Let's get this started. Everyone state your religious preference here so I know what I'm dealing with.

I'm pretty sure all the liberals are probably athiests or agnostics, but let's hear anyway just to be safe.

I'm a Christian

You tend to assume most liberals are something there not. As some liberals are Atheist or Agnostic the vast majority are Christians. I’ve met Republicans that said they were an Agnostic or an Athiest. Most of the more liberal organizations I have previously worked with were ran by Christians.

I’m an atheist but it has nothing to do with my polical party.

Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
You tend to assume most liberals are something there not. As some liberals are Atheist or Agnostic the vast majority are Christians. I’ve met Republicans that said they were an Agnostic or an Athiest. Most of the more liberal organizations I have previously worked with were ran by Christians.

I’m an atheist but it has nothing to do with my polical party.

That is all true, but for whatever reason, I have found that the vast majority of liberals on internet debate forums are athiests or agnostics. Don't ask me why.

Arg, I hate to fit into DaveTooner's stereotype, but...
I'm indeed an atheist. And I'm liberal. But I'm not liberal because I'm an atheist, and I'm not an atheist because I'm liberal.

My beliefs, too, have nothing to do with my politics, but I am agnostic.

Am I allowed to shame Dave for being a Christian conservative? May I stick him in the same 'fundie' box with the likes of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and other extremists? Should I assume he wants to stick his religion down every American's throat by passing religious based laws? May I make broad generalizations, oh please?

Just kidding, Dave. I respect your religious beliefs.

Well, I was right, wasn't I?

Christian Conservative here.

im a Christian "liberal", fucker

I said most liberals I've encountered on internet discussion boards were athiests. You somehow think your belief in Christianity makes my experiences untrue? Also, why so hostile?

Hitler was a supporter of Christianity and corporatism, and yet he invented nearly every social program, and created a welfare state. Is he a liberal or a conservative?

All I said was that most of the liberals I had encountered on discussion forums were atheists/agnostics. Now I have everyone breathing down my neck because they interpreted it as "all liberals are atheists and all athiests are liberals." Please.

For what it's worth, Hitler later renounced Christianity.

May be you should word things differently. And you always target Liberals in anything you say so it's only expected.

And you always target Liberals in anything you say

True

Originally posted by DaveTooner
why so hostile?


heh heh...im not hostile

i thought that just sounded funny :D

no hard feelings davey

what do you all think about Buddhism?

Originally posted by Mr. Fudge
Hitler was a supporter of Christianity and corporatism, and yet he invented nearly every social program, and created a welfare state. Is he a liberal or a conservative?

I'm a littel bit suprised by these assumptions. First, Hitler was not a supporter of christianity : he just used it to get the confidence of the bourgeoisie. In fact most of the nazi ideology is totally pagan.
He did not invent every social program ! He took many ideas from Mussolini, who himself was very influenced by socialism.
Hitler is a good example of the fact that, in spite of what many people in this forum seem to assume, the "Liberal vs Conservative" dichotomy is not always valid.
Fascism, like stalinism, is not liberal or conservative. It is totalitarian.

Not always, but sure as heck most of the time!

you're so predictable, Dave !

Christian and proud, just to be sure.
atheism? it seems to get more and more common with time. still my brothers, whether ur atheist, christian, muslim, buddhist, hindu, taoist, or whatever(didn't mention jewish cause i think they are ruining our world), we are all equal. now the jewish, on the other hand, would think that they are better than all of us, and indeed, they DO control the world, and as much as it enrages me to say this, they are playing the US, my beloved homeland, as a puppet. all my support goes to a new America free of Israeli influence.

Peace out

If you're just using this post to make antisemitic propagnada, why don't you just start a new pro-nazi thread ?

I'm a little too tired to debate with you, dealerofdreams, but trust me, later, I will.

Just a fact for now: Judaism is the third most popular religion in the United States. First is Christianity (of course) and second is Islam. Quite interesting, I think.

as a matter of fact it is a very interesting fact, seeing as how unpopular Islam is in the US today, and if Islam is more popular than Judaism, then I rest my case!

what about Buddhism?

Buddhism is fourth.

It's really sad that you're so intolerant of Jews, dealerofdreams, as they're regular people, just like any other religion. You've obviously been listening to a little too much Hitler propaganda. :(

actually my friend i am sure that deep down inside, you too know the fact that the Jews of this world are at fault. they are the most racist, the most discriminating, and the most conservative. well screw them, we dont need them dominating us, and if u are a jew reading this, then screw u 2 :)
peace out

Originally posted by dealerofdreams
actually my friend i am sure that deep down inside, you too know the fact that the Jews of this world are at fault. they are the most racist, the most discriminating, and the most conservative. well screw them, we dont need them dominating us, and if u are a jew reading this, then screw u 2 :)
peace out

From your post, I think you're one of the most racist and discriminating people I've met in quite a while (thank goodness).

Dealerofdreams, I think your name suits you... you must be smoking some heavy stuff.

Originally posted by dealerofdreams
actually my friend i am sure that deep down inside, you too know the fact that the Jews of this world are at fault. they are the most racist, the most discriminating, and the most conservative. well screw them, we dont need them dominating us, and if u are a jew reading this, then screw u 2 :)
peace out
I'm sorry, but I am not your friend. :mad: I would never think of having friends as ignorant and Hitler-ish as you. You sicken me, to see what this world has become: a bunch of ignorant fools. I suppose you'll say now that the homosexuals are destroyin the world?

