How to destroy the USA IN SIX EASY STEPS..............

[José]

The super patriotic american clowns of this message board can defecate out of their mouths all they want.

This won’t change the historical reality:

What happened in Texas in 1836 fits the definition of land grab PERFECTLY.

Did spaniards and mexicans carry out a langrab against Apaches, Mescaleros etc...?

Of course they did and, in my opinion, it was wrong.

Those peoples had every right to call the american southwest their homeland since they had an age old presence there and they had the right to have their hunting grounds respected.

Would the creation of a new hispanic nation comprising Mexico’s former provinces qualify as a land grab?

Most definitely. And I would not support it cuz I object to ALL landgrabs as a matter of principle. The american people have the right to keep the territorial integrity of their country intact.

That’s the difference between a serious person and the super patriotic american clown.

As a serious person I have moral reservations about all landgrabs, including those carried out by my ethnic group.

 

[jillian]

thats some good stuff...

I wouldn't necessarily say that I mimic his point of view... but you gotta admit that the delivery strikes a chord.

ummmmm... in much the same way, perhaps as my riding a bicycle strikes the same chord as when lance armstrong rides one.

sorry...couldn't resist.

 

[Ravi]

WEll.....after losing the Texas Revolution (and Tejas) Santa Anna said that Mexico would take back Texas without firing a shot. Some historians claim that he may have meant that Mexico's military would eventually be so powerful that Texas could not fight back. Others see it as Santa Anna's grand plan to retake Texas by "recolonizing" it under a cloak of darkness. Whites are now considered the minority in Texas.
There are way more Mexicans in Texas than there are people of European and African descent. I do realize that many of these "MExicans" are really just of Mexican heritage but were born here and are American citizens. However, many of these Mexican-Americans have family in Mexico. There are also millions more that are illegal. Given the right circumstances, the shear volumn of Mexicans could result in a rebellion. I'm not advocating a conspiracy, but it's certainly not off the table. Some would say that the Texas border today is as dangerous as Iraq. The drug wars are spilling into the U.S. and the Mexican military has made numerous incursions (miles) into the U.S. without permission from the U.S. govt or Texas. There have been BATTLES on the border towns. And when I say battle I mean RPGs, machine guns, grenades, etc.....Many Americans are simply "missing" (being kidnapped) as well as thousands of Mexicans living in border towns.
When the govt. was starting to talk about immigration a while back, I remember all of the rioting and protests by many Mexicans. I wouldn't be suprised if an eventual action was taken by the govt. causing mass rioting and rebellion. It's a very unstable situation. Do I really think this will happen tomorrow??? No. But I do beleive that it is a possibility.

Brian, I'm curious...were whites ever a majority in Texas?

If drugs wars are a problem the easiest solution is to decriminalize drugs. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the US Government or the State of Texas going after the drug lords or the rogue Mexican militia.

I think you are making my point for me. Millions of people without status are millions of unhappy people. France is making a similar mistake by allowing second class citizens to live in their country. Even though they are "legal" they have not much loyalty to a country that doesn't want to give them any rights. I think the best way to make people loyal to America is to let them become Americans. It's worked for generations. The one hole in my plan is that would probably just encourage more people to come here, that I don't know what to do about.

 

[BrianH]

Brian

Let’s first consider this...

Even the mexican population of Texas, living there for many generations, didn’t have any right to secede from Mexico for the same reason the hispanic population of states like Jalisco and Baja California cannot secede either:

They did not constitute a separate ethnic identity, distinct from the rest of Mexico’s population.

You couldn’t tell the diference between a Tejano or a Californio and a mexican from Jalisco.

Tejanos = 100% Mexicans = no right to an independent state

Now let’s adress the american settlers.

Only ethnic groups who have a HISTORICAL PRESENCE on a given region can claim the right to have a separate state.

300 americans cannot emigrate to Greece and claim part of the country as their homeland 13 years later. Ethnic groups cannot be considered natives of the land without at least 2 generations born and bred in their new homeland.

BRIAN = “No different than Mexico repelling against Spain”

Historical presence of mexicans on their homeland = 1519 – 1810 = 291 years

BRIAN = “or The Colonists rebelling against the British.”

Historical presence of americans on their homeland = 1607 – 1776 = 169 years

Anglo settlers in Texas

Historical presence of anglo settlers in Tejas = 1823 – 1836 = 13 years

Place of Birth

Stephen Austin = Virginia

Samuel Houston = Virginia

David Crockett = Tennessee

etc, etc, etc...

