* Educate * Engage * Reform *  

organ-mountains-nm-8-29
Next CCIA Meeting: 22 February 2024
Action Committee Work Session
Kitchen Kraft
980 N Telshor Blvd,

Latest News
Juan GarciaFebruary 12, 2024Action AlertMayor, Council, Commission and DAC State Officials  Comments are based on local news reports- Tragic situation where LC not only lost a police officer but another family is now without a father and a husband.  A police officer who is well trained and armed was killed by a vagrant.  In broad daylight. Hard to understand how this can happen. How did the criminal get so close to the officer to kill him ?  Is LCPD being put in a position where they are endangering themselves needlessly ? Thankfully a good armed citizen was able to intervene. If this can happen to a police officer, imagine what is going on with average citizens who dont have the means to defend themselves. Just like the report ~two weeks ago where a citizen was murdered in front of a citizens home (Van Patten/Armijo).  LC is at a critical point and I dont see a change coming anytime soon.  State elected officials are focused on their pet projects and disarming law abiding citizens.  Last year the DAC state delegation had ample opportunities to push for stronger legislation but chose not to.  Same as this year. The same old blame on “mental health and poverty” as the cause of crime is wearing thin with the citizens. And its harder and harder to accept that our elected officials “care”. Look at SB 16/HB233 CRIMINAL COMPETENCY DETERMINATION?  Didnt get very far. Could have helped…. I have suggested the council, commission and state elected officials band together and DEMAND the governor take action on crime in our county. Many of you wrote a joint letter to NMSU in 2023 on behalf of the LGBT community demanding to know why Matt Walsh was allowed on NMSU.  Why cant you do the same on behalf of the crime victims in your community ?  Very simple, IMO- There isnt the political will to do so…..Thanks https://www.lascrucesbulletin.com/stories/las-cruces-police-killed-line-of-duty-trespass-amador,71773 Juan D Garcia575-449-5821 1 [...] Read more...
Sarah Smith- NM Freedom AllianceFebruary 9, 2024Action AlertDear friends,Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is preventing the legislature from hearing HB205 Women’s Bill of Rights. This Bill would protect girls’ and women’s rights to single-sex bathrooms and athletics.  We need to push MLG to let the legislature hear this Bill.  There will be a press conference and Women’s Rights Rally at the Roundhouse in Santa Fe on Tuesday Feb 13 at 10am. Riley Gaines will be at the press conference, and we need to pack the event with people in support for women’s rights. 2 WAYS TO HELP SUPPORT WOMEN’S BILL OF RIGHTS SIGN THE PETITION in favor of the Women’s Bill of Rights: https://oneclickpolitics.global.ssl.fastly.net/messages/edit?promo_id=21843 ATTEND WOMEN’S RIGHTS RALLY IN SANTA FE, Tuesday February 13 at 10am, to show widespread support for this Bill. Rally will be at the Roundhouse, 490 Old Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe, NM 87501.  PLEASE SHARE this info widely! Feel free to share these graphics widely, to apply more pressure to Governor MLG to support Women’s Rights! 6 DAYS LEFT IN LEGISLATIVE SESSION Good news: In collaboration with other organizations statewide, collectively we have submitted over 400,000 emails and calls to the legislature in this session thus far! If you missed the call to action earlier this week, please go here and complete as many of these quick-and-easy actions as you can: https://www.nmfa.us/post/9-days-left-help-us-support-good-laws-and-stop-harmful-ones  Your voice matters. Please send this on to like-minded people!  Donations to support our work are gratefully accepted here: https://www.givesendgo.com/nmfa2024 Thank you for ACTING NOW for the good of New Mexico, Sarah Smith, Karen Larré, and Melanie Rubin New Mexico Freedoms Alliance National Coalition for Health Integrity 1 [...] Read more...
Rob WoodFebruary 7, 2024Sound-OffHow does an 1850 Frenchman’s perspective align with today?What is the Purpose of Law?Laws should be set to prevent certain actions which harm individuals and their property. It should not be used to compel or force people to act in a certain way.One of the main ways in which those in power use the law as a weapon of force is through ‘legalized plunder’. One of the most accepted and prevalent forms of legalized plunder is taxation.Legalized plunder has been so prevalent throughout history because often groups who are initially the victim of legalized plunder try to gain power not to put an end to it, but so they can use the law to take the property of others.