I have many Jewish friends and never have I heard them say a discriminatory comment to any one. How can you be so judgmental towards a particular group of people? If my memory serves correctly you have not met or spoken with every living Jew.

I think you’re the bigot and not the Jews.

Originally posted by ConfusedYouth
I have many Jewish friends and never have I heard them say a discriminatory comment to any one. How can you be so judgmental towards a particular group of people? If my memory serves correctly you have not met or spoken with every living Jew.

I think you’re the bigot and not the Jews.

You speak in the same manner about conservatives, so what does that make you?

I disagree with more right-wing ideas but never will I hate someone because of there political positions. Although most of my friends are more Liberal I have been known to get along with many conservatives. Dont look so shocked!

Originally posted by DaveTooner
You speak in the same manner about conservatives, so what does that make you?

LMAO! Who are you to chastise anyone for their stereotypes?

Hey, I never said I was any better.

Originally posted by DaveTooner
Hey, I never said I was any better.

I admire your honesty about this. :D

hey i never asked you to be my friend. and you think I am a racist? haha you should meet my friends. Borghunter I didnt particularly want you as a friend, but it would have been satisfying to wake up such a smart powerful person as yourself. you have strong views, which indicate a strong person, but you're not what i'm looking for because you refuse to accept the truth in this world which is actually right under your noses. My differences with jewish people is no secret, and I think it absurd that such a minor race(in comparison to the other religions of the world) could be so manipulative. Ask your friends or parents or mentors of who they think controls the world today, and they will tell you.
Peace out
btw: Bigot? HAHAHAHAHA
yes mother...

dealerofdreams, did you know that, according to Christian beliefs, Jesus Christ himself was a Jew? He certainly wasn't a Christian. Also, Moses? Jew. Abraham? Jew. All the people in the Old Testament were...*gasp!*...JEWS!!! :eek: (according to the Bible).

P.S. I asked my grandmother who she thinks controls the world, and she answered:
Happenstance controls the world, not a person at all.
:rolleyes: Happy?

Dealerofdreams, it sounds as if your prejudice is based on your raising. Not that that is an excuse, but I suppose that if elder family and community members taught you this hate at a young age, that is why you feel as you do.

You should look at this prejudice of yours a little closer and ask youself if it makes sense. Has a Jewish person ever actually done anything to hurt you personally? Even if a Jewish person has hurt you that doesn't mean all Jews are bad. I'm sure people of your own race/religion have been rude or wrong towards you, too.

Hehe, Lively, this reminds of my own family. my Christian aunt & uncle aren't speaking to some other family members who happen to be homosexual, even though these homosexuals happen to be very close family!

Every religion has its fair share of assholes. Remember that, dod.

Here's a question for you: what justifies an individual being pushed under you?

Hey Borghunter: It is true that †Jesus Christ† was a jew, but who murdered him? JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Borghunter, you are right, every religion has its fair share of assholes, and you represent yours. Remember that bh.
Are you the homosexual that you were referring to? Or are you a jew since you referred to aunt & uncle as Christians. Either way, I will speak to neither type of NON-person. You fall into that category, you are a disgrace.
Yes, a jew has attempted to hurt me and my friends in my hometown, we gave him the beating of his life.
Once I see some reform on behalf of the Jews, i will NOT withdraw my position(screwing jew's mamas).

I almost wish the Jewish kid did kick your ass.

Hey Borghunter: It is true that †Jesus Christ† was a jew, but who murdered him? JEWS!!!!!!!!!!!
Touché.
Borghunter, you are right, every religion has its fair share of assholes, and you represent yours. Remember that bh.
You need not insult anyone just to get your point across.
Are you the homosexual that you were referring to? Or are you a jew since you referred to aunt & uncle as Christians. Either way, I will speak to neither type of NON-person. You fall into that category, you are a disgrace.
Numerous things wrong with that:
A) I am neither homosexual nor Jew, I am a straight atheist.
B) Are you saying that gays and Jews aren't people? That is both Nazi-like attitude and defies common sense.
Yes, a jew has attempted to hurt me and my friends in my hometown, we gave him the beating of his life.
How did he hurt you? Physically? Emotionally?

Did this person deserve the beating? Putting aside all religious differences, did he?

Yes he deserved it, but that is none of your concern. You don't know me personally.
And God forbid I hit on your sensitivity. I didn't know you were so fragile.
Nazi-like? So be it. I am the new Führer if u know what that is. Atheist? Good, then I have no beef with you. Sometimes it seems that Atheism is the simplest answer. It may be appealing at first, but soon gets lonely. Do you want to be so far away from God? Oh wait, that's right, you don't believe in him. Well, at least you aren't Jewish huh? But you weren't born atheist, so what were you originally? and are u officially an atheist? or just by belief?

Really, my parents weren't really religious and didn't talk about it much; we never went to church or anything and my mom never talked about God or any deity. My parents have been divorced since I was 5 and I lived with my mom.
I ended up a Christian at age 9, when my mom sent me to a Christian daycamp during summer vacation. It was run by my aunt, that being the reason I went there. I finally became an agnostic when I was 12 and a full-fledged atheist at 13. I've never joined an atheistic club or anything similar, so I guess I'm not "officially" an atheist.

You weren't born anything. Duh.

btw, Happy 1000th post, ConfusedYouth! :D

yahoooooooo...yeahhh!
i do get an honest-to-God high out of this forum!
We should make an irc channel for this forum, and i can preach my views on you more. I will give my fair share of speeches, that's for sure. I refuse to stop until you all agree with me.

