• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Is America Conquered When the American Flag Is 'Offensive'?

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
May 09, 2010
Is America Conquered When the American Flag Is 'Offensive'?
By John Griffing

Californians were recently confronted with a sobering reality. Students at a large high school in the Morgan Hill district were told by school administrators that American flag tee shirts and other patriotic paraphernalia were not allowed, citing Cinco de Mayo as justification.

Few students at the school probably realize that America provided help to Mexico in expelling the French, whose defeat at the Battle of Puebla is commemorated on May 5. How can American flags be "offensive" on a day that is almost as much American as it is Mexican? Cinco de Mayo is not even celebrated as a national holiday in Mexico. This incident follows Columbus Day's downgrade to "Indigenous People's Day" in some cities in the dying state. While certainly no one is against the idea of cultural celebrations, guests do not get to tell the host to sit down and shut up. This is merely the tip of a very large iceberg stretching deep into the heart of the American Southwest.

Due to immigration policies that cater to U.S. corporations and politicians -- witness the furor over Arizona's new law -- a substantial fifth column has been admitted into the halls of freedom, and they are starting to demand changes. Following the "reconquista" approach favored by many activists, Mexican immigrants have sought to return the American Southwest to Mexico through means of slow and patient occupation.

While not every Mexican immigrant desires the overthrow of the United States government, seventy percent of them say that Mexico comes first in questions of loyalty. Is this the kind of immigration America wants or needs? How can America be a nation if its inhabitants pledge allegiance to another flag? What about when those of Latino birth occupy a majority share of the U.S. population, as is predicted to occur by 2050? This is a problem that needs to be addressed now.

How did America get here?

The Mexico-first attitude dominating political discourse has taken years to cultivate, aided primarily by the deliberate misinformation of groups like Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan, or the Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA). MEChA has three hundred chapters on college campuses all over the country and demands "restitution for past economic slavery, political exploitation, ethnic and cultural psychological destruction[.]" Here is the short version of the MEChA screed:

Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we ... should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot ... Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas ... brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.


This is pure, fabricated nonsense. There is not now, nor has there ever been, any such land called "Aztlan." The American Southwest was never ruled by the Aztecs. And Mexico's jurisdiction over these territories lasted a mere ten years, owing in part to the historic Spanish presence.

But MEChA doesn't stop at propaganda.

Miguel Perez, President of Cal-State Northridge's MEChA chapter, said, "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest. Once Aztlan is established, ethnic cleansing would commence: Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled -- opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power."

Compounding this problem is the fact that Mexican schoolchildren are taught from birth that the gringo stole Mexican land. Mexico has even secured the right to propagate these racial myths in American classrooms. The Mexican Consulate in Los Angeles sent nearly 100,000 textbooks to 1,500 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District in 2006[1].

Far from stealing Mexican land, the United States paid handsomely for the land it acquired, and Mexican President Santa Anna was only too happy to oblige [2]. The consequences of this historical revisionism are alarming: In a June 2002 Zogby International Poll, 58 percent of Mexicans polled agreed that the "territory of the United States Southwest belongs to Mexico."

An invasion is underway, aided by opportunists on both sides of America's political spectrum. In the nineties, President Clinton used immigration as a voter-recruitment tool, naturalizing large numbers of Latinos in order to secure his hold on the White House. The project was spearheaded by now-chief Obama advisor Rahm Emmanuel. Judging from President Obama's response to Arizona's action, we shouldn't expect a change of strategy any time soon.

Both California and Texas hold decisive electoral votes, so now many political leaders must ritualistically seek the blessing of groups like the National Council de La Raza to obtain the Mexican-American vote. When Mexican President Ernst Zedillo spoke to La Raza in 1997 and uttered the words, "I have proudly proclaimed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders," members of La Raza jumped to their feet in thunderous applause.

No longer a fringe concept, there is now substantial political leverage behind those demanding that the American Southwest become Mexican. Not too long ago, politicians in New Mexico debated changing the state's name to "Nuevo Mexico." California Prop 187, a measure denying further state benefits to illegal immigrants, was struck down after a lawsuit initiated by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) challenged the constitutionality of the proposition.

Constitutionality? For illegal immigrants?

California legislator Art Torres called Prop 187 "the last gasp of white America." The President of LULAC was very direct, saying, "California is going to be a Mexican state. We are going to control all of the institutions. If people don't like it, they should leave." The Mayor of Los Angeles, Antonio Villaraigosa, who once chaired the UCLA chapter of MEChA, ran on a slogan of "Los Angeles Today, Alta California Tomorrow."

The Mexican government is encouraging this process of conquest, with former Mexican Consul General José Pescador Osuna remarking, "Even though I am saying this part serious, part joking, I think we are practicing La Reconquista in California." Some U.S. towns have already partially seceded to Mexico. El Cenizo, Texas has declared the town language Spanish, ordered that all business be conducted in Spanish, and has made talking with immigration authorities a firing offense. Mexico's outright invasion of America has taken on some not-so-subtle tones. Mexican military incursions into the U.S. to protect Mexico's drug trade are now frequent. The Department of Homeland Security records 231 since 1996.

Jorge Castaneda, when he was still Mexico's Foreign Minister, remarked before Mexican reporters, "I like very much the metaphor of Gulliver, of ensnarling the giant ... Tying it down with nails, with thread, with 20,000 nets that bog it down: these nets being norms, principles, resolutions, agreements and bilateral, regional, and international covenants." This is official Mexican policy, yet we respond with Free Trade Agreements and open arms of friendship.

