Just a reminder of history for those who bitch about moving borders, human rights, and ancestry: There isn’t one ethnic group on this earth who hasn’t been kicked around or done its own kicking. I’m Irish-Scots-German-Cherokee. I’m not ashamed of any part of my heritage. I will never apologize for my ancestry.
This so-called Mexican-American Studies course is not an educational forum; it's ideological indoctrination aimed at school children for the purpose of radicalization. There's absolutely no balance or counter points in the material. La Raza's other pet project is aiding and abetting illegal aliens in violation of Federal statutes. Entry into this country is a privilege, not a right. Illegal aliens are not guaranteed rights under the U.S. Constitution. Obama panders to his Hispanic voting bloc with promises of immigration overhaul and the outrageous DREAM act.
The United States is no longer a melting pot, but a land that is rapidly becoming Balkanized. Illegals have no intention of paying taxes, adopting American traditions, or becoming citizens. They have established their own colonies on this soil; refusing to assimilate. They’ve been suckling off the teat of American welfare so long, they think it’s an entitlement. We have enough American-born able-bodied people who use welfare as an income, we should not add illegals to the public dole. They want all the benefits, but none of the responsibilities. They want free healthcare, education, and welfare. All we have to do is pay for it. The illegal immigration pimps might derive some sort of smug satisfaction from providing them their freedoms and benefits at our expense, but the rest of us are sick of footing the bill for an entire class of derelicts who come here with nothing more than a list of demands.
The wave of leftwing revisionist history is being met with opposition from parents and concerned citizens who are sick and tired of the La Raza racist bullshit being taught in the classroom.
The best disinfectant is sunlight, much to the dismay of the La Raza cockroaches.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - TJ Jackson
There is not much to add. You have stated the case very well. I live here at ground zero for all of this BS. If they want a revolution, they will get a lot more fight than they could imagine. Power to the people!
2 - Irene Athena
Jose Guerena was murdered by a SWAT team in Tuscson Arizona this month. I'm having a difficult time getting upset about the textbooks at the moment.
3 - Clavos
Sarge, in your article you say, Illegal aliens are not guaranteed rights under the U.S. Constitution.
This is incorrect. All persons on US soil, even if only visiting, are protected by the Bill of Rights. The framers drafted the Constitution in very general terms. It refers to the rights of persons, not citizens.
4 - Glenn Contrarian
Sergeant -
What an incredibly spiteful and hateful diatribe, chock-full of unsubstantiated accusations and utterly baseless assumptions...and if I read your personality rightly (as readers often try to know the mind of the author), I suspect that you might not be able to tell which statements you made are unsubstantiated and baseless. It's interesting how I get castigated for being such a sanctimonious liberal, yet when I see your article with language that's not much less inflammatory than what's found on stormfront.org and I see no one pointing out your rhetorical log as it compares to my rhetorical mote...that tells me much.
It would be nice if you would learn to read history without seeing everything through blood-red political glasses. I recommend reading Guns, Germs, and Steel as a start. It's a completely apolitical work...which is one of the many reasons it won the Pulitzer.
And for Clavos - well said.
5 - Irene Athena
Dear you-ain't-MY-sergeant. I know there's a bit of friendly rivalry between the army and the marines, but how does it strike you that a guy who had served--even if it WAS as a Marine--was served THAT way in return by the SWAT team in Tuscon?
The story of Jose Guerena's murder is getting so very little attention nationwide. The very next thing I read after reading an article about it (I linked to that article in comment #2) was YOUR article about how you'd had enough of La Raza's uppity ways and you weren't going to take it any more.
So what I'm wondering is, which allegiance is going to determine how you react to the story of Jose Guerena's murder? Will the army connection compel you to defend ANY action of a group of government-anointed hit men, even THAT action? Or will you recognize the dead Marine as a comrade, and advocate that his memory be honored?
Or will Jose Gurena's (possible, and, in your eyes, unfortunate) Aztec ancestry lead you to conclude that he got just what he had coming?
6 - Cannonshop
Guerena was a MARINE-that makes him American enough in every sense of the word, and he was murdered because of the fetish for midnight, no-knock assaults by agents of "Law enforcement" (put in quotes due to the irony of that term-esp. in this case.)
