* United States of La Raza
From the Files of http://www.wvwnews.net/story.php?id=1092
This past weekend, Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama campaigned at a convention of La Raza, the violent racist Mexican hate group that wants to “reconquer” the American southwest for Mexico. Of course, Hillary’s and Barak’s goal is to win the endorsement of La Raza.
Obama told the group he’s already entitled to their endorsement, because he marched in one of those rallies for illegal aliens last year. “Find out how many senators appeared before an immigration rally last year,” he proudly declared, “Who was talking the talk, and who walked the walk — because I walked.” In America, we have a phrase for those who support and assist criminals in the commission of crimes – it’s called aiding and abetting. Anyhow, after bragging about his support for law-breaking illegal aliens, Obama then tried to lay blame for the recent defeat in the Senate of the Immigration Reform Bill, saying the debate “was both ugly and racist in a way we haven’t see since the struggle for civil rights.” Clinton said she had been struggling “to understand where all of the venom and the incredible anxiety came from” during the debate over the bill. She added that she was “very disappointed, and I was really quite offended by the tone of the debate and some of what was said by outside parties who were trying to influence the debate.”So, in summary, there was a convention of a violent racist Mexican organization that is determined to take the American southwest away from the United States, by armed conflict if necessary. They gathered on American soil to discuss how to go about making it happen. Among them were the two front-running candidates for the Democrat presidential nomination, both of them sitting United States senators who are sworn to defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. These two candidates for the presidency are trying gain the approval and support of that racist Mexican organization…
Given the stated aim of La Raza, we have to ask, why on earth do two sitting senators who are candidates for the Presidency of the United States think an endorsement by La Raza is a good thing? During the last presidential campaign, it was a source of shame for John Kerry when Al Qaeda endorsed him. Why should a La Raza endorsement be less shameful? And yet, Hillary and Barak were fighting for La Raza’s seal of approval. Since the two candidates are fine with the possibility of turning over the American southwest to Mexico, I’d like to know if they might also be in favor of giving the American south back to Southerners. If they aren’t, then I’d like to know why they think Mexicans are entitled to land that does not belong to Mexicans, but Southerners are not entitled to land that does belong to Southerners. I know it’s a question neither Hillary nor Barak will ever answer, but I’d like to ask them nonetheless.
In the current illegal immigration debate, statistics are being thrown around like confetti. We are barraged with the numbers and percentages of how many illegal aliens are in the country, how much money they pump into the economy, (or take from it), how much they depress wages for all Americans, how many crimes illegal aliens commit, increases in drug trafficking, etc. All these numbers are used to support each side’s position on what should or should not be done about the millions upon millions of illegal aliens who are in this country. But the debate is far simpler than our politicians would have us believe, and that simplicity is found in the only statistic that should matter to our politicians – 90%. 90% of all Americans do not want the immigration policy being forced upon us by George W. Bush and the United States Senate. 90%. That’s huge; that’s crystal-clear; there should be no question about it – the immigration policy of George W. Bush and the United States Senate is unacceptable to 90% of the American people, and it should be scrapped. In fact, it should have been tossed into that idiotic coffin the NAACP used to “bury the n-word” a couple of weeks ago.
Real elected representatives would acknowledge the mandate of 90% of Americans, and they would uphold their sworn duty to enact the will of the people who elected them, even if they disagree with the people. That’s what elected representatives are supposed to do. Certainly, elected representatives have a say in any issue that comes before the people who elected them, because they are citizens of the districts they represent. But when the majority of a representative’s constituents speak the same message, that representative has an ironclad obligation to set aside his or her own opinions, and present and vigorously support the will of his or her constituents to the body to which they’ve been elected. As I said, that’s what real elected representatives would do. But Americans haven’t had real elected representatives since 1865, which is precisely why many senators, most notoriously Clinton and Obama, are determined to resurrect the Immigration Reform Bill that was shot down by We the People of the United States. Immediately after we succeeded in defending ourselves against our President and our Senate, they reaffirmed loudly and proudly that they would continue trying to enact the very legislation that 90% of us said we didn’t want, whether we like it or not. The message they are sending us is unmistakable – our will, the will of the people they are supposed to represent, is of no consequence to them. It’s a message that Clinton and Obama are not only reaffirming, but also making an “in your face” campaign issue, telling La Raza, a gang of thug foreigners and illegal aliens, that We the People of the United States are ugly, racist, venomous, filled with anxiety, offensive, and an outside party. Did you catch that last phrase? Hillary Clinton says that in matters of our government we are outsiders and have no say in how we are governed! She doesn’t even respect us enough to call us Americans, instead labeling us “outside parties who were trying to influence the debate.” My friends, to that I say what many of our grandfathers used to say: “Them’s fightin’ words!” And one senator recognized that fact when he said “This immigration bill has become a war between the American people and their government. This vote. . .is really not about immigration, it’s about whether we’re going to listen to the American people.” That senator was absolutely correct. And to assist them in their war on the American people, Clinton and Obama have decided to enlist La Raza, a horde of foreigners and illegal aliens. It reminds me of when King George hired 30,000 Hessian mercenaries to try to subdue Americans. My friends, “outrageous” and “insulting” do not even begin to describe what Clinton and Obama are doing.
In a more civilized day not long ago, Americans were confronted by a government that believed as Clinton, Obama, many of their fellow-senators, and George W. Bush believe today – American citizens are irrelevant in their government. In response, those Americans issued a statement that should serve as a warning to politicians today. Here’s what that statement said:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.”
Who can deny that we are now in the same position as were our forefathers? Is there any real difference between what they faced and what we see happening among us? The only solution short of the violent overthrow of our government (which many people think is not just a possibility, but a probability) is to elect people who will truly represent us, men like Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo and Dr. David Duke (oh, how I wish he was a candidate!), or anyone who will promise to enact the will of the Americans who grant them the privilege of representing us, and who will not plot and scheme and promise cooperation with foreigners who have sworn to take land that does not belong to them, murdering American citizens in the process if necessary.
Our brave Founding Fathers said we have the right and the duty to throw off a government that does not serve us, that thinks we exist for them. Many of our elected officials sincerely think that we are “people of the Government, by the Government, and for the Government.” I ask you, my friends, are we still held by self-evident truths that held our forefathers? Do we still believe that our government is supposed to get its powers from us, the governed? Are we up to our duty? If we are not, then the Clintons and the Obamas will have their way. And when that happens, our duty will be meaningless, because we will have no rights.
Winston Smith is a staff member of The Political Cesspool Radio Program. He can be e-mailed here: winstonsmith_99@yahoo.com
For more information: www.thepoliticalcesspool.org