Originally posted by dealerofdreams
yahoooooooo...yeahhh!
i do get an honest-to-God high out of this forum!
We should make an irc channel for this forum, and i can preach my views on you more. I will give my fair share of speeches, that's for sure. I refuse to stop until you all agree with me.
That will take quite a while, as we don't share your sick, twisted view of the world.

I will die before I ever agree with you.

Then die you shall. DIE! You disgusting perverted shit-covered excuse for a corpse in existence...
Borghunter I have nothing to say to you. Does anybody else have an opinion on this matter besides these two wastes of my time? Davetooner perhaps? anybody?

Dave's not sick and perverted, like you. He's actually somewhat clear-minded.

Everything living dies. It's just a matter of time.

What happened to the "high" you got from arguing with us?

Clear-minded? Do you call a person who keeps rambling about conservatives and liberals, when the topic is clearly religion? Anyways, who gives a fuck about Cons and Libs? There are bigger things at work here.

Note the somewhat.

I do not see the point of debating with dealer of dream anymore since he is obviously just trying to upset everyone with his neo-nazi propaganda. Just ignore him, everybody. Don't make him the favor of considering these ideas are worth debating.

I agree Astropol. DOD will not change his hatefilled mind just by visiting this forum. His hate seems too rooted for it to be that simple.

I must point out, though, for anyone who is interested, that DOD is not at all a Christian. The Bible says you will know a Christian by his fruits, and DOD is producing rotten fruit.

DOD also needs to get his facts straight. Jews did not crucify Jesus. The Roman gov. did. Also, since Christians serve the same God as the Jews, both religions are rooted in the same beliefs. Neither is better or worse.

astrapol, since you have not yet stated where you stand, you remain a non-person in my eyes for now. It would be better if you refrained from commenting on my words and ideas.
Get a personality, then challenge mine. I am waiting...

hi all new here, DoD u are an obvious fascist, and u'd make a perfect dictator. not in the US though, cause we support freedom of religion and speech, and democracy. please leave this forum, it is reserved for peace and calm chatting with other individuals, and your propaganda is no good here.

In fact, dealerofdrugs..oops, I mean dreams, go to another country. We don't want you.

P.S. Welcome to the board, coolvodka!

I disagree with you BrogHunter. I think he should just crawl into a deep dark corner where everyone will forget about him and he can slowly die in return making the world a better place.

i see a powerful speaker in you.
you are Christian, no?
I could use a man like you.
what do u say?:D :D :D

really? u think so?
i'm actually taking a minor course in political science!
yes I am a Christian. you are too right?
hmm i never thought of anything like this, but why not? hehehe
ok, fine then, I have no love for Jews either!

I smell a few trolls stinking up our boards.

Originally posted by coolvodka
really? u think so?
i'm actually taking a minor course in political science!
yes I am a Christian. you are too right?
hmm i never thought of anything like this, but why not? hehehe
ok, fine then, I have no love for Jews either!

I don't get it. In your post before this, you were condemning the facism talk.

davidtooner, haven't u yet seen the rightness of his views? he does have a point u know. I for one am not happy over the jewish control of our nation. We must at least stand up to it, and attempt to change it. Please, at least think about this, before u condemn me for joining him, and maybe u will realize we are not so bad after all, and u belong with us!:cool:

Originally posted by coolvodka
davidtooner, haven't u yet seen the rightness of his views? he does have a point u know. I for one am not happy over the jewish control of our nation. We must at least stand up to it, and attempt to change it. Please, at least think about this, before u condemn me for joining him, and maybe u will realize we are not so bad after all, and u belong with us!:cool:
You know, I really believe that you are either dod himself or one of his friends, but assuming that you're not...

Why the sudden change in views?

Dave,

Your statement was:

"I'm pretty sure all the liberals are probably athiests or agnostics, but let's hear anyway just to be safe."

Its a fairly absolute charge. They are the sort of word creatures which come back to bite one. Its understandable that you now wish to back-track. However, the world "all" is there for the record, and you are guilty.

Why is religious preference important to you if you fail to comprehend the purpose of religion?

Tentmaker

I'm a Christian and liberal.

StarDreamer,

You lie.

'scuse me?

Star,

There is no such creature as a Christian who is a Liberal. Christianity based on the Synoptic Gospels or on the Pauline Doctrine is Conservative. Nowhere in the New Testament does one find a liberal theology.

Tentmaker

well, I am a Christian and I am a liberal. Who are you to tell me what I am or am not, anyway?

Star,

http://www.dragon.ee/dragon%20pics/153vibrg.jpg

That is who.


Tentmaker

whatever...you obviously lack the ability to see that you could be wrong don't you?

Star,

Careful now:

http://www.dragon.ee/dragon%20pics/158galeg.jpg


Tentmaker

Thanks to these precious information, I have been able to locate you at last, Tentmaker.

http://corax.no-ip.com/~kra/

Unfortunately I'm still unable to tell which of these guy you are.

Astrapol2,

You needed but ask for vital imfo:

http://www.uselessgraphics.com/Wizard59.gif

Tentmaker

I am, in face, a Conservative.

As far as religous preference, I'm trying to figure that out.

ClassAction,

There are Conservatives, and then there are CONSERVATIVES. Which are you?


Tentmaker

CONSERVATIVE.

ClassAction,

A Bushite, huh?


Tentmaker

Sometimes he even seems too liberal for me.