“When a politician views society from the seclusion of his office he is struck by the spectacle of inequality that he sees. He deplores the deprivations, which are the lot of so many of our brothers, deprivations, which appear to be even sadder when contrasted with luxury and wealth. Perhaps the politician should ask himself whether this state of affairs has not been caused by old conquests and lootings, and by more recent legal plunder. . . But the politician never gives this a thought. His mind turns to organizations, combinations, and arrangements – legal or apparently legal. He attempts to remedy the evil by increasing and perpetuating the very thing that caused the evil in the first place: legal plunder.” (The Law, Frederick Bastiat)Would a society that didn’t engage in legalized plunder (taxation) help others through voluntary means?Bastiat suggested that the belief that only governments are capable of providing certain services arises from a perverse view of humanity – a view which maintains that free individuals lack the compassion, concern, and capability to help those in need.“If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?” (The Law, Frederick Bastiat)——In summary of this small pamphlet, “The purpose of the law should not be to cause justice to reign but to prevent injustice from reigning. Justice is achieved only when injustice is absent.” p 29 “The Law”.Rob Wood [...] Read more...
CCIAFebruary 4, 2024Action Alert Read more...
Sarah Smith-Free People of the SWJanuary 27, 2024Action AlertDear Las Crucens,Will you please attend the Special School Board Meeting on Tues Jan 30 at 6pm?  As you know, LCPS put together a Book Review Committee as a result of the formal complaint filed by Juan Garcia and myself against the age-inappropriate book Jack of Heart and Other Parts at Mayfield High School.  From a public records request, we have much evidence that several school board members purposely “stacked” the book review committee against us.  We have now filed a formal complaint with the school district for their lack of integrity in creating the “stacked” book review committee.  As a result, there will be a Special School Board Meeting on Tuesday January 30 at 6pm.   At the meeting, the school board will deliberate and decide whether to comply with our request that they throw out the “stacked” committee pool and create a new one that is chosen randomly to better represent our community.   PLEASE ATTEND LCPS SPECIAL BOARD MEETINGThere will be no public comment at this meeting, but it would be very helpful if you would attend to show your support.  WHAT: LCPS Special Board MeetingWHEN: Tuesday January 30 at 6pmWHERE: LCPS Administration Building, 505 S Main Street, Las Cruces DEC APPEAL HEARING In case you missed it, below is a link where you can watch the December 2023 appeal hearing, where the school board voted on the book. This hearing includes: myself and Beth Bousquet (CCIA) presenting to the school board for 10 minutesrebuttal comments from the MHS librarian for 10 minutesdiscussion by the school board explaining their rationale for their decision I hope to see you at the meeting on Tuesday! Standing with you in solidarity, Free People of the Southwest (local action) Sarah Smith and Juan Garcia (CCIA) New Mexico Freedoms Alliance (statewide action) [...] Read more...
Rupa Subramanya of the Free PressJanuary 21, 2024Knowledge Box / Sound-OffFentanyl for minors in CANADA Scrolling through headlines, there’s one question I find myself asking more and more often: What the heck is going on in Canada? From race-based criminal sentencing to media censorship, Canada seems determined to become a world leader in progressive illiberalism. Thankfully, we have one of the great explainers of Canadian craziness on staff here at The Free Press: the mighty Rupa Subramanya. Rupa has covered a lot of big north-of-the-border stories for us, including the furor over the truckers’ protest and Canada’s rapidly expanding euthanasia industry.  And so when I read about a scheme in British Columbia that provides minors access to fentanyl without parental consent—yes! For real!—I asked Rupa to explain what was going on.  Here’s her report:  Since 2020, British Columbia has made a point of providing a “safer supply” of fentanyl to addicts—and, more recently, it has loosened the rules, making it easier for doctors and nurses to prescribe the highly addictive drug to even more people.  That includes minors, who do not require a parent’s permission to get a prescription. The provincial government did not publicize this change—which took effect in August 2023—and most Canadian media has steered clear of the story.  That could be because many Canadian parents are worried about their children getting hooked, or overdosing, on fentanyl. Drug overdose is now the leading cause of death among 10- to 18-year-olds in British Columbia. In April of last year, a five-year-old girl in Nanaimo, British Columbia, just west of Vancouver, accidentally stumbled on a packet of fentanyl at school. Thankfully, her mother found the drugs before anything happened.  British Columbia’s fentanyl policy is in keeping with other Canadian innovations such as medical assistance in dying (MAID), Canada’s euthanasia program that, come March, will be available to those suffering from psychological disorders like anorexia and may be extended to “mature minors” in the future. (I wrote about MAID for The Free Press in 2022.) The new fentanyl policy also dovetails with a British Columbia pilot program launched in January 2023 that legalized small amounts of drugs such as heroin, meth, crack cocaine, and ecstasy.  