FOREIGN-BORN CITIZENS HAVE NO RIGHT TO CLAIM ANY REGION OF THEIR NEW COUNTRY AS THEIR HISTORICAL HOMELAND AFTER A 13 YEAR PRESENCE, LET ALONE THE RIGHT TO SECEDE.

You can scrutinize all you like, it does not change anything. You are approaching this as a secession. It was a revolution...hence "The Texas Revolution." The Mexican government granted American settlers the right to settle in Texas. Not only were they granted the right, they were made full citizens of Mexico, priviledge to all rights any other Mexican citizens. The number of years a citizen has been a citizen does not dictate the number of rights one has. If an Arabic immigrants gets his citizenship tomorrow, he's got the same rights that I do.

The basic fact, is that the Texans rebelled and won. No matter what the real motive was, they won and Texas got it's independence. Spain splashed across the Atlantic and whiped out thousands and thousands of Aztecs when they "landgrabbed" central America and what is now Mexico. Then the Mexicans rebelled against the Spanish and won. Whether you agree with motives or not, you would not be here if it wasn't for "landgrabbing." There would be no civilization in the Americans had it not been for landgrabbing. Everyone would have stayed put in Mesopotamia.

Now, do I think we should run over to Great Britain and grab that?? No. But the fact remains, the American colonists rebelled and won their independence, the Mexicans rebelled against the Spanish and won their independence, Texas rebelled against Mexico and won it's independence. I understand your disagreement with "landgrabbing" but when the people of a nation (which were Texans who were granted citizenship of Mexico) feel like they're being dumped on, they do things about it. There is more to it than Just Texans getting greedy and grabbing land. Santa Anna (in 1835) abolished the Constitution of 1824 and put an anti-federalist constitution in place of it. It was not just Texas that was pissed off, but most of Mexico. Mexico openned it's borders for immigration of Anglos and then dried desperately to slam the door in their face by out-lawing slaves and issuing other measures to make immigration less desireable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Revolution

"Texians were becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Mexican government. Many of the Mexican soldiers garrisoned in Texas were convicted criminals who were given the choice of prison or serving in the army in Texas. Many Texians were also unhappy with the location of their state capital, which moved periodically between Saltillo and Monclova, both of which were in southern Coahuila, some 500 miles (800 km) away; they wanted Texas to be a separate state from Coahuila (but not independent from Mexico) and to have its own capital. They believed a closer location for the capital would help to stem corruption and facilitate other matters of government. Some American immigrants and Mexican citizens were accustomed to the rights they had in the U.S. that they did not have in Mexico. For example, Mexico did not protect Freedom of Religion, instead requiring colonists to pledge their acceptance of Roman Catholicism; Mexican Law required a "tithe" paid to the Catholic Church. Cotton was in high demand throughout Europe and most settlers wanted to raise cotton for big profits. But Mexico demanded that the settlers produce corn, grain, and beef and dictated which crops each settler would plant and harvest. Unlike in the states of the Southern United States where slavery was legal, the status of slaves in Mexico was ambiguous. Although Mexico had officially outlawed slavery, the government was widely tolerant of the holding of slaves,[citation needed] but not their sale. Slave traders were thus unhappy with the limitations imposed upon them. Although these many issues caused friction, they were not to incite the settlers to revolt as a whole."


If Santa Anna wasn't so busy worrying about a little nook nook, he may have defeated the Texans and we would have been having this discussion in Spanish....however, luckily for Texas, Santa Anna was a horndog and was knee-deep in the Yellow-Rose when the attack came at San Jacinto.

 

[BrianH]

Brian, I'm curious...were whites ever a majority in Texas?

If drugs wars are a problem the easiest solution is to decriminalize drugs. Other than that, I don't see a problem with the US Government or the State of Texas going after the drug lords or the rogue Mexican militia.

I think you are making my point for me. Millions of people without status are millions of unhappy people. France is making a similar mistake by allowing second class citizens to live in their country. Even though they are "legal" they have not much loyalty to a country that doesn't want to give them any rights. I think the best way to make people loyal to America is to let them become Americans. It's worked for generations. The one hole in my plan is that would probably just encourage more people to come here, that I don't know what to do about.

