Something To Say-World

Something to Say-World blog is a forum where I can vent and share my strong viewpoints with the world, and get feedback from others, whether they are pro or con, for or against my positions. The main thing is that we engage in a thought provoking discussion with hopes of seeing the world in a more clearer and different light than we did before initiating our intellectual dialogues. __________ MOTTO:Committed To Relentless Pursuit Of Hidden Truths -Globally-

Friday, November 25, 2005


Due to the sensitivity and complexity of illegal immigration of porous borders between the United States and Mexico, I want to clearly state that this writing is not about whether illegal immigration is right or wrong, beneficial or non-beneficial to the overall economy of the United States. But to point out an important relevant fact that is clearly being overlooked in this ongoing discussion of a cancer which permeates practically every spectrum of the U.S. government, politics and all our daily lives in one way or another as U.S. citizens. Further, I recognize not only are Mexican nationals crossing the borders illegally, but people from other Latin American countries, coupled with those that come from non-Latin countries that-purportedly and allegedly-promote and support terrorism. However, based on latest reports I am privy to in the media, indicate the vast majority of illegals (estimated to be 10 to 13 million now in the U.S.) are Mexican nationals.

I am simply amazed that out of all the radio and TV broadcast news reports and paper print coverages of the illegal "Mexican Invasion" that no one has touched on another blurred and submerged potent historic aspect that is actually driving the invasion. And to my dismay, not even the articulate Michelle Malkin (public speaker and activist) or the combative Bill O'Reilly(FOX News), two strong and vociferous proponents of enhanced border control, have shown the least bit savvy when it comes to this poignant and germane historical issue. Despite all the resources at their disposal, they have simply missed the boat, just as our leaders have done as well.

Prefatorily, the common Mexican man and woman are proud and hard working people, and certainly they want to improve their economic conditions as all responsible and industrious human beings would like to do. But they are are just pawns in the bigger scheme of the Mexican government's more historically focused objective. I submit that the Mexican government is deliberating encouraging, facilitating and tacitly supporting the Invasion based on a deeply embedded vested animus towards the U.S., which I term as a prolonged nationalistic and patriotic plight to take back the states that were perceively stolen from Mexico during the Mexican and American War of 1846. But first allow me to digress a bit to provide a brief factual account of documented history and personal experiences to substantiate this factual and irrefutable revelation that is not based on theoretical premises or delusions of the imagination.

According to historical accounts, supposedly, the war between the United States and
Mexico began with a Mexican attack on American troops along the southern border of Texas on Apr. 25, 1846. Fighting ended when U.S. Gen. Winfield Scott occupied Mexico City on Sept. 14, 1847; a few months later a peace treaty was signed (Feb. 2, 1848) at Guadalupe Hidalgo. In addition to recognizing the U.S. annexation of Texas, defeated Mexico ceded California and New Mexico (including all the present-day states of the Southwest) to the United States.(Ref# 1).

As with all major events, historical interpretations concerning the causes of the Mexican War vary. Simply stated, a dictatorial Centralist government in Mexico began the war because of the U.S. annexation (1845) of Texas, which Mexico continued to claim despite the establishment of the independent republic of Texas 10 years before. Some historians have argued, however, that the United States provoked the war by annexing Texas and, more deliberately, by stationing an army at the mouth of the Rio Grande. Another, related, interpretation maintains that the administration of U.S. President James K. Polk forced Mexico to war in order to seize California and the Southwest. A minority believes the war arose simply out of Mexico's failure to pay claims for losses sustained by U.S. citizens during the Mexican War of Independence. (Ref#1).

Hence, Mexico lost much of its territory in the war, leaving it with a" lasting bitterness" towards the United States. Santa Anna fled to exile in
Venezuela. General Porfirio Díaz, President of Mexico from 18771911, would later lament: "¡Pobre México! Tan lejos de Dios, y tan cerca de los Estados Unidos." ("Poor Mexico! So far from God, and so close to the United States.") (Ref#2) .