With a population of roughly five million—a little less than one-eighth of Canada’s population—British Columbia has accounted for about a third of all 32,000 drug-related deaths in Canada since 2016. Julian Somers, a clinical psychologist at Simon Fraser University, just outside Vancouver, told me that the new British Columbia fentanyl policy—distributing a highly addictive drug at pharmacies and clinics—has never been tried anywhere else.  “Rather than taking steps to actively reduce risks, which we’re clearly not doing—it’s not even discussed—our current policies have the appearance of actively contributing to increased risk,” Somers said. [...] Read more...
Victor Davis HansonJanuary 21, 2024Sound-OffThe DEI Ruse Is Imploding– By: Victor Davis Hanson Part One – January 9, 2024 Diversity Has there ever been a sane nation in the world that preferred “diversity” to “unity”? The former Yugoslavia was certainly “diverse,” and it finally stressed its diversity to the point of unending death and destruction. Ditto Rwanda and Iraq. So what exactly was the advantage of ditching the melting pot for the tribalist salad bowl? What was the historical argument for making race essential rather than incidental to who we are—other than institutionalizing racial bias and prejudice to further the careers of mostly middle-class and upper-middle-class “marginalized people”? And what sort of diversity did DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) promote?  Religious? Not at all, at least in the case of Christianity. Declaring oneself overtly Catholic or Protestant would certainly be unorthodox and “diverse” on campus, but not encouraged and more likely a cause for social or career ostracism. Ideology? Was diversity designed to ensure a matter of all sorts of political views? Again, no. Most polls of faculty, especially on the supposed “elite” campuses—whether calibrated by party identification, donations to political causes and candidates, or by ideology—consistently show somewhere between 90–95 percent of academics identify as Democrats or parties to their left, or as “progressive,” or even further still to the left. Did diversity imply or include class in its definition?   Not at all. Most academics are from the upper-middle or professional or aristocratic classes. Claudine Gay, for example, is from a rich Haitian immigrant family (family cement magnates)—a world away from East Palestine, Ohio. She went to one of the nation’s top boarding schools (Phillips Exeter Academy), then Princeton for a year, then Stanford, then Harvard. Ditto all sorts of “diversity” professionals. Remember when Joe Biden announced in advance that he would pick only a “diverse” Vice President, as in a black woman—apparently on the post-George-Floyd rationale that we needed a diverse voice close to the president? Yet both of Kamala Harris’s parents were immigrant PhDs. Her father was a Stanford economics professor, her mother, also an immigrant, was from a well-off Brahmin Hindu caste, a Berkeley PhD, and a cancer researcher. What exactly “diverse” did this upper-middle class elite bring to the White House, other than an anemic résumé jumpstarted through a long liaison with California’s politico Willie Brown? The list of hoi aristoi whom we feel to be oppressed by deplorables of America could go on. But there is a reason DEI has nothing to do with class since those who benefit most from it so often are not in need and are among our upper classes. Diversity then is mostly about being non-white, and to a lesser extent non-male or non-heterosexual—and sometimes making a lot of money off ghost racism. It is mostly a careerist enterprise, a sort of indemnity insurance that protects the holder from criticism, reprimand, or dismissal on grounds of “racism,” “sexism,” or “homophobia.” In the case of Ibram X. Kendi, he siphoned $40 million in corporate cash infusions for his now imploding, “Center for Antiracist Research” at Boston University. That “institute” published almost nothing, conducted little if any research, and had no real existence other than serving as a receptacle for profiteering and grifting in the post-George Floyd and How to be An Antiracist cult era. Still, Kendi’s haul was a distant second to the $90–100 million that BLM founders bragged was “white guilt money”—and which is still mostly unaccounted for. DEI elites made the argument to rich liberal bicoastal elites that institutionalizing bias and prejudice would somehow help the underclasses of the inner cities, whose plight was usually off-limits to constructive solutions that circumvented the professional racial grievances industry. And part of the implicit bargain was that using race to promote upper-middle-class professionals along their career paths would alleviate white liberal guilt and ensure indemnity as well.  