Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Eugenics on Steroids: ObamaCare after 2013

from Jeanie Coates,  National Leadership Council, Conservative Capitalist Coalition, New Mexico.
"This message was copied from FB friend TeBo, who reported the following conversation:
"I had one of the most troubling, most disturbing conversations ever with Julie's sister-in-law, Dr. Suzanne Allen, head of emergency services at the Johnson City Medical Center in Tennessee. We were discussing the "future" and I asked her had she seen an affects of ObamaCare in her work?
"Oh, yes. We are seeing cutbacks throughout the services we provide. For example, we are now having to deal with patients who would normally receive dialysis can no longer be accepted. In the past, there was always automatic approval under Medicare for anyone who needed dialysis. Not anymore."
So, what will be their outcome? "They will die soon without dialysis," she stated. What about other services? She indicated as of 2013 (after the election), no one over 75 will be given major medical procedures unless approved by locally administered Ethics Panels.  These Panels will determine whether a patient receives medical treatment or not. While details on specific operating procedures and schedules, Dr. Allen points out that most life-threatening emergencies do not occur during normal hospital business hours, and if there are emergencies that depend to be resolve within minutes or just few hours, the likelihood of getting these Panels approval in time to save a life are going to be very challenging and difficult, if not impossible she said.
 This applies to major operations such as receiving stents, bypass surgery, kidney operations, or treating for an aneurysm that would be normally covered under Medicare today. In other words, if you needed a life-saving operation, Medicare will not provide coverage anymore after 2013 if you are 75 or over. When in 2013? "We haven't been given a specific date. Could be in January or July.  But it's after the election."
This is shocking to any of us who will be 75 this year. Her advice: get healthy and stay healthy. We do not know the specifics of the actual implementation of the full ObamaCare policies and procedures. "They haven't filtered down to the local level yet. But we are already seeing severe cuts in what we provide to the elderly.  We refused dialysis to an individual who was 78 just the other day.  We refused to give stents to a gentleman who was in his late 80s." 
"Every day," she said, "we are seeing these cutbacks aimed at reducing care across the board for anyone who is over 75. We can only hope that ObamaCare will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, this is a death sentence to those who are over 75.  Perhaps you should pass this on to your friends who are thinking of voting for Obama this year. Regardless if you have private health care coverage now (I have Aetna Medicare Part B) it will no longer apply after 2013 if the Ethics Panels disapprove of a procedure that may save your life.
Think about this? You? Your parents? Your loved ones? Didn't know about it? Of course, not. As Nancy Pelosi said, "well, if you want to know what's in the bill, you'll have to read it." After it was passed.
This is a graphic reminder of the need to stay healthy.

Thursday, March 1, 2012

End of First Amendment Rights

All of NM's federal legislators voted for this.

Latest From the Hill: Congress Criminalizes the Right to Free Assembly

  •   The Alex Jones Channel Alex Jones Show podcast Prison Planet TV Twitter Alex Jones' Facebook Infowars store
Strips Basic Protections of First Amendment
Mac Slavo
Thursday, March 1, 2012
It seems like every day brings us one step closer to a totalitarian police state, and today is no exception.

The Daily Crux and Economic Policy Journal have reported on a little known bill that was overwhelmingly approved by the House of Representatives (H.R. 347 vote tally388-3) and the Senate (S.1794 passed with unanimous consent, no voting records were kept of which Senators approved).
The Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 essentially strips Americans of their right to protest and assemble in government buildings or on public or private grounds where events of “national significance” are taking place.
The summary of the bill clearly outlines the direct attack on our First Amendment protections which allow for peaceable assembly and public redress of grievances against our government or elected officials within it:
Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011 – Amends the federal criminal code to revise the prohibition against entering restricted federal buildings or grounds to impose criminal penalties on anyone who knowingly enters any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority. Defines “restricted buildings or grounds” as a posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted area of: (1) the White House or its grounds or the Vice President’s official residence or its grounds, (2) a building or grounds where the President or other person protected by the Secret Service is or will be temporarily visiting, or (3) a building or grounds so restricted due to a special event of national significance.
Bill sponsor Tom Rooney (R-FL) claimed in a tweet responding to grievances on the internet, that “HR 347 does not effect your right to protest in any way whatsoever. It deals with fence jumpers, not protestors.”
As it turns out, the two page bill deals not just with ‘fence jumpers,’ but also lays the groundwork for all protests, gatherings and politic dissent in any facility or grounds in the United States of America that has been identified as a place of ‘national significance’ or where the Secret Service is charged with the protection of an individual – ANY individual, whether it’s the President, a congressional member or anyone else of national interest.
This is serious business, and you can be assured that, while Tom Rooney may have meant for the bill to stop fence jumpers, it can and will be used for far more than that:
The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offense if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds “restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance.”
It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offense to even accidently disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.
Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection…
In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — whether it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware. Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of “official functions,” engaging in disorderly conduct “within such proximity to” the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises. Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offense…
Source: RT
For those who will undoubtedly be charged under the new legislation, the penalties will be severe.
If you are found to possess a weapon deemed as dangerous (not necessarily a gun) when you knowingly enter an event of national significance you can be imprisoned for up to ten years.
If you are a peaceful, unarmed protester and you disrupt an event you’ll be treated with a bit more mercy by our benevolent leaders and be given up to one (1) year in prison.
With what we’ve seen over the last few year in Greece, greater Europe, Syria, and even the United States, the legislation makes complete sense from a government standpoint. What better way to keep dissenters and protesters quiet than to imprison them for months or years? It will take only a few public examples the next time a Tea Party or Occupy style protest take place and millions of Americans will understand that staying home and staying silent is their new Patriotic duty.
And, if it so happens that protests turn to violent rioting and civil unrest, the government will have the pretext to arrest, detain and imprison anyone and everyone in those ‘restricted areas of national significance.’
Housing these criminals should not be a problem, as our government, the Pentagon and DHS have been planning for just this scenario for quite some time, going so far as to build largescale detention facilities where those identified as subversive to our government can be re-educated.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

