Mexico's real agenda??? Take Back the South West?

Bonnie

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2004
9,476
673
48
Wherever
The ‘Reconquista’—Mexico’s Dream of ‘Retaking’ the Southwest

By John Tiffany

Some Mexicans and Mexican-Americans want to see California, New Mexico and other parts of the United States given to Mexico. They call it the “reconquista,” Spanish for “reconquest,” and they view the millions of Mexican illegal aliens entering this country as their army of invaders to achieve that takeover. To an extent, they also have actual armed soldiers of the Mexican army, along with mercenaries from North Korea, Russia and other communist or former communist lands, and have already fired upon American Border Patrol officers and terrorized American ranchers. Shockingly, certain politicians in America are willing to sell out to the Mexicans. Here we consider the background to this disturbing development.

Mexico, of course, was once a Spanish colony, the Aztecs and numerous other tribes in that region having been conquered by the Spaniards—or, in many cases, having willingly sworn allegiance to the Spanish king in order to free themselves from Aztec tyranny. (However, it may be noted that in the northern reaches—the so-called Interior Provinces—of what was once called “Mexico,” the natives had never been subdued by any outsiders, including the Aztecs.) When a number of Mexicans, inspired by Ameri ca’s example, revolted against Spain, they set up an independent government and assumed theoretical rulership of a vast area, in cluding what is now known as the South western United States.

America subsequently obtained the Southwest in various ways—mostly by conquest in the Mexican (or Mexican Amer i can) War, partly by purchase (the Gadsden Purchase) and partly by agreement (the annexation of Texas, at the time an independent republic. It should also be mentioned that the bear flag of the Re public of California was raised by American settlers at Sonoma on June 14, 1846.) This prompts the question as to how Spain and then Mexico came to “own” what is now the American Southwest, which, of course, was never under the control of the Aztec nation.

Mexico’s claim to the Southwest stems from Pope Alexander VI’s 15th-century Treaty of Tordesillas, which established a demarcation line to define the spheres of Spanish and Portuguese influence in the New World. The line ran due north and south through a point 300 miles west of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands. All newly discovered lands lying east of this line supposedly belonged to Portugal, while all lands discovered to the west belonged to Spain. The people—Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts—living in these lands were not consulted. This treaty was modified in 1506 by a new demarcation line 1,110 miles west of the Azores. The new line ran longitudinally through the eastern hump of South America, and is the reason Brazilians speak Portuguese. This treaty gave Spain the controversial legitimacy to rule Mexico, and most of North and South America, beginning with Her nándo Cortés’s rape of the Aztec nation in 1521. Tordesillas allowed the Spanish and Portuguese to loot and enslave indigenous populations, in return for their promises to save the hemisphere’s natives “for God.” It was not realized at the time that Portugal would get a much smaller slice of the American pie than did Spain, since the Americas were still largely unexplored. While Spain wound up with a claim to the Aztec and Inca empires, rich in gold and silver, Portugal got nothing more than some tropical rain forest with scattered primitive tribes.

More here
http://www.barnesreview.org/The__Reconquista_-Mexico_s_Dre/the__reconquista_-mexico_s_dre.html



Follow up to this story now

So why am I bringing it up again? Because in light of the recent exposure the illegals have been given concerning their demands from U.S. taxpayers and citizens, and their complete refusal to abide by our laws, I thought it would be interesting to re-visit what happens when a majority-Mexican township “governs” itself. So the two links above will give you a pretty clear idea of what we’re heading towards. So browse the above links and imagine your neighborhood in 5-10 years (less if you’re in the four Mexican-majority southwestern states).

Then, lo and behold, I came across a much more recent example of Mexican-style government on American soil (huge thanks to the Freedom Folks). As Jake said, “This… should frighten any American who believes in the rule of law…”

From the LA Times:

At a time when communities across the nation are considering efforts to crack down on illegal immigration, one small city south of downtown Los Angeles is charting a different course.

In Maywood, where 96% of the residents are Latino, and more than half are foreign-born, the City Council has vowed to make the municipality a “sanctuary city” for illegal immigrants, and over the last few months it has set out to prove it.

First, the city eliminated the Police Department’s traffic division after complaints that officers unfairly targeted illegal immigrants. Then it made it much more difficult for police to tow cars whose owners didn’t have driver’s licenses, a practice that affected mostly undocumented people who could not obtain licenses.

In January, the City Council passed a resolution opposing a proposed federal law that would criminalize illegal immigration and make local police departments enforce immigration law. Now, some in the community are pushing to rename one of the city’s elementary schools after former Mexican President Benito Juarez and debating measures to improve the lives of illegal immigrants.

Maywood leaders say they hope their actions will serve as a counterpoint to other cities, such as Costa Mesa in Orange County, that have moved forward with crackdowns on illegal immigrants and groups like the Minutemen border patrols.