Part Two – January 10, 2024 Equity Equity was rebranded as a word to redefine equality as a mandated equalness of result rather than an equality of opportunity. This “spread the wealth” ideology is by design contrary to the Constitution’s devotion to liberty and freedom. DEI’s “equity,” then, is the neo-socialist effort to use government power, reinforced by popular culture, to suppress the perceived wealthy, the more fortunate, and the better off, and then to redistribute their money, influence, and power—summed up as “privilege”—to those arbitrarily labeled less well-off and less fortunate. And there is always the age-old Marxist qualifier that the revolutionaries who determine who is oppressed and who is oppressive are themselves never subject to the consequences of their own ideology. It is the John Kerry logic that only by flying in a carbon-spewing private jet can he hit all the climate conferences and reduce carbon spewing. So our cultural Marxists demand teachers’ unions and hate vouchers and charter schools—as their kids go to prep schools. They defund the police—but usually have access to private security. They demand all-electric vehicles—while they fly on Citations and Gulfstreams. They are versions of the old revolutionaries that were all born rich or at least upper-middle-class—our era’s Trotskys, Lenins, Marxes, Ho Chi Minhs, Mao Zedongs, Castros, and Che Guevaras. The most dangerous Marxists always arise from the bored and guilty privileged and well-off. DEI’s idea of “equity” shares the Marxist boilerplate of just two classes at war with each other. The middle class does not or should not exist as the proletariat of the many battle the few property-holding and despised bourgeoisie. But DEI takes that old, tired binary of oppressed/oppressor and victimized/victimizer and now substitutes race for class. Why? Marxist binaries never worked in the United States. America’s dynamic economy, upward mobility, and class fluidity ensured too often that yesterday’s supposedly doomed proletarian peasant will be tomorrow’s bourgeois owner of a car wash and landscaping business. But substitute immutable race as the barometer of oppression and then you have a supposedly permanent victimized class, one freed from the problem of an absence of class oppression. Presto, suddenly, any non-white, non-male, or non-heterosexual is by fiat a victim—regardless of running their $40 million “Antiracist” center, or raking in $100 million from capitalist corporations, or holding a Princeton full-professorship, or Harvard presidency. By virtue of their supposed non-white status, Kamala Harris, Barack Obama, LeBron James, and Oprah Winfrey will never have privilege, even though they have more of it—money, comfort, influence, and followings—than almost anyone in America. So equity was not about class at all—given that even many of the DEI hierarchy from Ibram X. Kendi (father: tax accountant; mother: business analyst) to Ta-Nehisi Coates (father: a publisher; mother: a teacher) to Cornell West (mother: high school principal; father: defense department contractor) were solidly middle-class to upper-middle class. Michelle Obama recently gave a speech in Berlin to a leftwing group and commanded a $750,000 fee for a one-hour lecture. But note it was on “Diversity” and “Inclusion,” but somehow Michelle omitted “Equity”from the holy woke trinity. Again, why? Perhaps because there is nothing “equitable” about commandeering $12,500 a minute—a 60-second sum more than most people in the world make in a year. The Obamas’ worth has grown since 2009 and now has reached perhaps $100-200 million, perhaps not including their new Hawaii estate. They remain big DEI stalwarts, often lecturing the clinging and deplorable American people on their racist shortcomings and biases from one of their four mansions—in Hawaii, Washington, D.C., Martha’s Vineyard, or Chicago. The idea that millionaire Ta-Nehisi Coates, the Duchess of Sussex Meghan Markle, or billionaire LeBron James are somehow part of a downtrodden group by virtue of their race is absurd. But then again is the entire notion of oppressor/oppressed or victimizer/ victimized that omits all context of individual character, history, merit, and class? So in the twilight of woke, expect to see more “DI” or “Diversity and Inclusion” as “Equity” drops out, given so many of the DEI movement are upwardly mobile careerists. Part Three – January 12, 2024 From Equity to Inclusion No one has made the argument that race in 2024 is an accurate barometer of oppression. And we know the myriad reasons why: how do you determine one’s exact racial percentage in a society of millions of mixed ancestries; why are non-white Asians and a dozen other so-called nonwhite minorities earning more money than are so-called whites; and why are there vast class differences among whites, blacks, and Latinos, to such a degree that poor whites in the rural Midwest have little in common with Silicon Valley elites, just as immigrant grandee Claudine Gay has no intrinsic tie to inner-city blacks. One strange thing about