I believe whites were the majority until recently. When the American settlers were settling here, there really weren't that many Mexican citizens in Texas terriroty at the time. It was a fairly new territory and many Mexicans did not settle north of San Antonio because of the constant threat of Comanches and Apache Indians. So I believe that immediately after the Texas Revolution, there was a larger influx of Anglo immigration into the new nation (at the time).

You make a good point about the drug warfare, however, this is not what is happening. The U.S. or Texas is not the ones going after these drug cartels. What has happenned, is that there are numerous drug cartels (Two main ones) that are competing for the drug trafficing business at the border. They are battling one another. Now, what is happenning, is that the Mexican military and police are caught right in the middle. It is the Mexican military and police, as well as drug cartels that are spilling over the border. The Mexican military and police have made numerous incursions into the U.S., illegally.

I have no problem with Immigration. I have no problem if a Mexican family wants to go through the process and become an American citizen. The problem is the MILLIONs of illegals crossing every day due to the lack of enforcement on the border; and lots of them are members of drug cartels and violent Mexican gangs (MS13). The problem is not immigration, but immigration based on the lack of border security. This situations has given rise to the easiness of drug cartels to pass freely across and contribute to this violence. It's a really bad situation IMO...bad enough for the U.S. military to send troops to the border to help the border patrol. I'm not quite sure if the U.S. military is assisting with the drug warfare, but it could be a possibility. I think for the most part, the drug cartels are fighting each other as well as the Mexican police and military.

 

[Ravi]

What kind of drugs and where do the originate?

 

[AllieBaba]

The super patriotic american clowns of this message board can defecate out of their mouths all they want.

This won’t change the historical reality:

What happened in Texas in 1836 fits the definition of land grab PERFECTLY.

Did spaniards and mexicans carry out a langrab against Apaches, Mescaleros etc...?

Of course they did and, in my opinion, it was wrong.

Those peoples had every right to call the american southwest their homeland since they had an age old presence there and they had the right to have their hunting grounds respected.

Would the creation of a new hispanic nation comprising Mexico’s former provinces qualify as a land grab?

Most definitely. And I would not support it cuz I object to ALL landgrabs as a matter of principle. The american people have the right to keep the territorial integrity of their country intact.

That’s the difference between a serious person and the super patriotic american clown.

As a serious person I have moral reservations about all landgrabs, including those carried out by my ethnic group.

I'm looking forward to the next land grab...in Siberia after they open up the tunnel between Siberia and Alaska.

 

[Shogun]

As I said, Brian, your argument is very good at first sight, but it simply doesn’t hold up under close scrutiny.

you really are one to talk, buddy. Hell, I drove you into avoiding MY posts because you can't make any excuses for the legitimate MEXICAN GOVERNMENT granting access to texas for 300 of us gringos. Don't like the racist posts now, do ya?

 

[Shogun]

The super patriotic american clowns of this message board can defecate out of their mouths all they want.

This won’t change the historical reality:

What happened in Texas in 1836 fits the definition of land grab PERFECTLY.
Did spaniards and mexicans carry out a langrab against Apaches, Mescaleros etc...?
Of course they did and, in my opinion, it was wrong.
Those peoples had every right to call the american southwest their homeland since they had an age old presence there and they had the right to have their hunting grounds respected.
Would the creation of a new hispanic nation comprising Mexico’s former provinces qualify as a land grab?
Most definitely. And I would not support it cuz I object to ALL landgrabs as a matter of principle. The american people have the right to keep the territorial integrity of their country intact.
That’s the difference between a serious person and the super patriotic american clown.
As a serious person I have moral reservations about all landgrabs, including those carried out by my ethnic group.

Polish your own turd, buddy! we NEVER see Jillian do the same when it comes time to champion israel, Right or Wrong, do we?


Hell, call me names to AVOID historic fact some more too.. you probably ARENT taking a page right from the Scarlet A handbook.


You don't like it? Take you ass back to mexico and do something with your OWN homeland besides let it become a fucking shit hole while blaming gringos for the exchange rate of your peso.

 

[Shogun]

ummmmm... in much the same way, perhaps as my riding a bicycle strikes the same chord as when lance armstrong rides one.

sorry...couldn't resist.

i'll give you a free shot since I just reflected on your avoidance techniques when the issue is your pet nation instead of Jose's.

 

[BrianH]

What kind of drugs and where do the originate?

