, just keep that quote in mind whenever the issue comes up. Secondly, look at what he said about rejecting “misguided laws that would limit women’s options and force them to seek treatment from criminals like Kermit Gosnell.” The law that ‘forced’ a huge number of women to Gosnell was one prohibiting late-term abortions, specifically abortions after six months. What Mr. Ferrero is calling for is legal access to late-term abortions and, whether he’d admit it or not, ultimately legal access to abortions at any time up to birth. This is simply part of their agenda to remove any concept of personhood from the unborn, even the arbitrary one that put into play by the Supreme Court in 1973 and followed up on by state legislators ever since. This is the focus of Planned Parenthood in the aftermath of this slaughter of babies and disrespectful treatment of their remains; the advancement of their political and business agenda. Founder Margaret Sanger would be so proud.

I have heard people calling Gosnell a monster, asking how could someone do the horrible things that he has done. I don’t think it’s that complicated an issue. The simple fact is that, whenever a human being takes the life of another human being, there’s a price for that. A piece of your humanity dies. I’m not saying that there aren’t cases where it is justified to take life. I’m a supporter of the death penalty. I’m a supporter of protecting yourself and others from attack, even to the point of lethal force. And I’m definitely a supporter of our military, who are called on often, not only to put their lives on the line and possibly die, but also to kill. It’s a job that must be done and one that I’m so grateful that they’re there to do. But it is still true that taking a life is not something to be done lightly and there is a price to pay. Different people deal with this internal loss differently. Some are able to focus on the good they do, such as many of our soldiers. Some use it  to make a positive impact in the world. But many get lost and lose themselves in despair and guilt, while still others lose their humanity to an extent that human life has no real meaning anymore and they become what we see as ‘monsters’. This is what I suspect happened to Kermit Gosnell. What should’ve been living human beings in need before him, in his eyes, were only paychecks, non-viable tissue to get rid of, and annoyances that needed to be killed and shoved out of sight so he could move on to the next paycheck.

This brings me to the second thing that I’ve heard a lot lately: that Kermit Gosnell was an aberration, that he was not the norm and this sort of thing almost never happens with an abortionist. Well, let me tell you that Gosnell was nothing special. He wasn’t a Gacy or a Manson. He was a man who went to medical school, jumped through all the hoops and took all the time to become a doctor. He’s a man who took the Hippocratic Oath and, I suspect, meant what he said at the time. But he chose a path that ended with his soul and his compassion and his humanity being eaten away to nothing. He became a man who could execute a born, living baby and then joke about him being big enough to walk down to the bus stop. It’s incredibly unrealistic to believe that this man was just weak or evil and that all other doctors who perform abortions are too strong to fall in the same way.

We already know that’s not true anyway. Just the other day, charges were made by three women who worked for an abortion clinic in Texas that the abortionist killed multiple babies after birth; according to one woman, about three to four were ‘completely delivered’ out of every 20. They claim that the ‘doctor’ would kill these children by cutting their spinal chord as Gosnell did, stabbing them through the head or abdomen, drowning them, suffocating them by forcing a finger down the baby’s throat or tying them in plastic bags, actually twisting the child’s head off with his bare hands or throwing them in to garbage cans to die of exposure and starvation. These are not isolated, aberrant cases. These crimes happen constantly because the baby is not seen as an innocent life in need of protection, but as an annoyance, an obstacle, offending parasitic tissue. When you decide that someone has absolutely no value, there’s no longer anything stopping you from doing whatever you please to them.

I would love to say that we’re on a slippery slope where human life is about to be devalued in many ways, but, chief among them, by a casual attitude toward ending that life, but it’s not true. We’re not on a slippery slope because we’ve been sliding further and further down that slope for years. Yearly, either close to or over a million abortions are performed in the U.S. every year, depending on the year. That’s a lot of life being ended…a lot of life being devalued as being not ‘viable’. It saddens me because I see this devaluation of life in so many ways in our society today…murders, school shootings, abductions, rapes, child and spousal abuse, etc. I can’t say that any one factor is responsible for where we are today. That would be naive and short-sighted. But it seems to me that every time we cheapen human life, whether we be the ones holding the knife or the gun…or the scissors, or we’re the ones who stand by and do nothing, either by just not caring or by hiding behind this concept that we’re not directly involved or we’re not a part if a particular religious or ethnic or cultural group or that it’s somebody else’s body , so we have no right to judge or even to say anything, we diminish not only the life being devalued, but we also diminish ourselves as both individuals and as a larger group; ultimately in this case, as a nation. I would have hoped we had learned our lesson after World War II or even as recently as September 11, 2001, but apparently, it’s one of those lessons we have to continuously be taught over and over again. When one of us becomes a victim, a true victim, we all become victims. And, when we turn our backs on the victims, we all become victimizers as much as the one who committed the actual act.

Written by: Randy Lynch