this crazy DEI racket is that among the very brightest minds in academia and journalism, to take just two career examples of professors and reporters, are African American luminaries like Roland Fryer, Glen Loury, Jason Riley, Thomas Sowell, and Shelby Steele. They never needed anything like DEI. They all have justified confidence in their own talent, character, and work ethic, and apparently knew well the toxic relationship between elite white liberal guilt and its twin, the professional and careerist marginalized people victim class. DEI was always about excluding people based on their race, never about including them. It was a reverse civil rights movement. If George Wallace in January 1963 promised “and I say … segregation today … segregation tomorrow … segregation forever,” today universities nod agreement and thus have racially separate graduations, racially segregated dormitories, and racially set-aside spaces on their campus. So much of the surrealism of the Antebellum South and later Jim Crow has found their way into DEI. And why is that shocking, since once anyone goes down the crooked path of racial essentialism for preferences in admission, hiring, promotion, or job tenure, then one needs to employ qualifying racist criteria. And that leads to what exactly? The one-drop rule? The one-sixteenth measure of race of the Confederacy? A DNA test to update the work of apartheid genealogists of old? How do you exclude the grifters like the Liz Warrens and Ward Churchills, or the third-generation Latinos of the upper-middle class who suddenly begin adding accents to their names and trilling their r’s? How do you determine the DNA status of the divorced white woman applying for a professorship who was once married to a Columbian—Liz Garcia-Smith? And how does intersectionality itself work out when races and genders have so many possible manifestations? Claudine Gay benefitted from being black, an immigrant, and a woman. Her class status never was allowed into the equation of what she has called “her truth”? In the era after George Floyd, she said she felt unsafe on the Harvard campus. But compared to what? A Jewish student at Harvard after October 7 during Claudine Gay’s presidency? Was Claudine Gay safer in Harvard Yard or a white middle-class person—or any person—walking about at twilight in Compton? Another DEI result is that the more privileged, middle-class, and of mixed-race one is, strangely the more they are stridently racialist and victimized. Consider the case of Barack Obama or Nikole Hannah Jones. The collective disparagement of “whiteness” and the junk nouns that follow “white,” like privilege, rage, and supremacy, play out at Yale or Stanford or the HR department, but rarely in small towns of the San Joaquin Valley or rural Texas. There are no such things as “micro-aggressions” among truck drivers of all races. There are no “safe spaces” in mines. There are no trigger warnings in nuclear plants—other than warnings that a mistake can radiate anyone of any race. In a shared foxhole one is not required “to check your privilege upon entrance”—given it is not a very privileged thing to be in a foxhole. DEI is a pastime, a psychodrama of the rich, privileged, paranoid, and phobic that seeks to infuse its neuroticisms into every facet of American life. Still, what usually starts as a typically insane academic lounge tic, so often in history insidiously absorbs the popular culture and mainstreams the recklessness. Part Four – January 16, 2024 Epitaph DEI is racist. After lying before Congress that she had to consider “context” and “free speech” before considering discipling anti-Jewish behavior and speech on her Harvard campus, and after being caught plagiarizing in some 60 percent of her meager scholarly output, Claudine Gay pulled out all the racist stops to save her job. She enlisted Harvard, its attorneys, and 700 of its faculty to lie that her plagiarism was not really serious because—the plagiarized did not always complain; because the whistleblowers were anonymous in many cases; because the New York Post had no right to run the story; because Gay claimed she adhered to the highest standards in her scholarship; and because her critics were inordinately conservative. Consider, it was supposedly anti-black to force her removal from the leftwing Harvard Corporation. Ok, but not so when Stanford forced white male president Marc Tessier-Lavigne to resign for far lesser scholarly misconduct? What about the University of Pennsylvania that coerced its white president Liz Magill to quit for ethically challenged testimony, similar to Gay’s but without any hint of scholarly plagiarism in Magill’s resume? Does DEI mean lifetime tenure on the rationale that once standards are no longer purely meritocratic in hiring, they must similarly remain nonmeritocratic for lifelong tenure? Note how most of the current architects of the woke/DEI movement cut their teeth in their youth with overt racist diatribes and racial stereotyping—in far more academic and sophisticated forms than the old anti-Semitic