I believe mostly marijuana and cocaine. I think cocaine is the big one that comes through. They have busts all the time on 18-wheelers around where I live. There's always several thousand pounds of something mixed in with veggies...

 

[Shogun]

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TShPYA-OuPs&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TShPYA-OuPs&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[ame]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TShPYA-OuPs[/ame]

 

[Ravi]

I believe mostly marijuana and cocaine. I think cocaine is the big one that comes through. They have busts all the time on 18-wheelers around where I live. There's always several thousand pounds of something mixed in with veggies...

And coke comes from Columbia, doesn't it? Once upon a time there was a big problem with drug smuggling here...looks like it's just shifted as our drug patrols got better. That's one of the big problems I have with border fences, it'll just shift the place people cross.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Mexico is pretty much the drug traffickers headquarters of choice for all the countries of Central and SA. Our borders need to be protected from the triple threat of illegals, druggers, and terrorists. Frankly, I'd like to see the armed services protecting our southern border today. Our border patrol isn't enough.

There are at least half a dozen major drug cartels fighting for dominance, clashing especially along the border. The two most powerful are the Sinaloa Cartel and the Gulf Cartel. There is a long history of violent drug trafficking in Mexico. The increased clashes along the borders among the cartels is a result of Calderon's army making headway in one area causing them to move into another territory. The increased pressure is also causing the increasing backlash of violence against authorities everywhere in Mexico.

It's thought that about half the Mexican police work for the cartels, either for the money or because the cartel thugs threaten them to cooperate or die. The narcos even post lists of who they are going to kill. Several police have escaped to the U.S. seeking protection. The cartels have paramilitary capabilities as they have recruited ex-soldiers as well as state police into their ranks. These Mexican police don't just protect them but they also have done executions and kidnappings for the cartels. The narcos have murdered top police officials, federal judges, and even a Catholic Cardinal. More than 2500 have been killed in the past year. It's a real war out there. http://ww4report.com/node/5487

In some places the drug lords have become so powerful that they take over whole towns. The Mexican government can't even collect taxes. The drug lords control the farms, the businesses, and even institute their own mayors and other government officials.

The Mexican government is also facing communist/socialist revolutionary groups such as the Zapatistas based in Chiapas or the Popular Revolutionary Army (EPR) of the state of Guerrero and FARC (Columbia) who have become well armed and trained in cahoots with the drug dealers.

There is recent US legislation called the Merida Initiative which was supposed to send about 1.4 billion to help Mexican President Calderon wage his war on drug trafficking and provide much needed helicopters and equipment. However, it looks like it may become an election issue.

Mexican Narcoviolence Spills into U.S. Elections
May 28, 2008

The murder of the acting chief of Mexico's federal police amid an unprecedented wave of drug gang attacks on security officials will soon become a major issue in the U.S. presidential candidates' escalating war for Hispanic votes.

Until now, Republicans and Democrats had tried to make as little noise as possible about the Bush administration's M&#233;rida Initiative, a request for $500 million to help Mexico fight its drug cartels. They hoped to pass it quietly, fearing that a high-profile debate would stir up political passions on both sides of the border and kill the proposal.

But with drug war violence in Mexico escalating to record levels in recent memory, that's changing fast.

Likely Republican candidate Sen. John McCain will probably try to cut into the Democrats' growing lead among Hispanics by saying that their proposal to reduce the M&#233;rida Initiative by up to $190 million amounts to ''abandoning'' Mexico at a time when President Felipe Calder&#243;n's government is facing a bigger than ever attack from the drug cartels.

cont.
http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=42041789a560c6d44ffda82c6ed029ae

 

[José]

Originally posted by Shogun
you really are one to talk, buddy. Hell, I drove you into avoiding MY posts because you can't make any excuses for the legitimate MEXICAN GOVERNMENT granting access to texas for 300 of us gringos. Don't like the racist posts now, do ya?

Shogun supports the constitutional ban on foreign born presidents.

Naturalized americans can&#8217;t rule the US but naturalized Mexicans have every right to steal half of Mexico.

 

[José]

And I’m the one applying double standards here.

 

[José]

Originally posted by BrianH
You can scrutinize all you like, it does not change anything. You are approaching this as a secession. It was a revolution...hence "The Texas Revolution." The Mexican government granted American settlers the right to settle in Texas. Not only were they granted the right, they were made full citizens of Mexico, priviledge to all rights any other Mexican citizens. The number of years a citizen has been a citizen does not dictate the number of rights one has. If an Arabic immigrants gets his citizenship tomorrow, he's got the same rights that I do.

