Expedition through Aztlan
David Sanchez was born in East Los Angeles in 1950. He founded the Brown Berets in December, 1967 and became their ‘Prime Minister.’ Sanchez has been portrayed as a civil rights leader in the media and US history textbooks in public schools and colleges. Nothing could be further from the truth.
An objective examination of Sanchez, particularily his autobiography - Expedition through Aztlan - proves that he is an ethnic supremacist - a racist who promotes ethnic separation, domination and xenophobia. This is a book of propaganda with many factual errors.
In a letter he wrote to the LA times on behalf of the Chicano Movement in January, 1971, Sanchez condemns Anglo America on many issues. (page 15-17)
He blames the current conflict between the police and Mexican Americans on the United States for taking the southwest US from Mexico after they were defeated in the Mexican American War.(1) He condemns the United States for the deportation of Mexicans during the depression in the early 1930s. He condemns police for not protecting Mexicans during the ‘Zoot Suit’ riots of 1943. He blames the Catholic Church for the high drop out rate of Chicanos from school. He claims their is a high Chicano death rate in Vietnam. He claims Chicanos live in a totalitarian-like atmosphere in Los Angeles.
All these claims by Sanchez are false - based on false information. The fantasy of the Brown Berets was to be modern day conquistadors and reclaim the southwest US for Mexico - which they call Aztlan - or else make it a Spanish state within the US. Their goal is advancing rapidly in California.
Today, 170 years after the war, Mexicans pride still cannot accept the fact that a small American Army defeated the Mexican army. Many Mexicans consider the southwest U.S. stolen Mexican land and there are some Mexican American ‘civil rights’ leaders who believe all Anglos should be kicked out of the entire US - not just the southwest US.
Here are just three racist Mexican Americans who have publicly stated this: Mario Obledo(2), who co-founded MALDEF, a ‘civil rights’ organization in 1968, Reies Lopez Tijerina(3), who founded the Alianza Federal de Mercedes organization in 1963 over land grant issues and Augustin Cebada, Information Minister of the Brown Berets.(4) With the exception of Cebada, these men are dead, but it’s important to study these haters from the past because their demented ideas are embraced by millions of gullible Americans today. Expedition through Aztlan is Sanchez account of ‘The March to Reconquer’ Aztlan which started on May 5, 1971. It’s time to expose thugs like Sanchez who have always been treated with respect they NEVER deserved.
Factual errors in Expedition through Aztlan
The Forward is by Armando Morales, Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, who died in 2008. His knowledge of history was as inaccurate and fraudulent as Sanchez.’
Page - VII: Morales: “In Aztec language, Aztlan literally means the “white land.” Aztlan refers to the northwest provinces of the “Aztec empire which we know today as the southwestern part of the United States.”
CORRECTIONS: NOT true. The Aztec empire was centered around modern day Mexico City in central Mexico. The Aztec empire was nowhere close to the Southwest US - as the map to the rights shows. It was the Spanish who destroyed the capital city of the Aztecs and built Mexico City on the ruins.
.
____________________________________________________________
Page - VII: “Under the inspiring, brave, and tenacious leadership of Prime Minister David Sanchez, they encountered numerous hazards during their journey” . . .”They experienced attacks and harassment by law enforcement officials, Anglo citizen cowboy ‘red necks,’ and even ‘establishment’ Mexican Americans.”
CORRECTIONS: About three dozen people lead by a ‘Prime Minister,’ wearing brown beret uniforms marching under a Mexican flag demanding the southwest be turned over to Mexico and renamed Aztlan. I don’t know why any Americans would be offended by this.
____________________________________________________________
Page - 4: “The next demonstration occurred on August 29, 1970. Twenty thousand or more people rallied at Laguna Park in east Los Angeles. It was a hot day and many people went to a nearby liquor store to get refreshments. It was crowded at the liquor store and the storekeeper, fearing theft, called the police.”
CORRECTIONS: There WAS theft going on at the store. After the police arrived, rioting erupted that caused $1 million in damages to nearby businesses. Pictures of the rally below:
Page - 16: In Sanchez’s letter to the LA times he claims “The current conflict between Chicanos and the police is a political confrontation that historically has its roots in the mid 1800s when another police government body - the US Army - forcibly took the land away from the Mexicans in this area.”
CORRECTIONS: Sanchez is referring to the Mexican American War of 1846-8 where Mexico lost the land that became the southwest US. There is considerable opinion in the US and nearly universal opinion in Mexico that the Mexican American War was a war of aggression against Mexico to steal this land. This is NOT true!