NDAA 2012 Presidential Directive

The problem with NDAA 2012 is that it violates the Bill of Rights, specifically the right to Habeus Corpus (that you be charged before a judge, can call a lawyer and have a right to a speedy trial)  and contradicts Posse Comitatus which prohibits the military operating on US soil against our citizens.  The fact that 93 of 100 Senators voted in favor of it speaks volumes about their respect for the Constitution.

Obama Issues ‘Policy Directive’ Exempting American Citizens From Indefinite Detention

Skeptics fear future administration could still incarcerate US citizens under NDAA
Paul Joseph Watson
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Despite the fact that it was his administration that specifically demanded the controversial ‘indefinite detention’ provisions of the NDAA be applied to Americans, President Obama has issued a ‘Presidential Policy Directive’ that forbids the law from being used against US citizens.
Obama Issues Policy Directive Exempting American Citizens From Indefinite Detention  tumblr lyug4vDfHd1qcujoko1 500
A “fact sheet” released by the White House last night contains details of a “Presidential Policy Directive” which explains that the administration will not seek to use the so-called ‘kidnapping provision’ of the National Defense Authorization Act to incarcerate American citizens without trial.
“Section 1022 does not apply to U.S. citizens, and the President has decided to waive its application to lawful permanent residents arrested in the United States,” states the White House fact sheet (PDF).
Obama’s PDD contains a number of other circumstances in which people would be exempt from indefinite detention, but the language concerning American citizens states that to be exempt, a US citizen must be “arrested in this country or arrested by a federal agency on the basis of conduct taking place in this country,” meaning Americans arrested abroad could still be kidnapped and held without trial.
The NDAA bill, which was signed into law by President Obama under the radar on New Years Eve while he was on vacation in Kailua, hands the federal government the power to “allow the military to indefinitely detain terror suspects, including American citizens arrested in the United States, without charge.”
There’s no doubt that this represents a victory for civil libertarians on both sides of the political spectrum, but skeptics will be keen to stress that just because the Obama administration, which could be out of office by this time next year, has indicated it will not indefinitely detain Americans under the NDAA, doesn’t necessarily mean that future administrations will also refrain from doing so.
Indeed, if the administration was so concerned about the indefinite detention provisions, why did it specifically lobby for them to be applied to American citizens in the first place?
  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t

As we documented at the time, shortly before the bill was signed into law, Senator Carl Levin revealed that it was the administration which demanded the removal of language that would have protected Americans from the ‘kidnapping’ provisions of the NDAA.
“The language which precluded the application of Section 1031 to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved…and the administration asked us to remove the language which says that U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section,” said Levin, Chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
Don’t expect Obama’s PDD to be the end of the matter. Senators John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey Graham (S.C.) and Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) have already indicated that they will argue against exempting American citizens from indefinite detention.
“Although we have not been able to fully examine all the details of these new regulations, they raise significant concerns that will require a hearing in the Senate Armed Services Committee,” they said in a joint statement. “We are particularly concerned that some of these regulations may contradict the intent of the detainee provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act passed by Congress last year.”
In issuing the policy directive, Obama is attempting to head off a potential states’ rights rebellion against the federal government. With Virginia already having passed a bill in the House and Senate that nullifies the indefinite detention provisions of the NDAA, Utah has introduced a resolution with the ultimate intention of doing the same, along with several other states.