Brian,

I think you don’t have a clear idea about the requirements for any group of people with valid aspirations for statehood.

The right to national self determination has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.

The basic requirements for statehood are:

1) A separate ethnic identity (people in Manchester and Liverpool don’t have any valid claim to statehood because they’re English just like Londoners).

2) A historical presence on the territory they inhabit, ie, a historical homeland.

Let me present a couple of examples to make myself clearer:

Let’s imagine a parallel universe where 100% of French Canadians wants to secede from Canada.

They have a right to an independent homeland, at least in theory, not because they are Canadian citizens with the same rights as anglos, but because the French Canadian population constitutes a separate ethnic group with a long historical presence in their homeland, Quebec (many centuries, dozens of generations born there, not foreigners who arrived there 13 years ago).

Similarly, Kurds have a valid claim to an independent country, not because they are citizens of Turkey and therefore have a right to secede, but because the Kurdish people is ethnically distinct from Turks and have a ancient historical presence in what is called Kurdistan.

The same can be said about the Tibetan people.

Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens but regardless of their citizenship status they have every right to live in the territory now occupied by Israel because the entire region of Palestine is their historical homeland. They lived there for hundreds of years until 48 and 67.

No matter the nature of their grievances, Brian, a group of naturalized foreigners have no right to secede because the territory upon which the new state will be created is not their historical homeland.

The only thing they can do is try to convince the government to address their complaints or, as a last resource, return to their country of origin.

Ethnic identity and historical homelands give humans the right to have a state, not citizenship.

I know perfectly well this is not the way countries used to be created until recently in human history, so you don’t need to show me a list of all the land grabs that happened in the world during the last 30.000 years.

I know brute force often took, and still takes, precedence over legitimate claims to statehood.

The only thing I’m saying here, Brian, is that anglo americans had no valid claim to create an independent country in Texas because the Mexican state was not their historical homeland by any stretch of the imagination, therefore it was a perfect case of land grab.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

Subject: Immigration----


We know Dick Lamm as the former Governor of Colorado. In that context his thoughts are particularly poignant. Last week there was an immigration overpopulation conference in Washington , DC , filled to capacity by many of America 's finest minds and leaders. A brilliant college professor by the name of Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, "Mexifornia," explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California . He said it would march across the country until it destroyed all vestige s of The American Dream.


Moments later, former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm stood up and gave a stunning speech on how to destroy America . The audience sat spellbound as he described eight methods for the destruction of the United States . He said, "If you believe that America is too smug, too self-satisfied, too rich, then let's destroy America . It is not that hard to do. No nation in history has survived the ravages of time. Arnold Toynbee observed that all great civilizations rise and fall and that 'An autopsy of history would show that all great nations commit suicide.'"


"Here is how they do it," Lamm said: "First, to destroy America , turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country." History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual. The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: "The histories of bilingual and bi-cultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy." Canada , Belgium , Malaysia , and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.".


Lamm went on: Second, to destroy America , "Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal. That there are no cultural differences Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.


Third, "We could make the United States an 'Hispanic Quebec' without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: "The apparent success of our own multiethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together." Lamm said, "I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities."


"Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school."


"My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of 'Victimology' I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population."


"My sixth plan for America 's downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other - that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together. Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common Language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A comm on enemy, Persia , threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. "E. Pluribus Unum" --From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the pluribus' instead of the 'Unum,' we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo."


"Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits; make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.' I would find a word similar to 'heretic' in the 16th century - that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like 'racist' or 'xenophobe' halt discussion and debate. Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of 'Victimology,' I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America , it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetry and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them."


In the last minute of his speech, Governor Lamm wiped his brow. Profound silence followed. Finally he said,. "Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis's book "Mexifornia." His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America . If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don't read that book.


There was no applause. A chilling fear quietly rose like an ominous cloud above every attendee at the conference. Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed. Over 100 languages are ripping the foundation of our educational system and national cohesiveness. Even barbaric cultures that practice female genital mutilation are growing as we celebrate 'diversity.' American jobs are vanishing into the Third World as corporations create a Third World in America - take note of California and other states - to date, ten million illegal aliens and growing fast. It is reminiscent of George Orwell's book "1984." In that story, three slogans are engraved in the Ministry of Truth building: "War is peace," "Freedom is slavery," and "Ignorance is strength."