ClassAction,

Dubya Bush is a Liberal. However, his Liberal agenda doesn't include the working class. He is strictly for the wealthy.

Isn't it interesting that since taking office all of his actions have been toward improving and securing the wealth of the elite? No one thing has been done to aid the workers.

Howdy all, I'm new here and I would like to wish everyone a happy New Year......:)

I am a Christian and a conservative. I'm cool with Dubya, Jews, Blacks, with all my fellow human beings, one love every which way.

Deltaecho,

You say, "I am a Christian and a conservative." There is little doubt that you are deluded. I make this judgment based on your stating, " I'm cool with Dubya." No Chriatian would approve of the Chief Moron of the United States. A true Conservative Christian would be out to lynch him.



Sure you're not confusing universal love with a serious mental disease?

Tent,

Pray tell why wouldn't a True Christian support Dubya? What exactly do you think Conservative Christians political leanings should be? Are you labelling all Christians as being deluded for supporting Bush?

And I have the mental disease?

:rolleyes:

Deltaecho,

Saying that one is a Christian and a Conservative only tells me that you are ignorant of what is Christianity and a Christian.

Saying that one is a Christian Conservative is just plain stupid.

A true Chriatian has no "political leanings" as you call their political preferrences.

Bushitler is a sociopath. His very words and actions speak to it. What true Christian would support his plans to murder hundreds of thousands of innocent people?

Yes, you definitely do have a mental disease.

Sorry Tent.....I think it's you who does not know what it means to be a Christian. Where did you get the idea that Christians should not be politically involved? Is it your assertion that Christians should not vote or have a (political) voice?

Also, your comment on Bush's plans to exterminate hundreds of thousands of innocent people is so out there.....it's almost sad.

Once again....where did you get this idea from? Do you really believe the military gives orders to fire indiscriminately on civilians? Would you be O.K. with Saddam selling his WMD to people who would detonate it (Heaven forbid) in your State or hometown? Would you still want your country to do nothing?

What do you propose the U.S. and the international community should do?

I have no problem with people disagreeing with the leadership but it should be balanced and fair, not borderline treasonous.

You savvy?

Deltaecho,

What I savvy is that you are no doubt as stupid as your post makes you appear.

From where do I get my ideas of Chriatianity? How about several years as a seminarian and from being an ordained minister? Now from where do you get your asinine ignorance?

From where do I get my military views. From being the son of a Marine officer, and from having two children in the Services. Again, from where do you get your asinine ignorance?

Since you know nothing of leadership, just how in the hell would you know anything of balance in opinions of it? Jerk!

Being an ordained minister you can consider the raelians to be credible ? From what cult are you minister ?

Astrapol2,

Still having comprehension problems, huh? I never said that the Raelians were credible. My contention was that your argument was not credible. You tend to forego rational thinking in favor of loose opinions.

I gave up my country club membership in favor of ministering to the truely needy.

Originally posted by Tentmaker
I gave up my country club membership in favor of ministering to the truely needy.

And then, did the mexican immigrants welcome you ?

Astrapol2,

Read this small article:


Tens Of Thousands of Mexicans Massing For Border Crossing




Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 12:49 am
Subject: Fw: Human Wave building up in Naco, AZ

From: Jack Foote

Everyone:

I received phone calls today from two different, reliable sources, letting
me know that massive numbers of illegal border crossers are building up on
the Mexican side of the border just south of Naco, AZ. They are arriving
in busloads and the numbers have already grown to the tens of
thousands. The feeling on this side is that there is going to be a "banzai
run" across the border, with thousands of illegal aliens forcing their way
across all at once to overwhelm US law enforcement.

If true, thousands of Arizona families stand in the path of a human wave of
violent criminals, yet the state and federal governments are doing
zilch. The US federal government is aware of this, they know that it is
coming, and there has yet to be any movement towards bringing troops to the
border around Naco.

Watch the news. If you live near Naco, our prayers are with you.

Map for Naco, AZ
www.mapquest.com/maps/map...city=Naco\
&state=AZ&zipcode=&homesubmit=Get+Map

Jack Foote
National Spokesman and Texas Coordinator
Ranch Rescue -- www.ranchrescue.com

"The sacred rights of property are to be guarded at every point. I call
them sacred, because, if they are unprotected, all other rights become
worthless or visionary. What is personal liberty, if it does not draw
after it the right to enjoy the fruits of our own industry? What is
political liberty, if it imparts only perpetual poverty to us and all our
posterity? What is the privilege of a vote, if the majority of the hour
may sweep away the earnings of our whole lives, to gratify the rapacity of
the indolent, the cunning, or the profligate, who are borne into power upon
the tide of a temporary popularity?"-
-- Judge Joseph Story, 1852
***

Since the Mexican government and the Mexican people have declared war on the United States, saying that they will take back the lands which the U.S. took from them through war, doing it by illegal immigration, I find your question utterly rediculous.

If you knew anything of the immigration problems in the Southwest of the U.S., my guess is you'd change your opinions rather quickly.

I've been looking at the website you mentioned, and to be honest I've been quite impressed. Many facts and figures I was not aware of. I didn't realize that the USA were under such a threat. Maybe you've opened my eyes finally.
It's time your govt does something to stop these criminals.

For example, the blond guy with crazy eyes holding a gun just next to a cross, is it you ? Really gave me the goosebumps !

