The Anti-Polk and Reannexation
(Click the Header)
Our friend Gindy sends along this little gem from World Net Daily. It is very revealing.
One wonders about Mexico`s motives with all this illegal immigration; aside from the financial benefits derived by sending their poor working class abroad, could Mexico have something further in mind? Could Mexico perhaps resent having lost California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to the United States? Perhaps they would like to reaquire their former territories? This picture suggests that the notion may well be in the minds of at least some of the immigrants.
James Polk is one of my favorite presidents, mainly because he fulfilled all of his campaign promises. The cornerstone of his Presidency was the annexation of the southwest territories. Mexico had done little to settle these areas, and the local population was much more interested in joining the United States than remaining Mexican citizens. Thanks to Polk, the United States now spreads from sea to shining sea! President Bush, however, can be viewed as an anti-Polk. Thanks to his ``let `em all in`` policies Mexico is driving out the local Anglo people and thoroughly Latinizing these areas. How long before they can make a legitimate claim on the Southwest? Would we have the right to dispute their claim, since our claim on these areas was based on our settment of these hitherto unpopulated regions?
President Bush is dead wrong on this issue, and is driving this nation the wrong way down the 21st century superhighway. There are grave consequences when one drives the wrong way down the highway.
Our friend Gindy sends along this little gem from World Net Daily. It is very revealing.
One wonders about Mexico`s motives with all this illegal immigration; aside from the financial benefits derived by sending their poor working class abroad, could Mexico have something further in mind? Could Mexico perhaps resent having lost California, Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona to the United States? Perhaps they would like to reaquire their former territories? This picture suggests that the notion may well be in the minds of at least some of the immigrants.
James Polk is one of my favorite presidents, mainly because he fulfilled all of his campaign promises. The cornerstone of his Presidency was the annexation of the southwest territories. Mexico had done little to settle these areas, and the local population was much more interested in joining the United States than remaining Mexican citizens. Thanks to Polk, the United States now spreads from sea to shining sea! President Bush, however, can be viewed as an anti-Polk. Thanks to his ``let `em all in`` policies Mexico is driving out the local Anglo people and thoroughly Latinizing these areas. How long before they can make a legitimate claim on the Southwest? Would we have the right to dispute their claim, since our claim on these areas was based on our settment of these hitherto unpopulated regions?
President Bush is dead wrong on this issue, and is driving this nation the wrong way down the 21st century superhighway. There are grave consequences when one drives the wrong way down the highway.
posted by Timothy Birdnow | 5:04 AM
2 Comments:
Gosh educated people are fun to read.
Very few today know that Jams K. Polk, whose home is now a museum in Columbia, Tennessee, is the only president to keep his campaign promises.
Sure, he made only three of them: to settle the "fifty-four-forty or fight" issue, to get the United States into a war with Mexico, and to serve only one term.
Getting us into a war was, yes, a pretty lousy thing to do (same as with the current pres), but he does deserve a modicum of respect for keeping his promises.
Oh, a story you might like: A friend named Paula worked at the Santa Cruz County courthouse, which is in Nogales, Arizona. She would fill in at the switchboard when the regular operator was at lunch.
She told me often she would answer, "Santa Cruz County Courthouse" and hear a machine-gun rattle of Spanish, of which she was Pennsylvania-ignorant, a pure gringa.
She said she would try to interrupt to say, "I'm sorry, but I don't speak Spanish."
And she'd hear this stunned silence then, "What do you mean, you don't speak Spanish?"
She said she didn't know how to respond.
I suggested two possible answers: "No hablo español" or "Have you ever heard of the Gadsden Purchase?"
But she moved back to Pennsylvania, instead.
Wonderful post, Tim. I have been so upset over this issue for quite some time, as you well know. I think President Bush is really going the wrong way in his second term, and I'm completely disgusted on a number of fronts, and immigration is at the top of the list. I think you, and WND are on to something here, increasingly you hear Mexicans referring to Arizona and California as part of their country. And Bush is letting them get away with it. Unfortunately, I think he is in the pockets of the agribusiness people who want cheap labor - might we not call it slave labor? After all, how else are we going to compete with China??? Did you hear that the newest idea is to anchor cruise ships just beyond the 3 mile limit and put cheap programmers to work there, thereby elinating payroll taxes and other costs, while labeling these cheap workers as "seamen" to avoid the laws? It's on Newsmax. I'm sure the free trade Republicans would say -- sure -- anything the law allows and furthers the free market is fine with us.
That's why I'm not even going to comment on that news conference last night -- frankly -- I know I'm probably wrong -- but somehow I don't care about SS -- and the immigration thing wasn't even brought up -- lots of things weren't brought up. And I wasn't pleased with Bush's lukewarm defense of his judicial nominees -- he said he "hoped" that his nominees would get an up or down vote!!! How about insisting that they get their constitutionally guaranteed right to an up or down vote!! All he did was rehash the same rhetoric on Iraq and SS, we've hear a million times, except for he would more or less means test SS benefits in the future -- and allow people to put their money in Treausury Bonds -- but the government still has to pay those IOU's when they come due - do people think the Treasury Bonds just sit in a litte bank somewhere collecting interest?
Post a Comment
<< Home