The Mexican American War was actually a continuation of the Texas War for Independence fought 10 years earlier. The facts conclusively prove that Mexico’s leader, General Santa Anna, provoked the Texas rebellion in 1835.
In May, 1833, Santa Anna was appointed President of Mexico, but became increasingly dictatorial. He abolished all state legislatures and centralized all power in Mexico City in 1835. This centralization of power by Santa Anna provoked rebellion in Mexico. The Mexican states of Texas, Coahuila and Zacatecas revolted. On May 11, 1835 Santa Anna’s Army crushed the revolt in Zacatecas. He then rewarded his victorious soldiers by allowing them two days of rape and pillage, during which more than 2,000 noncombatants were killed.
Later that year, Santa Anna began forming an Army to crush the Texas rebellion. After a string of victories, on April 21, 1836, the Texan Army of 750 men under Sam Houston defeated Santa Anna at San Jacinto River. Over 700 Mexicans were killed and 730 captured. The arrogant Santa Anna, who boasted he was the “Napoleon of the West” fled, disguised as a common soldier, but was captured the next day.
On May 14, 1836, Santa Anna, the head of Mexico’s government, signed the Treaties of Velasco which ended the war and made Texas an independent country. The Rio Grande River became the border between Texas and Mexico. But this did not end hostilities as Mexico vowed perpetual war on Texas until they reconquered the land. Mexico then claimed the true border was the Neuces River, about 125 miles north - but wouldn’t negotiate over the issue. Mexico was NEVER going to resolve the border impasse as that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico.
Some claim the Texas revolution occurred because of agitation by Anglo settlers. This is not true and conveniently ignores the fact that many states in Mexico rebelled against the central government in Mexico City throughout the 1800s and these states had few if any Americans - and Texas was NOT the first state to win its independence from Mexico.
Because of the dysfunctional state of Mexican politics - and only 2 years after Mexico won their independence from Spain - five states in Central America declared themselves independent from Mexico - Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica. Central Americans chafed at Mexican rule, and there were several battles with Mexican forces. On July 1, 1823, the United Provinces of Central America was formally established in Guatemala City. Constant infighting and wars resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838. The five states became independent nations without any interference from Mexico or threats of perpetual war. WHY?? Is it because they are fellow Spanish, whereas Texas came under control of Anglo Americans? Are Mexicans racist?
The cause of the Mexican American War 10 years later was Mexico’s refusal to honor the peace agreement with Texas after being defeated in the 1835-36 war. Mexico vowed never ending war on Texas until they reconquered the land. When Texas voted to join the US in 1845 for their own protection. Mexico declared - repeatedly - that war with the United States was inevitable. The US attempted to resolve the differences through negotiations, but Mexico refused to cooperate. The reason was clear. Mexican pride could not accept the fact that a bunch of outnumbered farmers, ranchers, businessmen and adventurous young men from the U.S. had defeated the Army of Mexico. But this colossal stain on Mexican pride could be fixed if Mexico reconquered Texas.
A Mexican attack on Texas was now considered inevitable and on Jan. 13, 1846, President Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to move his army to the north side of the Rio Grande River and prepare to defend Texas from the Mexican invasion.
Despite repeated assurances to Mexico that our military movement was to defend Texas from Mexico’s repeated vows to invade, Mexico made herself believe that General Taylor was going to invade Mexico. This was just more self induced hysteria on Mexico’s part.
On April 25, 1846, Mexican General Arista ordered 1,600 Mexican troops to cross the Rio Grande and they ambushed a force of 80 American troops. Eleven men were killed and the rest taken prisoner.
Historical revisionists claim we sent troops to the Rio Grande to provoke a war with Mexico so we could take the southwest US from Mexico. This is bogus reasoning and ignores facts. Who was provoking who?? How could the U.S. be responsible for provoking a war with a country that had repeatedly declared war on the U.S., refused to negotiate, vowed to conquer Texas and put an invasion force on the border? Consider:
• First, Herrera was overthrown by General Mariano Paredes, whose sole objective was to start a war with the U.S.
• Second, Mexico’s obsession for 10 years was with conquering Texas, which they still considered a breakaway province. Mexico did NOT attack Texas over a boundary dispute. Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River. Polk was aware of this Mexican scam. Mexico owned all of Texas and intended to conquer it.
• Third, Mexico apparently accepted the Rio Grande as the boundary. Santa Anna DID sign a peace deal with Texas which placed the southern border at the Rio Grande. Santa Anna DID instruct the remnant of the Mexican Army to position themselves south of the Rio Grande after their defeat by Sam Houston at San Jacinto in 1836, and this is where they stayed.