“You just couldn’t keep quiet. I think we needed to amplify the debate by saying that no human being is illegal,” said Councilman Felipe Aguirre, 53. “These people are here … making your clothes, shining your shoes and taking care of your kids. And now you want to develop this hypocritical policy?”

But Maywood’s actions have made the town a lightning rod for criticism on conservative radio shows and websites. On KFI’s “John and Ken Show,” the host blasted Mayor Thomas Martin for making the city a “magnet for illegal immigration.”

Even within the city, the stance is controversial. Longtime residents believe the City Council has gone too far and is embracing lawlessness. They also question whether Maywood can handle more illegal immigrants.

“I’m afraid we’re testing the limits of the law, and that’s dangerous,” said longtime resident J. Luis Ceballos, 52. “I think there is a danger of people thinking that they can do whatever they want.”

What’s so very interesting is how the article points out the divide between now-legal immigrants and the illegals. I see this everywhere in Texas. The legal immigrants have as much of a problem with the illegals as WE do! It is NOT a racial issue - it is about LAW.

The campaign for immigrant rights has its roots in a long-brewing political divide between newer immigrants and older immigrants, who consider themselves more “Americanized,” said Ceballos, who came to the United States as an illegal immigrant from Jalisco, Mexico, 37 years ago and is a longtime Maywood political observer.

“Many people who came here a long time ago feel that they had to sacrifice a lot more and do with a lot less than people who come to the country now,” Ceballos said.

This discord was evident at a recent City Council meeting. On one side sat a group of newer immigrants who addressed the council in Spanish. On the other side sat a few of the city’s longtime Anglo residents and Latinos who spoke in English.

At one point, when Anglo resident Kathleen Larsen spoke out angrily against naming an elementary school after Juarez, the audience members sitting behind her applauded. Most of them were Latino, and many were immigrants.

Then Oscar Corona stood up and asked why the person who usually translates the meeting into Spanish wasn’t there. He accused Councilman Sam Peña of laughing at him and demanded that he speak to him in Spanish.

“Speak to me in Spanish, please,” the 44-year-old forklift operator said, his voice rising. “Speak to me in Spanish, Mr. Peña. You know how to speak it.”

Peña was part of the old guard who ran Maywood until last November’s election swept in the pro-immigrant-rights slate. Now he is in a minority of two on the five-member council.

Now here is where we see the rule of law skirted, and then eventually completely abolished after the new slate of pro-illegal politicans took charge:

For years under the previous majority, the city’s police set up sobriety checkpoints that began in the afternoon. But the roundups also nabbed many drivers who simply didn’t have licenses, most of them illegal immigrants.

The city had a 30-day car impound period, which resulted in large fines for the immigrants. The city stopped the checkpoints amid complaints, but many illegal immigrants were still being stopped and having their cars impounded because they had driven without licenses.
[…]
After taking office at the end of last year, the new council quickly dismantled the city’s traffic department. They stopped towing. They allowed people without driver’s licenses — mostly undocumented workers — to get permits for overnight parking.

The council also rescinded a law that prohibited residents from erecting shade canopies at their homes. The law, passed by the old council, was seen as a slap at undocumented residents who used the canopies to create more usable living space.

The actions have been met with cheers by some of the city’s illegal immigrants.
[…]
[Martha] Montiel is pleased that the city is trying to help illegal immigrants. “It’s good because people try to drive respectfully, even if they don’t have licenses,” Montiel said as she gathered jugs of water from a Maywood shop.

What Martha said above is reminiscent of the overall argument in favor of illegals who have broken the law to enter this country: “The are “good people”, even if they break the law.” What kind of logic is that? I could just as easily point out that illegals who have proven time and again that they have no regard for the law, are more likely to break other inconvenient laws if they find them too onerous, time-consuming, or expensive. What we end up with is millions of illegals getting to pick and choose which laws they want to obey! And if they are the majority, they will legislate against the existing laws in order to accomodate the lawlessness of the illegals.

Jake, at Freedom Folks, closed with this: “Maywood to me is a sobering example of what we are slowly but surely becoming. Let me reiterate, this has nothing to do with race, it has everything to do with citizenship and if you are one of those quislings who just can’t wait for America to get what she has coming let me leave you with these words from the Atzlan movement…

“Por La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”

If you think Baldwin Park and Maywood are dinky isolated examples - think again. These are only two examples of what’s happening all over the nation. “Sanctuary cities” are in almost every state - and provide a safe haven from the law for illegals. We are facing the monumental task of restoring the rule of law to our nation. If there is any place to start - it’s by abolishing the “sanctuary laws”.


http://euphoria.jarkolicious.com/

Think it can't happen???
 

Forum List

Back
Top