blasts of Louis Farrakhan (“gutter religion”), Jesse Jackson (“That’s all Hymie wants to talk about is Israel; every time you go to Hymietown, that’s all they want to talk about”), Al Sharpton (“If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house”),Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s “personal pastor” (“Them Jews ain’t going to let him talk to me”), Malcolm X(“bloodsuckers”), or Rep. Ilhan Omar (“It’s all about the Benjamins baby”). For example, in his younger days, Professor Ibram X. Kendi (aka Ibram Henry Rogers) wrote that European people had created AIDS to save their race (“white people were fending off racial extinction, using ‘psychological brainwashing’ and ‘the aids virus’”). Keep that in mind and his later career makes perfect sense. Nikole Hannah-Jones, who constructed the 1619 myth, topped Kendi’s craziness, by once writing in her college days that, “The white race is the biggest murderer, rapist, pillager and thief of the modern world…The crimes they committed were unnecessarily cruel and can only be described as acts of the devil.” I guess the 1619 authority did not count Mao Zedong’s erasure of 70 million Chinese. Was Tamerlane who caused 15–20 million deaths a white male under DEI guidelines? How about Attila and Genghis Khan? Or compare another DEI prophet, Ta-Nehisi Coates, who in sick fashion once said of the firemen and police who died as they went into the World Trade City to save the trapped and doomed, “They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could—with no justification—shatter my body.” Note the creepy/weepy cult of victimization embraced by multimillionaire comic book writer Coates, who somehow turns the deaths of thousands of innocents and those who tried to save them into all about himself (“Shatter my body”). In the end, DEI will implode because of its many contradictions: it is racist to the core; it is illegal and violates court decisions and the Constitution; it destroys meritocracy; and it is utterly incoherent in adjudicating who and who not deserve racial preferences. Someday soon, we will once again see the country return to a meritocracy and let the chips fall where they may—perhaps along the lines of the hyper-meritocratic NFL or NBA that apparently feels that racial and gender engineering would be antithetical to equality of opportunity regardless of race and ethnicity. Fans do not care much whether basketball, football, or baseball teams “look like America” or not. 1 [...] Read more...
Rob WoodJanuary 14, 2024Sound-OffLetter to the Bulletin:Editor,In response to Algernon D’Ammassa’s “The Value Of Opinion Pages”, Dec 29, I offer the following:Adding Up the NumbersI find it intriguing that there’s little discussion about the declining population in the United States, particularly given its implications for funding future liabilities. Both China and Japan, countries with virtually non-existent immigration pathways, express great concern over their plummeting birth rates, attributed largely to their ever expanding costs of living.Whether we like it or not, we require an increase in our workforce to compensate for our deficit. Indeed, our current immigration laws are antiquated and do not reflect the country’s labor needs, from manual work to positions requiring advanced degrees. However, beyond these facts, we need a significant wave of fresh immigrants, especially of child bearing age, to make up for the children we are not having. This brings up the uncomfortable truths about our misguided priorities at the family and national levels.Rightfully a negligible proportion of undocumented immigrants processed into our country will be sent back and those remaining will be granted work permits to streamline the taxation of their earnings. Eventually, a majority will be provided pathways to citizenship, as was the case with Ronald Reagan’s amnesty program.The role of economic circumstances, both domestic and international, should not be overlooked as we need taxpaying workers and others seek opportunities to prosper. Regrettably, we, like China and Japan, have adopted the attitude that we don’t want our culture diluted by outsiders, even though America was indeed founded as a melting pot for diverse cultures. The implications arise when, to their political and economic benefit, social justice advocates selectively segment out and support certain groups, thereby stalling the necessary blending process that secures America’s identity as a nation.Rob Wood3427 Chimney Rock RoadLas Cruces, 88011575-635-0803 [...] Read more...

Do you know the issues?


CCIA IN ACTIONLatest pictures from the Gallery:

Come to our next meeting and inquire about getting involved and in ACTION.

CCIA_flyer
Faith Outreach

Faith Outreach Committee

Crime and Local Politics

Crime and Local Politics ACTION Committee

Education

Education ACTION Committee

Election Integrity

Election Integrity ACTION Committee

PlayPause
CCIA_flyer
Faith Outreach
Crime and Local Politics
Education
Election Integrity
previous arrow
next arrow

Weekly Action Alert