Posted on 03/11/2002 11:44:45 AM PST by Sir Gawain
|
Borders: We Don't Need No Stinking Borders
A Glimpse into the Deconstruction of America By J.J. Johnson Published 03. 10. 2002 at 18:05 PST |
| Perhaps he is correct. Maybe we don't really need Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California, anyway. In a lengthy article in Sunday's Albuquerque Tribune, a professor of Chicano studies at the University of New Mexico is suggesting just that. His vision of a new nation called "Republica del Norte" is only a dream - possibly 80 years away. But the responses from his professional colleagues and lack of outrage indicates that this New "Republica" may give birth sooner than we think. This "Champion of the Indigenous people", Charles Truxillo has stated on the record that this new sovereign Hispanic nation should be brought into being "by any means necessary." Since we don't have republishing rights (we didn't ask), you'll have to go online to read the entire interview. It is well worth it. While you're reading it, imagine if you will the words 'Hispanic' or 'Chicano' being replaced with the words 'white' or 'Caucasian'. Then think how many UNM Alumni, faculty, and students would be calling for Truxillo's immediate resignation, and how fast. But that probably won't happen here. Even though whites are the minority in New Mexico (and now California), no one will dare call Truxillo's comments blatantly racist and Anti-American. In fact, some will probably find them enlightening. Make a good argument for 'states' rights, and you'll have the NAACP protesting at your door claiming you are an advocate of slavery. But since Truxillo isn't white, his argument won't be criticized, and in reality, actually makes sense. Truxillo told the Albuquerque Tribune " the U.S. Civil War settled the question of secession militarily but not in a legal sense. States do have the right to secede, he maintained, if -- as was untrue in the 1860s -- the rest of the country is willing to let them go." He also said, "the states had that right under the Articles of Confederation of 1777, in which each state retained its own "sovereignty, freedom and independence." What tells me his argument has merit, and what especially raised my eyebrows were Truxillo's colleagues, and how they responded to his statements. Daniel Feller, professor of history at the same University responded to Truxillo's comments with: "To say that the language in the Articles of Confederation is not specifically negated, and therefore still effective, is a very implausible argument. "The Constitution does supersede the Articles of Confederation - it takes no notice of the articles and is not presented as bearing any relation to them. The Constitution does not declare, recognize or in any way acknowledge the right to secede", Feller told the Tribune. Keep in mind that this learned Feller is a 'professor of history.' But his statements were so incorrect it took this high-school graduate only 2 minutes to find this: Article VI: "All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation." This shows the Constitution clearly recognized such 'engagement', as well as recognized the Articles of Confederation. What's further, Feller's argument that The Constitution does supersede the Articles of Confederation is contradicted in the next section of that same article: " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." It is my opinion that the above is the greatest error in the Constitution (Treaties may supercede it), and from even in recent history this has been proven. Setting aside the Constitutional arguments for another day, let us remember while both professors have the right to speak their minds, both of these men are allowed to teach the next generation, thus have an impact on their political views for the next two generations, if left unchecked. Even Truxillo says a civil war probably won't make it happen, but election pressure will. There may be some who find his statements as a mere humorous vision, believing that the United State would never let these states leave the Union. Unfortunately, there are today just enough liberals and so-called republicans (mostly white) who can't think past the next election cycle, and would probably unknowingly let it happen for that reason alone. By the next generation, Americans will all be taught well that the War of 1861 to 1865 was ONLY fought over slavery (evil white guys, remember?), not states wishing to leave the Union because a contract (the Constitution) was being violated. And who are we to deny 'minorities' their right of self-expression and self-determination - even if they are the majority? The most frightening aspect of the article overall is that what has been preached about as 'the Conquest of Aztlan' by the Caucasian activists not only has merit, but is being actively taught in the Universities and other cultural institutions throughout the Southwest. Today it is no longer whispered in the barrios, it is out in the open. Even thought Truxillo's colleges are 'skeptical' of his views, in this new age of political correctness no one dared call his words seditious. And yes, there are many who agree with Truxillo. The interview in the Albuquerque Tribune can and should be used as evidence in the debate to better secure the nations borders. No, it is not just some wild, extreme view from the radical right. It's about at least 6 major warm water ports, the culture of millions of people who agree with the Truxillo's of the southwest, the sovereignty of the United States being wiped out, and yes - a national security issue. The birth rates between Hispanic and non-Hispanic residents of these states only hammers the point home even further. Within 20 years, New Mexico and California may seat Hispanic governors and legislatures. More urban non-Hispanics will leave, while laws will make it more difficult for economic prosperity in rural areas. If being 'culturally sensitive' means ripping stars off the flag, then it is time for the United States of America to recall not only its troops from overseas, but to overhaul its own domestic policy. Sovereignty and self-defense at home is not just a policy for the last generation of white people. And if the government thinks that continuing this course of 'deconstruction' in the southwest is acceptable as a long term strategy, I would like to introduce them to a lot more non-Hispanic Americans, who would like to begin negotiations for their own secession in the future. |
The most useless degree known to mankind ---yank all their federal scholarships, they'll scream to be back under the US.
We have to grab this painful nettle and close our borders to illegals from any country. Too many people across the political sprectrum want open and pourous borders for their personal agendas! The rest of us have to pay the real and hidden costs of their agendas supported by the open borders of the past 9 years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.