Astrapol2,

I doubt that you could be impressed by anything other than your own ignorance. It is ignorant assholes like you who bring on genocides and holocausts. It is also useless scum like you who are the first put up against the wall.

For those who are interested, the Mexican intent is to reclaim so-called Mexican land which includes Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, California, and parts of other States. Their purpose is to re-create a Mexican culture, i.e., a society that excludes totally Whites, Blacks, and especially Jews.

Astrapol is to damn ignorant to check facts before spewing opinions that more appropriately comes from one's ass. Those Mexicans who want the land back are what are called "White Mexicans" and they are only using what they see as black Mexicans to attain that goal.

Anyone can easily check on the aims of the Mexicans. Their official hq is in Los Angeles, Ca. It is named Atzlan, and it has a website. Warning: if you are a Jew or a Black, you will be insulted upon visiting it.

Some Truth


"Mexico is a friend of America. Mexico is our neighbor. And we want our neighbors to succeed. We want our neighbors to do well.... And that's why it's so important for us to tear down barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States."

-- President George W. Bush, address to the Hispanic Chamber
of Commerce, Albuquerque, New Mexico, August 15, 2001

While American troops engage al-Qaeda terrorist cells in far-flung battlefields across Asia and our military leadership prepares for a Gulf War encore against Iraq, our "friend" and "neighbor" to the South is relentlessly invading our homeland. The Mexican government and radical "Chicano" groups in this country are pursuing the dream of La Reconquista -- the "re-conquest" of the southwestern United States.

"More than a century after the U.S. invasion of Mexico that resulted in the annexation of Texas, Mexicans are ‘reoccupying' the territory, but through less violent means and for different reasons," reported Monica Mendel of TheNewsMexico.com news service on March 25th. "Most of these immigrants live in border states like California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico, the same ones Mexico lost when President Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna signed an agreement to end the U.S. invasion in 1848 by ceding 2.5 million square kilometers of Mexican territory to the United States."

The provocative term "reoccupation" was not coined by an anti-immigration activist. Rather, it was used in an official study published by the Mexican government's National Council on Population (Conapo). Mendel writes: "The ‘reoccupation' of this territory has been slow but steady, and the number of immigrants is growing every year." Citing Conapo's findings, Mendel predicts that during the six-year reign of incumbent Mexican President Vicente Fox, ending in 2006, "two million Mexicans will enter the United States at the rate of approximately 380,000 per year."

By publishing the Conapo study, the Mexican government has formally embraced the concept of "demographic warfare" -- re-conquering the southwestern United States through unchecked illegal immigration. But it has long been an open secret that Mexico takes advantage of our porous southern border to export its "surplus poverty" and re-impose control over our southwest.

Last July Fourth, Mexico's EWE news service published an interview with the celebrated Mexican novelist Elena Poniatowska in which she noted: "Mexico is at this moment recovering territories it lost in the past to the United States thanks to emigration." "The common people -- the poor, the dirty, the lice ridden, the cockroaches are advancing on the United States, a country that needs to speak Spanish because it has 33.5 million Hispanics who are imposing their culture," observed Poniatowska. "Mexico is recovering the territories yielded to the United States by means of migratory tactics."

But columnist Carlos Loret de Mola most clearly explained Mexico's "demographic warfare" strategy 20 years ago in Excelsior (the Mexican equivalent of the New York Times). In an essay entitled "The Great Invasion: Mexico Recovers Its Own," Loret described the strategy in brutally candid terms:

"A peaceful mass of people … carries out slowly and patiently an unstoppable invasion, the most important in human history. You cannot give me a similar example of such a large migratory wave by an ant-like multitude, stubborn, unarmed, and carried on in the face of the most powerful and best-armed nation on earth.... [Neither] barbed-wire fences, nor aggressive border guards, nor campaigns, nor laws, nor police raids against the undocumented, have stopped this movement of the masses that is unprecedented in any part of the world."

To be continued

This migrant invasion, continues Loret, "seems to be slowly returning [the southwestern United States] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot, nor requiring the least diplomatic action, by means of a steady, spontaneous, and uninterrupted occupation." The effects of Mexico's immigration invasion were even then visible in Los Angeles, which Loret archly referred to as "the second largest Mexican city in the world."

Charles Truxillo, a professor of "Chicano Studies" at the University of New Mexico, believes that Los Angeles will one day be the capital of "La Republica del Norte" -- a Hispanic nation straddling the border between the southwest United States and northern Mexico. The envisioned "Chicano homeland" would absorb the existing U.S. states of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and southern Colorado, as well as "the northern tier of current Mexican states: Baja California, Sonora, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas," reported the March 10th Albuquerque News.

The envisioned "Chicano homeland" is also referred to as "Aztlan." The geographical boundaries for the proposed homeland have not been precisely defined; in addition to the U.S. states cited by the Albuquerque News, Nevada and Utah have also been mentioned.

The new polity won't appear "within the next 20 years but within 80 years," predicts Truxillo. "I may not live to see the Hispanic homeland, but by the end of the century my students will live in it, sovereign and free." While Truxillo maintains that the new country should be created "by any means necessary," he insists that it is "unlikely" that it will be born out of a civil war. Instead, he foresees that "La Republica del Norte" will be created "by political process, by the ‘electoral pressure' of the future majority Hispanic population," observes the Albuquerque News.

Terrorist Subcurrents

What does Truxillo mean when he invokes the familiar revolutionary refrain, "By any means necessary"? One clue can be found in how Truxillo reveres Reies Lopez Tijerina, a bloody-handed 1960s Chicano agitator. It was from Tijerina, states Truxillo, that he learned "I was a member of a people with a country that had been taken from them by war, a land that was our own by treaty."