Who wants to make a bet that not one of the shooters (because, 71 rounds into a man before he can take the safety off is either a minigun, or lots of guys opening fire at once) is going to face the prison time they so rightfully brought upon themselves in this act of cold-blooded, negligent, murder?
Oh, and Irene, please, don't slur the Army with that, if you would be so kind, yes?
7 - Irene Athena
Don't worry, C-shop. There is a growing contingent of army men, whom I very much respect, who are banding together to decry this sort of thing. The SLPC doesn't like them very much, though.
8 - Lemmie
Irene, your link to the Jose Guerena "story" has nothing to do with this blogcritic post.
Your point is?
9 - Irene Athena
Lemmie, I can tell that you are frustrated. If I knew more about what grade level you are reading at, and if I had more of an idea of how you might be connected to the Jose Guerena "story," I might be able to be of some assistance. As the situation stands, however, I am afraid that I am not in a position to help you.
10 - Clavos
Irene, at the risk of displaying my ignorance, what is the SLPC?
11 - Irene Athena
I transposed two letters accidentally: SPLC Southern Poverty Law Center. Has done some good work in the past, but has recently taken to classifying certain liberty groups as threats to national security. They've decided who the haters are.
12 - Irene Athena
One such organization, under fire by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) is the Oathkeepers. The Oathkeepers have been very closely following this story of former Marine Jose Guerena's violent death in his Tucson home by a SWAT team.
There is much about the story that disturbs the Oathkeepers, and there is much about the Oathkeepers that disturbs the SPLC.
Why would a group whose existence is dedicated to protecting the rights of minorities have different goals from a group that is calling the nation's attention to the murder of a minority Marine in his own home?
13 - Irene Athena
Yes, there are racists in the United States, and part of the job of protecting the President and his family involves identifying them. Caroline Kennedy, Julie Nixon, Chelsea Clinton--they were all household names, and no harm came to them, but it cannot be that way for Obama's little girls. This I understand.
However.
There are also thugs like the crowd that murdered Jose Guerena. Oathkeepers is a group of current and former US military and law enforcement personnel who refuse to go the way of those thugs.
SLPC has, as so many do, confused "speaking out against government agency policy" with racism.
14 - zingzing
from the splc thing on them:
“We will not fear our government; they will fear us,” one man, who appeared to be on active duty in the
Army, said in an angry video sent to the Oath Keepers blog. In another video at the site, a man who said he was a former Army paratrooper in Afghanistan and Iraq described President Obama as “an enemy of the state,” adding, “I would rather die than be a slave to my government.” The Oath Keepers site soon began hawking T-shirts with slogans like “I’m a Right Wing Extremist and Damn Proud of It!”
In April, Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes - a Yale Law School graduate and former aide to U.S. Rep. Ron Paul (a Texas Republican and hard-line libertarian) - worried about a coming dictatorship. “We know that if the day should come where a full-blown dictatorship would come, or tyranny ... it can only happen if those men, our brothers in arms, go along and comply with unconstitutional, unlawful orders,” Rhodes told conspiracy-minded radio host Alex Jones. “Imagine if we focus on the police and military. Game over for the New World Order.”
One Oath Keeper is longtime militia hero Richard Mack, a former sheriff of a rural Arizona county who collaborated with white supremacist Randy Weaver on a book…
-snip-
i dunno. they seem like run of the mill right wing militia types. except they're well trained and they probably have guns. might be a good idea to keep an eye on them. if they do anything, it won't be to lead a large group of millions to freedom--they're to far out there for that--it'll be something they think is a profoundly good idea, something that will stop the ever-more-powerful gov't from taking over their lives, something that will kill people who don't give two fucks about them.
they're nut jobs, irene. let them have their jollies, but you don't need to join the cult.
15 - Irene Athena
Here is the Oath that the oathkeepers take. Orders We Will Not Obey
We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people.
We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as “unlawful enemy combatants” or to subject them to military tribunal.
We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state.
We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to “keep the peace” or to “maintain control."
We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
16 - zingzing
all well and good. shrug.
still, best to keep your eye on the armed man in the room, isn't it?
17 - Irene Athena
Well ZingZing, you have told me that the individuals in Oathkeepers are "nut jobs," and that I should take your advice, and find that comfy ZingZing spot on the political scale where sane and wholesome people dwell.