On a personal basis, I know this bitterness to be real, alive and pervasive even to this day. I spent more than seventeen years living and working in the southwest and west (New Mexico for nine years, Colorado for five years and California for three years). And I befriended some wonderfully talented, honest, hardworking and unforgettable peoples of Mexican descent. On various accasions-whether out of anger or in humorous jest- my Mexican brothers and sisters would remind their bosses, especially non-Mexicans, that "our ancestors freely roamed and worked the soils of these United States long before the Mayflower landed on the shores of the Americas. And that one day, "we Mexicans will be in charge and we will reclaim what was taken from us."

Thus, the end results of the Mexican and American war, as stated above, left a "bitter" taste in the mouths of the Mexican people both on a personal and nationalistic basis. And that perceived injustice remains an indelible imprint on the national psyche. I have occasionally wondered how Mexican history classes cover the war, and exactly what is espoused and proclaimed. I would suppose the Mexicans are saying in their own quiet and persistent ways, just as the Jewish peoples told the passive world at the end of World War II after the terrible atrocities committed by the Nazis went unnoticed and unchallenged for too long and were eventually revealed, "we shall never let you forget." And as General Douglas MacArthur stated to the Phillipinos during World War II: " I shall return." Or as was loudly pronounced by Nikita Khrushchev of the Soviet Union/Russia to the U.S. during the protracted Cold War, "we shall bury you!" Meaning, plainly, that with the passing of time, Communism will outlast capitalism-or the U.S. society as a whole. However, we know about the breakup and demise of the Soviet Union. Mr Khrushchev is now dead and buried. And capitalism remains, as vibrant as ever and steadily growing, globally. Those are realities. And so is the Mexican Invasion.

As such, one can amply and realistically apply similar pertinent adages to Mexican national pride and persistence pertaining to their collective feelings about the resulting war of 1846. Their inner nationalistic voices cry out fervently, though silently, "we shall never forget. And we will never give up the plight to reclaim what is historically and rightfully ours." "We cannot achieve our objectives with weapons of force or by violence, but with consistent-accelerated numbers in population growth, we shall prevail." Recent Note: Mr Steve Camarota of the Center for Immigration Studies reported on Bill O'Reilly's Factor last evening that his recently released study shows there is a "massive flow" of 800,000 new illegals crossing the border yearly. (Ref#3).

Therefore, it is not at all a stretch of fact nor is it fiction in the least to put forth the proposition I have posed based on historic and contemporary accounts of what is occurring now with the Mexican Invasion. My argument is not only clearly supported by a significant increase in the Mexican population within the U.S., and the collective Latino population as a whole, but is further boasted by the irrefutable fact the Mexican government has long stopped enforcing its own laws effecting illegal crossings. In addition, the Government has prepared and distributed a guidebook outlining how to survive in the desert that is provided to its citizens to use in case they are contemplating on crossing the borders. Is this not an encouragement and overt approval for its peoples to perpetrate illegal crossings? Is this act not a blazen "in your face" to the U.S.?

I would be remiss if I did not mention as well, that "I have not heard or witnessed" one U.S. based Mexican or Latino organization come out in opposition to illegal crossings. Their individual and collective responses on this issue are always that undocumented workers are taking jobs that Americans don't want and that the illegals make significant contributions to the overall U.S. economy. Somehow the principles for which this nation was founded and they espouse to adhere to, such as the Rule of Law, always get submerged, trampled on, pushed to the side, and overshadowed by their allegiance to mother country, and fellow Mexican sisters and brothers.