Tijerina's chief claim to infamy was his role in leading a June 1967 guerrilla assault on the courthouse in Tierra Amarilla, New Mexico. During the two-hour assault, Tijerina and 150 terrorist thugs killed Deputy Sheriff Nicainor Saizan, pistol-whipped Undersheriff Dan Rivera, and shot 63-year-old jailer Eugolio Salazar. The Tijerina-led mob also took 20 local citizens hostage in the courthouse before fleeing town. Although Salazar survived the initial assault, he was beaten to death before he could testify at Tijerina's trial. With the jury and material witnesses intimidated by the possibility of another outbreak of violence, Tijerina -- who had shot Salazar point-blank in the face -- was given a two-year sentence, of which he served six months before being paroled.

In a "Manifesto" published in the Albuquerque Journal shortly before the attack on Tierra Amarilla, Tijerina's terrorist group laid claim to millions of acres of the American Southwest -- including the states of California, Arizona, and New Mexico -- on behalf of the "Nation of Aztlan." Tijerina and his thugs asserted "exclusive and supreme" powers "within our territorial jurisdiction, over all persons and property situated therein, to the exclusion of all other countries and governments."

"We shall enter troops into these territories to restore our authority; and our troops will preserve the strictest discipline," continued the terrorist screed. "[I]f the aggressors shed one drop of blood of any of our soldiers during the progress of this liberation campaign, a state of war shall exist as of that moment between us and that aggressor; and … during the progress of such a war, we shall not take any prisoners of war, but shall take only war criminals and traitors, and try those war criminals and traitors by a military tribunal and execute them." During the Tierra Amarilla assault, Tijerina and his cadres carried out that edict by murdering one Mexican-American law enforcement officer and wounding two others.

After descending into obscurity, Tijerina dramatically reappeared at the national "Latino Leadership Summit" at the University of California-Riverside in January 1995. Introduced to an audience of radical professors, lawyers, labor leaders, student agitators, and more than 400 "Latino activists," Tijerina was greeted with sustained, tumultuous applause. Many in the crowd raised their right arms in the communist clenched-fist salute, exclaiming "¡Viva la Revolución!" and "Power to the People!"

Present at the 1995 Latino Summit were representatives of the "Brown Berets de Aztlan," a paramilitary group that threatened to "make the streets run red" with their opponent's blood. Also prominent were representatives of the Moviemento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlan (Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan, or MEChA), a militant separatist group active on high school and university campuses.

Speaking to the Houston Chronicle during MEChA's national conference in that city in March of this year, Jose Galvan of the group's University of California-Berkeley chapter insisted: "We're not trying to take over. We just want to help people of color get an education." Galvan spoke those words shortly after his MEChA chapter displayed its commitment to "education" by vandalizing the offices of a conservative student newspaper and issuing death threats against the paper's editorial staff.

According to the March 5th Washington Times, members of the Berkeley Conservative Foundation at the University of California-Berkeley became "a target of death threats after the group printed a story criticizing a Hispanic campus group's call for revolutionary liberation from white people." In February, the Foundation-sponsored California Patriot newsmagazine published a critique of the MEChA. Some members of the Conservative Foundation were harassed by MEChA cadres, and others received death threats. On the following day, the Patriot's editorial office was ransacked: All 3,000 copies of the magazine were stolen, and thousands of dollars' worth of damage was done.

This was hardly the first time MEChA had gone on a rampage on a California campus. In 1993, MEChA cadres at UCLA caused $500,000 in damage in a protest demanding full department status for "Chicano Studies" -- courses designed to cultivate a revolutionary mind-set among Hispanic students. The program of MEChA's April 1997 national conference at Michigan State University offered a snap-shot of that mind-set: "We must … become a nation within a nation, with a national plan of action as new soldiers in our struggle for national independence, and an emerging XICANO [Chicano] nation."

Asked about his group's ideology and intentions, Miguel Perez of Cal State-Northridge's MEChA chapter replied: "The ultimate ideology is the liberation of Aztlan. Communism would be closest [to it]." Once Aztlan is established, continued Perez, ethnic cleansing would commence: "Non-Chicanos would have to be expelled … opposition groups would be quashed because you have to keep power." In their intimidation campaign against the staff of the California Patriot, Berkeley's MEChA thugs offered a foretaste of this ruling philosophy in action.

Do MEChA and its Aztlandista allies have the means to match their ambitions? Not yet, obviously. But their terrorist infrastructure is being created, and it grows with each wave of unassimilated immigrants from Mexico. Kosovo offers an ominous parallel: The narco-terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA), which now governs that Serbian province under UN supervision, recruited much of its membership through campus-based ethnic separatism among ethnic Albanians. And the KLA's campaign to seize Kosovo gained strength through rampant illegal immigration from Serbia's southern neighbor, Albania.

Assimilation in Reverse

Historically, immigrants to the United States were expected to assimilate our language, customs, and public culture. However, as the border between the United States and Mexico erodes, we are witnessing what could be called "assimilation in reverse" as the public institutions of the affected communities are required to accommodate large, undigested masses of Mexicans.

For example: The City of Houston has announced that the "matricular card," a form of identification issued by the Mexican Consulate, would be "considered official identification by Houston police officers," reported the March 8th Houston Chronicle. The paper notes that this is a particularly welcome development for Mexicans whose "immigration status may be in question … [and therefore] have no valid U.S. forms of identification, such as a driver's license."