Saturday, February 18, 2012

Pre-Primary Race (links to websites)

Presidential Nominee Candidates:
Newt Gingrich:
Ron Paul:
Rick Santorum:
Mitt Romney:

To date none of the other hopefuls has garnered convention votes. In the meantime, folks can keep track of this on CNN's website,

NM Senatorial Nominee Candidates:

Greg Sowards:
Heather Wilson:

For more information, go to the Federal Election Commission website where you can see how much money each candidate has raised:

Third Congressional District Nominee Candidates:

Jeff Byrd:
Rick Newton:

March 20 is the filing deadline for state offices. This website will be updated at that time.

Stop Agenda 21

Ask Your State Legislators to Introduce a Stop Agenda 21 Bill

Agenda 21 is a war on rural America, private property and people. It is very well-funded by the UN and One World Government billionaires.

Starting in 2011 there has been an amazingly fast growth in interest among conservative groups in learning about, then stopping the implementation of the UN's Agenda 21 in their local area as well as their state and the nation as a whole.

If you want to learn about Agenda 21, you could start by reading "Stop the UN's Agenda 21 & 'Sustainable Development'" or "Your Hometown & the United Nations’ Agenda 21." Or, if you prefer to learn from videos, try viewing a recent Agenda 21 video by Tom DeWeese that describes the overall progress of the Stop Agenda 21 movement or another recent video by Don Casey that provides many details of just how far the implementation of Agenda 21 has already gone. Another excellent resource for learning more about Agenda 21 and what you can do about it is our web page "Choose Freedom -- STOP AGENDA 21."

Starting in 2012, New Hampshire, Tennessee, and Georgia have already introduced bills to help publicize the downsides of implementing Agenda 21. Furthermore, in Tennessee a bill has been introduced in both House and Senate to prohibit that state and all of its political subdivisions from spending money implementing Agenda 21. We expect the number of states in this list to grow very rapidly this year and next.

Since most states are either out of session or winding down by this point in even-numbered years, the big push for Stop Agenda 21 state bills should happen in 2013 after this fall's elections. However, let's not wait for 2013. Let's start educating our state legislators now and urge them to introduce Stop Agenda 21 bills at the earliest possible time.

The tools you have for doing this can all be found at our "Choose Freedom -- STOP AGENDA 21" web page.

To get the ball rolling in your state, send a message to your state legislators asking them to introduce a Stop Agenda 21 bill in your state legislature. The prewritten, editable message to them contains a link to our "Choose Freedom -- STOP AGENDA 21" web page and a link to our "Model Stop Agenda 21 Bill for State Legislatures."

Phone calls can also be very effective, and of course, the most effective way to educate your state legislators is by making personal visits to their offices. Click here for contact information for your state representatives.

Also look up The Wildlands Project which intends to turn everything from Yukon to Yucatan into a people-free zone. The planned 10% of the population that will be left will be herded into pack-and-stack electronic matrix cities where every hiccup will be monitored, รก la 1984.

The ICLEI was founded in 1990 as the 'International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives'. It creates unconstitutional relationships between the UN and local governments, ostensibly for the environment, but it is a high-end land grab and assault on the rights of private property which bypasses We the People.

We the People have done a good job protecting our land and do not need to be micro-managed by the UN/One World Government crowd. Some local communities have been induced into membership (Cimarron, Taos, Los Alamos, Sante Fe) without realizing the sinister long-term goals. These goals are rabidly anti-American and anti-Constitutional. Some of their favorite buzz words are smart growth, sustainability, collectivism and regionalism and that utterly nonsensical term to Save the Earth. (From what? People. We have been defined as The Enemy.)

Check this out: Life in America under Agenda 21 with Charlotte Thompson Iserbyt (former Reagan appointee).

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Link to an excellent article on the economy at

The Current Crop of Candidates

Pre-Primary Race( links to websites)

Presidential Nominee Candidates:

Newt Gingrich:                         
Ron Paul:   
Rick Santorum:
Mitt Romney:

To date none of the other hopefuls has garnered convention votes.  In the meantime, folks can keep track of this on CNN's website,

NM Senatorial Nominee Candidates:

John Sanchez:
Greg Sowards:
Heather Wilson:

For more information, go to the Federal Election Commission website where you can see how much money each candidate has raised:

Third Congressional District Nominee Candidates:

Rick Newton:

March 20 is the filing deadline for state offices.  This website will be updated at that time.