It's like this, ZingZing. If I had to pick a set of nut jobs with whom to cast in my lot, it would be with the people from Oathkeepers who are opposing the murder of Jose Guerena, rather than those in smug, safe, politically correct, SPLC territory with those who haven't quite figured out what to say about it yet. Eggshelly tiptoeing people.
18 - Irene Athena
Delusionally paranoid, one might even call them.
19 - zingzing
yeah well. fair enough. i can agree with them on opposing a murder by a swat team. but i'm not going to dedicate my life to their cause. too many other things to do. at this point it's a social club with a political edge and a gun fetish, but those things can sometimes go awry.
they certainly agree with you (and me) on this one point, but don't go all evangelical with them. i can find guerena's murder horrendous without pulling out my phallic gun and saying "fear me, government." (or associating with white supremacists... at least he seems to hate the gov't more than he hates them brown folk.)
and the splc has always looked out for hate groups. i don't know if i'd consider the oath keepers a hate group (unless gov't as a target of hate qualifies), but they are quite a good example of a militia group, which is what the article i quoted was about.
20 - Irene Athena
ZingZing, if you've never been in the military or in law enforcement, you wouldn't be welcome to join anyway. I think you're kind of missing the point of how serious this is. When a man or a woman takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, that man or woman takes it seriously.
There are some men and women in Tuscon who have taken that oath, who are facing some pretty heavy moral dilemmas right now.
Don't trivialize the efforts of their comrades who are trying to help them make the right decision.
21 - Irene Athena
And yes, I'll recite a poem and playfully stick a flower in the barrel of their guns, because it does take all kinds to keep this world spinning harmoniously, but I will not join with you in mocking the seriousness of their oath.
22 - zingzing
"When a man or a woman takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States, that man or woman takes it seriously."
oh, balderdash. it's a fucking bit of paper. defend something real, like your life or someone you love, not the hotly debated words of someone you never knew. they "defend" their own interpretation of the constitution, which is their political beliefs. they pretend to believe that their political beliefs are worth killing or dying over. that's fine and all, but when they're free to go on a radio program and broadcast it to the world, they aren't under duress. if they aren't a bunch of blowhards, they're a bunch of cowards, and if they aren't a bunch of cowards, they're a bunch of terrorists, and if they aren't a bunch of terrorists, then just maybe they were right, but that'll be the day too late.
"ZingZing, if you've never been in the military or in law enforcement, you wouldn't be welcome to join anyway."
ah, exclusivity. what a great way to keep the riffraff out.
if you join them, i'll restart baader-meinhof and we can have an explosion competition. gotta believe something.
23 - Irene Athena
I said I wasn't going to be joining you, ZingZing, in mocking them. I meant it.
24 - Irene Athena
There are a GOOD many of those in Oathkeepers who've worked hard to oppose unjust wars, and who are in a position of influence to do this.
25 - Lemmie
Hi Irene! First off I'd like to thank you for the ad hom comments in response to my #8 post.
Second, in the "story" you posted a link to, Griggs claims that gang members, heavily armed and dressed as SWAT, were raiding homes in Texas during 2005-08. This "might" explain why Mrs. Guerena described the dynamic entry team as "some guys", rather than a SWAT unit. The thing is, I can find no information about said gang from any credible source. I found a few articles about gang members posing as police officers or plain clothes detectives in a number of states, but nothing about them posing as SWAT teams. Griggs posted no links to back up this claim. Do you have them?
Third, even if Mrs. Guerena suspected that these "guys" were actually gangsters in disguise, why didn't she at least inform her husband that they were dressed as such. Of course, she may have already modified her initial statement to reflect this, but I have yet to read anything about it.
So, we have a man sleeping in bed when his wife screams: "Guys with guns are trying to get into the house!"
The man jumps out of bed, grabs a semi-automatic military-style rifle, secures his wife and child in a closet for their protection, then rushes to confront the "guys with guns". He draws a bead on the front door as it bursts open.
One wonders if his final thought wasn't something along the lines of: "Oh, crap, she didn't tell me they were SWAT (or at least dressed as SWAT)!"
Perhaps if he had that little tidbit of information his reaction might have been different?