All that is required to obtain a matricular card, noted a March 22nd Fox News report, is "a Mexican birth certificate and some proof of U.S. residency." No proof of U.S. citizenship is required. In some states, continued the Fox News report, "matricular ID holders can use the card as one of two pieces of identification needed to apply for a driver's license."

From the Mexican Consulate in Colorado comes a proposal that would make it even easier for illegal immigrants: Why not repeal the state law against granting driver's licenses to "undocumented residents" from Mexico? "Undocumented" Mexican workers -- that is, Mexican nationals who violate our nation's immigration laws -- "are providing labor and energy to the economy of Colorado," insisted Leticia Calzada, Mexico's consul general in Denver. Besides, criminal cases resulting from enforcement of the state's traffic laws "are clogging courthouses in many counties because these Mexicans need to drive."

The Texas gubernatorial race offers one of the most dramatic examples of "assimilation in reverse." Shortly before last March's Democratic gubernatorial primary in Texas, candidates Tony Sanchez and Dan Morales made history by conducting a debate in Spanish. While there was no clear winner on substantive issues, Morales clearly lost where the most important issue of style was concerned -- the question of Hispanic "authenticity."

Texas native Morales lives in San Antonio, home of the Alamo. After earning a law degree from Harvard, he returned to serve as a legislator, and then as state attorney general. But Morales "only recently taught himself Spanish," noted an Associated Press profile. While debating with Sanchez, Morales infuriated the state's Hispanic-identity constituency by insisting on translating his answers into English, contending that since English remains the lingua franca of Texas it is wrong to "elevate the status of Spanish to English."

"I didn't like the way Dan Morales said Spanish can't be even with English," groused spectator Felipe Banvelos, a 45-year-old Mexican expatriate who became a naturalized citizen in 1999. Mayor Betty Flores of Laredo, who has been a U.S. citizen a great deal longer, also condemned Morales for lacking the proper ethnic consciousness. "I can tell you I've worked on issues with Dan Morales and he used to not want to be Hispanic," declared Flores. "He didn't speak Spanish, he didn't understand what was going on, he did not really comprehend the whole issue of the strength of minorities in Texas."

By crafting a political persona tailored to the state's emerging Mexican voter bloc, Sanchez managed to secure the democratic nomination. An oil millionaire from Laredo who also helps manage the International Bank of Commerce, Sanchez is "immersed in the border city's binational, Hispanic-focused commerce" and campaigns "to the tune of a Mexican-style ballad," noted the AP. More importantly, Laredo "is ground zero for the North American Free Trade Agreement." Its business district draws "throngs of foot traffic from Nuevo Laredo, its sister city across the Rio Grande. Locals tout it as ‘Los Dos Laredos,' one city sliced by an international border."

Just as Sanchez figuratively straddles the U.S.-Mexican border, he also bridges the narrow gulf between the Republican and Democrat parties. Prior to being tapped by the Texas Democrat Party establishment to run for governor, Sanchez had no elective political experience. He did, however, prominently support then-Governor George W. Bush.

The Texas Observer notes that Sanchez and his family have given the Bush campaign "a total of $323,650 over the years, making them the third most generous patron of Bush's political career."

Sanchez' ties to the overwhelmingly popular Republican president, notes the Observer, will serve "as a form of inoculation" against criticism of his Hispanic-identity politics. "You're going to hear that Tony Sanchez is nothing but a drug-running, money-laundering, influence peddling, brown guy," notes campaign spokesman Kelly Ferro. "But an awful lot of that money wound up in George Bush's bank account."

While occupying the office that Sanchez hopes to win, George W. Bush and his advisers devised a version of the political strategy now used by the Sanchez campaign. "By 1998," notes the Observer, "Republican political guru Karl Rove was already instructing George W. Bush to reach out to Hispanic voters by speaking in broken Spanish whenever he could. The Bush team saw that not just Texas but the entire Southwest was tilting Hispanic, and tilting fast. Capturing the Latino vote is the key to the future dominance of one or the other of the political parties -- at both the local and the national level."

Bipartisan Border Assault

It is, of course, true that some of the Bush administration's policies regarding our southern border are dictated by a desire to woo the Hispanic vote. However, there is a deeper and even more insidious motivation. The administration, building upon the work of its predecessor, is seeking to erase our border with Mexico as a prelude to consolidating the Western Hemisphere into a single political bloc modeled after the European Union.

One key component of this grand design is the so-called North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which President Bush (the elder) negotiated and Bill Clinton put into place. But if the Bush administration's plans come to fruition, NAFTA will be supplanted by the so-called Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) -- a single economic unit stretching "from Alaska to Tierra del Fuego."

"NAFTA has been good for New Mexico, and it's been good for Mexico," declared the president in an August 15, 2001 address to the Hispanic Chamber of Commerce in Albuquerque. "I ask for Congress to give me trade promotion authority, so that we can not only have free trade with our neighbor to the south, so that we can have free trade throughout the hemisphere."

It is important to recognize that by "free trade," President Bush -- like his predecessor, and like other proponents of NAFTA-style agreements -- is referring to managed trade as part of continent-spanning political integration. One obvious casualty of this process is national sovereignty -- as the president himself admitted in the same address.