Thus, the concluding bottom line is that when Mexicans cross the borders into the U.S. they are in essence of the "mindset" they are returning home and are merely reclaiming lands that were stolen from them. As a consequence, irregardless of established boundaries, borders and laws, they will keep on coming until they vindicate, reverse the adverse outcome of the War of 1846. And with their government's silent praise, sanctioned permission and approval, and the U.S. government's poor response thereto, why should they stop coming when they are progressively achieving their government's ultimate national objectives? And let's not forget the $20 billion Mexicans send back home each year that contributes to supporting their corrupt and incompetent government, and failing economy.

#1-Source: - 37k -

Sunday, November 13, 2005


First, let's get one thing straight from the start: I am not a democrat, republican, nor am I a liberal or conservative. I am a centrist and moderate. Being that I spent over twenty nine years in the U.S. Air force and served under both republican and democratic presidents, I learned over time that I should not become aligned with either major party, neither in or out of uniform. So I became a proud-to-be independent. And thank God I did. I should also note, proudly, that I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq, not because I didn't think Sadam didn't deserve to be removed from power, as many other dictators should throughout the globe, but primarily because I believed he was sufficiently being contained. Also, I strongly felt the people of Iraq should have been the ones to do the job, and that Iraq was and is not worth one American soldier's life. So, I have no vested interest in trying to make President Bush look bad. But I can't help wondering if he was simply misled, naive or was actually looking for a valid reason-whether justifiable, credible or not- to invade Iraq and remove Sadam for reasons unknown to the American public. I ask myself over and over: could one of those reasons be that the President was easily influenced by the neo-conservatives that surround him, or run in his inner-circle? Those individuals being Vice-President Cheney, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz, former department of defense official; among others. No one I know of has addressed this issue, or asked this question. At least I haven't been exposed to such questions being presented in the media. Thus, I pose the following provoking questions- as food for thought: (1) Did or do the neo-conservatives view Mr Bush as a mere tool to be manipulated to achieve their overall selfish and worldly objectives? (2) Why did they push for Mr Bush, not known to be one of the brightest people or most capable individuals the republicans could have chosen to run for the presidency? (3) Again, why Mr Bush? (4) Why did the neo-conservatives rally around Mr Bush so strongly and committedly from the outset, and not Senator John mcCaine of Arizona? (5) Did they "really" see in him the attributes or characteristics required of an individual to handle the massive job of being president of the United States of America? (6) Did they honestly feel he had the necessary intellectual qualities and potential, or was adequately equipped to handle the most powerful position in the world? Or, (7) , was Mr Bush merely seen in the eyes of the neo-conservative war hawks as a prime patsy? Only they and God know. But when I see how fanatical and determined the conservatives are when attempting to pad the Supreme Court with ultra-conservative judges to further one of their principal causes, for example-over-turning the Roe-v-Wade abortion law, I can't help but wonder if a similiar master plan was in play when Mr Bush was nominated and chosen to run for the presidency. Do I believe in the conspiracy theory? Yes and no. In this particualr case, yes I do. Something just isn't right about how my country's leaders are setting policy, and executing the peoples' business. Somehting just isn't right? And I feel quite uneasy, concerned, and god-damn mad at times. It's not only frustrating and sad, but scary at times as well. What is this country coming to? But I pose the central question, again: was Mr Bush just a tool to be used by the neo-conservatives to further their ultimate "new world order?" And was he naive, deceived and misled into invading Iraq? Last but not least, does he now recognize this to be the fact, but is just too proud, stubborn, loyal, and concerned for his legacy to admit it? As a retired military officer and veteran, and concerned citizen, I do have a vested interest in the future of this beautiful nation of ours. And just how our leaders continue executing the war in Iraq-especially when our men and women are dying every day in a war that could have been avoided- is of special concern, coupled with the billions of dollars we are expending on a daily basis. By no means am I opposed to war, only unnecessary war. I supported, unequivocally, the U.S. efforts in Afganistan- which was necessary and unavoidable since we were taking the battle directly to the architects and perpetrators of the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, respectively, on September 11, 2001. With all the above stated, I welcome comments. but first I urge you to review my list of Recommended Readings:;;