In order to demonstrate our lack of prejudice, we have welcomed enemies into our midst.

America is a generous nation. We're a society of many cultures. We embrace all people, of all races, and offer freedom to all who come with honest intentions. But Americans cannot continue to turn a blind eye to the intentions of our "peaceful" invaders.

Today, there are large numbers of individuals residing in the U.S. who neither consider themselves Americans nor want to become Americans. Some have organized into militant groups whose stated purpose is to overpopulate the southwestern United States and reclaim it for Mexico without firing a shot.

Will we continue to let Mexico dictate to the U.S.? Enough is enough. The time has come to defend ourselves.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/05/is_america_conquered_when_the.html
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
May 09, 2010
If America Were a Free Country, Immigration Would Not Be a Problem
By Deborah B. Sloan

Prior to the early twentieth century, immigrants to America were typically poor when they arrived here. But they sought no unearned handouts as they struggled to raise their standard of living and assimilate into their newly adopted society. These early immigrants achieved the life that they had worked for without violating anyone else's rights. That was how it was when America was a free country.

Now, the crippling burden of our massive regulatory welfare state, along with the federal government's disregard for crimes committed against citizens by violent foreign gangs and drug cartels, has turned immigration into a problem. This problem is the result not of innocent people seeking a better life, but of an overbearing government that is too big not to fail.

A century of progressive legislation culminating in the money-hemorrhaging Obama administration has resulted in a system of taxation by which approximately half of Americans pay no federal income tax, and 40 percent actually receive payments from their fellow citizens via the IRS. With this being the case, the majority of new immigrants from poor countries fall into the category who pay nothing and receive benefits that taxpayers are forced to provide.

Indeed, a 2006 Heritage Foundation study shows that immigrants pay little in taxes and receive high levels of government assistance. Because illegal immigrants qualify for fewer benefits than legal immigrants, granting them amnesty would cost American taxpayers an estimated half-trillion dollars per year. Even without these additional costs, the government will spend over 10 trillion taxpayer dollars on welfare programs over the next decade.

Furthermore, the 2006 study was conducted before passage of ObamaCare, which forces taxpayers to subsidize even more of their fellow citizens' health coverage, while paying higher premiums for their own health care as costs are driven higher by the new legislation.

To make matters worse, White House budget director Peter Orszag has shockingly commented that the independent payment advisory board created by ObamaCare will have enormous power to cut Medicare payments and thereby impose rationing to save money for the government. The addition of millions more citizens who are unable to support themselves will only add to this burden of rising costs, rising taxes, and government-imposed rationing of critical, life-saving health care.

None of these injustices is the fault of the immigrant community; these immoral policies are the fault of an out-of-control government that is no longer limited to the protection of individual rights, and instead actively violates these rights on a daily basis.

In addition to exploding the dependent population, our porous borders have allowed violent gangs and drug cartels to advance north into the American southwest. People who live in areas close to the border such as southern Arizona are in the crossfire of violent drug traffickers who commit murders, kidnappings, home invasions, and robberies. Only last week, a central Arizonan sheriff was shot in the stomach by one of a group of immigrant smugglers wielding an AK-47 assault rifle.

Even if we were to adopt the most liberal immigration policies, it is imperative to have secure borders; keeping its citizens safe is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of a government, but ours is defaulting on this responsibility for political reasons. Left-leaning politicians express an outpouring of concern for the feelings of those who might interpret enhanced border security as being racially motivated, but they exhibit callous disregard for the citizens who are being terrorized, and in some cases killed, by criminals from south of the border.

Cries for a civilized, honest debate arise from the left as a knee-jerk response to those who express articulate opposition to their agenda, yet these same leftists hurl the absurd accusation of racism at anyone who favors securing our borders. Even the chaotic soup of wild emotions and random, out-of-context facts that make up the intellect of a liberal should be capable of grasping the possibility that factors other than an irrelevant physical attribute drive opposition to their political agenda.

So why can't we have the honest, rational immigration debate that the left is calling for? The explanation is simple: Openness and honesty will not advance their statist agenda. Ayn Rand elegantly presented this principle in her book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal: "When opposite basic principles are clearly and openly defined, it works to the advantage of the rational side; when they are not clearly defined, but are hidden or evaded, it works to the advantage of the irrational side." The truth poses a threat to proponents of tyranny.

The statists stand to benefit from a degradation of the American standard of living, from balkanized group politics that disregard the individual and from lies and distortions presented by the mainstream media as objective facts. They are collectivists. They know that an honest discussion of the issues would reveal the moral obscenity of their attempts to exploit immigrants and citizens alike for the purpose of expanding their power and destroying a civilization that they despise. It would reveal the moral bankruptcy of their argument that it is our duty to throw our borders wide open and care for needy people from around the globe, even as it destroys us. The statists would not want more Americans to consider the idea that it is a profoundly moral loyalty to life that drives many of us to reject this torture and defend our right to exist.

There are no conflicts of interest among rational men; innocent, decent, and honest people who want to immigrate to America should be welcome here. In a free society, immigration is beneficial to all. Absent the perverse incentives created by a rights-violating welfare state that refuses to protect its citizens, why wouldn't we want to welcome productive, hardworking, freedom-loving Americans-in-spirit? It is crucial that the nature of the present immigration conflict be identified: It is not a conflict between whites and Hispanics or between citizens and immigrants. At its root, it is a conflict between those who wish to live and be free and the emerging tyrannical regime that seeks to control us.
 

Larrry

Well-known member
Just amazing.....yet so many sit idly by or comply to these nuts.

Stand up, this country has one flag....love it
 
Top