Governor Lamm walked back to his seat. It dawned on everyone at the conference that our nation and the future of this great democracy is deeply in trouble and worsening fast. If we don't get this immigration monster stopped within three years, it will rage like a California wildfire and destroy everything in its path especially The American Dream.


If you care for and love our country as I do, take the time to pass this on just as I did for you. NOTHING is going to happen if you don't.

Ironically, this is one of the most unAmerican things I've ever read.

 

[BrianH]

Brian,

I think you don’t have a clear idea about the requirements for any group of people with valid aspirations for statehood.

The right to national self determination has absolutely nothing to do with citizenship.

The basic requirements for statehood are:

1) A separate ethnic identity (people in Manchester and Liverpool don’t have any valid claim to statehood because they’re English just like Londoners).

2) A historical presence on the territory they inhabit, ie, a historical homeland.

Let me present a couple of examples to make myself clearer:

Let’s imagine a parallel universe where 100% of French Canadians wants to secede from Canada.

They have a right to an independent homeland, at least in theory, not because they are Canadian citizens with the same rights as anglos, but because the French Canadian population constitutes a separate ethnic group with a long historical presence in their homeland, Quebec (many centuries, dozens of generations born there, not foreigners who arrived there 13 years ago).

Similarly, Kurds have a valid claim to an independent country, not because they are citizens of Turkey and therefore have a right to secede, but because the Kurdish people is ethnically distinct from Turks and have a ancient historical presence in what is called Kurdistan.

The same can be said about the Tibetan people.

Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are not Israeli citizens but regardless of their citizenship status they have every right to live in the territory now occupied by Israel because the entire region of Palestine is their historical homeland. They lived there for hundreds of years until 48 and 67.

No matter the nature of their grievances, Brian, a group of naturalized foreigners have no right to secede because the territory upon which the new state will be created is not their historical homeland.

The only thing they can do is try to convince the government to address their complaints or, as a last resource, return to their country of origin.

Ethnic identity and historical homelands give humans the right to have a state, not citizenship.

I know perfectly well this is not the way countries used to be created until recently in human history, so you don’t need to show me a list of all the land grabs that happened in the world during the last 30.000 years.

I know brute force often took, and still takes, precedence over legitimate claims to statehood.

The only thing I’m saying here, Brian, is that anglo americans had no valid claim to create an independent country in Texas because the Mexican state was not their historical homeland by any stretch of the imagination, therefore it was a perfect case of land grab.

I see what you are saying, and it may be one thing on this entire message board that I agree with you on. I understand your qualm with landgrabbing, I however agree with your second to last paragraph that brute force usually does take precedence... Unfortunately, we cannot go back in time and reverse wrong doings. If this was the case, we could spend the rest of our lives getting mad at "landgrabs." In my personal opinion, I believe that it was definately a positive thing financially for Mexico. I'm not saying the U.S. doesn't have problems, but judging from all of the problems Mexico has, Texas would have been more territory to deal with. Who knows how far behind we in Texas would be had Texas not been apart of the U.S. The same scenario could be applied to Mexico. The Spaniards came over and took over all of Central America and killed many natives in the process. This was a landgrab that cannot be reversed. The Mexicans revolted against spain and did the same thing (under a little different circumstances though--similar to the American Revolution). Though these all might seem a bit unethical, they happened and you can't sit around and be mad at past events. That's like asking a 5-year old white child to give up his seat on the bus because whites (50-years ago) did it to the blacks. I understand you rational behind "landgrabs" but do not understand your emotion to past events.....

 

[Shogun]

Shogun supports the constitutional ban on foreign born presidents.

Naturalized americans can’t rule the US but naturalized Mexicans have every right to steal half of Mexico.

you are fucking right I support the constitutional ban on foreign born presidents.


When did those naturalized gringos ever try to take over MExico City again?


See, this is how Im able to tap dance on your head, dude. You can't reply to the FACT of mexican permission for gringo settlement. You can't reply to the FACT that texas left mexico of it's own will. YOU SURE AS FUCK can't remind me who in palestine gave jews the same consideration mexicans gave to Austin. And Now, you try to compare the texas revolution with foreign born presidents?

WOW.


work on your logic, buddy. Try to take the bean burrito glasses off first though.


It's probably not transparent as fuck why you wont respond to these four holes in your porous argument.