"Oh, I know there's some voices who want to wall us off from Mexico," the president continued. "They want to build a wall. I say to them, they want to condemn our neighbors to the south in [sic] poverty, and I refuse to accept that type of isolationist and protectionist attitude." Rather than strengthening our border with Mexico, the president insisted, we should be working to "tear down barriers and walls that might separate Mexico from the United States."

Following the September 11th terrorist attacks, the Bush administration and its counterparts in Mexico devised a new rationale for amalgamating the United States with Mexico and Canada: the supposed need to create a common "security perimeter" protecting the NAFTA nations.

Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda told Canadian foreign affairs minister Bill Graham that "Mexico wants its North American neighbors to move more quickly towards integration on a continental scale," reported the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on February 23rd. "We would like to continentalize as much as possible," remarked Castañeda. "We have been pushing for this. And we have been encountering a receptive ear both in Canada and the United States at a certain level of intensity. We would like to move more quickly. We would like to move more deeply."

During the UN Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey, Mexico, President Bush spoke of the need to create a "common border" with Mexico and Canada as part of a counter-terrorist strategy. "America, working closely with Canada and Mexico, has set a goal: We are working for a common border that is open to commerce and legitimate travel, and closed to drug trafficking and terror," declared the president as he signed an agreement with Mexican President Vicente Fox intended to "make our shared border more open and more secure."

Insisting that it needed to demonstrate our nation's "compassion" to the Mexican government, the Bush administration pressured House Republicans into supporting the proposed amnesty for illegal Mexican immigrants. The bitterly contested measure was passed on March 12th. Knowing that the bill would be extremely unpopular with the public, House leaders originally attempted to pass the measure by an unrecorded voice vote -- only to see that effort stymied by Representative Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.), whose state is on the front line of La Reconquista.

Nor was President Bush's behind-the-scenes pressure on behalf of amnesty the only gift he placed at the feet of Mexican President Vicente Fox. The March 20th Washington Post reported: "President Bush plans to direct $30 million to poor areas of Mexico over the next year in an effort to discourage illegal immigration by strengthening businesses there...." The fund, called the U.S.-Mexico Partnership for Progress, will include subsidies for Mexican entrepreneurs and college scholarships for Mexicans. Incredibly, this proposal was, in part, a payoff intended to assuage the anger of both the Fox regime and its constituents in this country "after fallout from the September 11 attacks delayed plans to ease the path to legalization for some of the 3 million undocumented Mexicans in this country."

That's right: Not only is the Bush administration apologizing to Mexico for its tardiness in acting to subvert our immigration laws, it's wrapping that apology in a wad of taxpayer dollars.

[b]The Border Vanishes

The Mexican government, radical Chicano separatists, and the Bush administration all agree on one thing: The border separating our nation from Mexico should be treated as if it does not exist. The Fox regime, like previous Mexican governments for decades, uses its porous northern border as a safety valve, exporting its unemployable citizens and then organizing them within our nation as a potent political bloc. Chicano separatists intoxicated with dreams of a new "homeland" radicalize young, poorly assimilated Mexicans for a street-level army that may prove a larger long-term threat than Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terrorist network. And the Bush administration, pursuing a plan for continental "integration," treats Mexico as if it were already part of a consolidated political unit with the United States.

In his new book Warrior Politics, journalist Robert D. Kaplan correctly points out that "the tumultuous historic consolidation of Mexico and the United States" is just one facet of a process of "global political convergence" into a "kind of loose world governance...."

As "these two vastly unequal societies [the United States and Mexico] integrate at breakneck speed," the immediate result will be "social upheaval on both sides of the border." But from the perspective of the globalist elite -- a view that Kaplan enthusiastically shares -- this is simply the price that must be paid to bring about a unified world.

In a 1995 speech to Chicano activists, Navarro said demographic trends are leading to "a transfer of power" to the ethnic Mexican community in the Southwest. He notes that most studies show that within the next 20 to 30 years Latinos will comprise more than 50 percent of the population of California. This fact, and other cultural and social developments, are opening the door for "self-determination" and even "the idea of an Aztlan," he said in his speech.

Aztlan, the mythical birthplace of the Aztecs, is regarded in Chicano folklore as an area that includes California, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas. Spencer believes the aim is to create a sovereign state, "Republica del Norte," the Republic of the North, that would combine the American Southwest with the northern Mexican states and eventually merge with Mexico.

"I see that as the overarching goal of the Mexican government and many Mexicans who want self-determination," Spencer said.

'America's Palestinians'

On its website, a group called "La Voz de Aztlan," the Voice of Aztlan, identifies Mexicans in the U.S. as "America's Palestinians." Many Mexicans see themselves as part of a transnational ethnic group known as "La Raza," the race. A May editorial on the website, with a dateline of Los Angeles, Alta California, declares that "both La Raza and the Palestinians have been displaced by invaders that have utilized military means to conquer and occupy our territories."

But the threat of secession is not merely from groups that might be considered on the fringe, Spencer insists, noting the declarations of Mexican leaders, up to the highest office. Former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo said in a 1997 speech in Chicago to the "National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic advocacy group, that he "proudly affirmed that the Mexican nation extends beyond the territory enclosed by its borders and that Mexican migrants are an important – a very important – part of this."

Zedillo said that because of this fact his government proposed a constitutional amendment that allows Mexican citizens to hold dual citizenship. Spencer believes that the objective is to enable Mexicans in the United States to vote in the interest of Mexico.

Ultimately, many Mexicans hope for a "reconquista," a reconquest of territory lost when Mexico signed the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidlago at the end of the Mexican-American War.