• Fourth, Mexico’s claim that America had no valid claim to land between the Nueces and Rio Grande is NOT true. Doctor John Beales made a contract with the State of Coahuila and Texas in Oct 1832 for colonizing a tract of land between those rivers, comprising three million acres. Beales brought at least two groups of colonists to a settlement named Dolores, north of Loredo between 1834 and 1836. Everyone fled for their lives when Santa Anna’s army invaded Texas to put down the rebellion early in 1836.
• Fifth, when General Taylor began his march to the Rio Grande River from Corpus Cristi, he informed Mexican authorities of his movement. The U.S. consistently told Mexico where the US Army was going, so Mexico would not think we were going to attack them. The U.S. stated multiple times their intentions were to defend Texas from Mexico’s constant vows to invade.
• Sixth, Evidence after the war shows that Mexico desired the war. In Oct 1847, a pamphlet written by Mariano Otero, editor of El Siglo XIX and Senator from the state of Jalisco, appeared. Otero wrote: “The American forces did not advance to the Rio Grande until after the war became inevitable, and then only as an army of observation.” In 1847, Santa Anna admitted that Mexico desired to go to war with the U.S., as did the minister of relations in 1849. In December, 1847, General Arista declared, “I had the pleasure of being the first to begin the war.”
• Seventh, by refusing to resolve the border issue, Mexico laid a political trap for the U.S. The boundary only became important AFTER Gen. Taylor’s force went south of the Nueces to the Rio Grande.Suddenly, Mexico claimed the U.S. invaded Mexican territory and Mexico was compelled to defend herself and her honor. Mexico thus absolved itself of blame for starting an offensive war to conquer Texas by claiming they were fighting a “defensive” war to conquer Texas!
If the Mexican Army had not crossed the Rio Grande and attacked US troops there would not have been a Mexican American War. If Mexico had recognized Texas independence - like they recognized the independence of Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Nicaragua and Costa Rica in 1823 - this war could have been avoided. Mexico started this war all by themselves.
Mexicans claim the southwest US is stolen Mexican land is wrong. This land is historically Indian land. The Spanish stole it from the Indians and then lost this land when Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War.
____________________________________________________________
Page - 16: “The deportation of 312,000 persons of Spanish surname - many American citizens - by immigration law enforcement officials during the Great Depression for political economic reasons further strained and intensified the anger of people of Mexican descent towards the law and law enforcement.”
CORRECTIONS: Many unfair accusations have been made against America during the depression of the 1930s, when many illegals were sent back to their country of origin - mostly Mexico.
US authorities were only after deportable aliens. Mexicans were not just rounded up and shipped back to Mexico. In most cases, there WAS due process. For instance, in the El Monte Raid, 300 people were stopped and questioned, with only 13 jailed, 12 being Mexican. In the LA city plaza raid in Feb. 1931, about 400 people were questioned about their immigration status. Only 17 were detained, 11 being Mexican. Nine of the 11 Mexicans were later released. Most of the US citizens who were deported were children born in the US - which automatically makes them citizens - to parents who were non-citizens or here illegally. Obviously, if the parents were deported they are going to take their children with them. Mexicans who were being deported were taken care of by US authorities. No one went hungry or lacked medical attention. Claims of Mexicans being abused in the US were lies told by the Mexican media, which has been bashing America since the 1830s. Mexico actually praised the repatriation efforts in Los Angeles.
When the Mexican Revolution of 1910 broke out, over 500,000 Mexicans entered the US to escape the violence. Because the border at this time was seldom patrolled, Mexicans entered the US at will, most illegally. After 1917, a higher head tax and literacy requirement imposed for entry prompted more people to enter illegally.(8) It was this huge increase in illegal immigration into the southwest US that caused Congress to establish the US Border Patrol in 1924.
Many Mexicans never applied for citizenship, because most intended to eventually return to Mexico after making enough money in the US.(9) American officials in the southwest US were well aware of this fact. It is estimated that about one-half of those immigrants who entered the United States from 1900 to 1930 freely returned to Mexico. The Mexican Consulate sponsored campaigns to repatriate Mexicans, promising their expenses would be paid and some would even get a job in Mexico.
There is nothing immoral, criminal or racist with evicting illegals from your country. Deporting non-citizens was not an unthinkable idea when 15 to 24% of Americans were unemployed. It happens in every country in the world, including Mexico. Even in the 1930s - it was mostly Mexicans who were here illegally. It is incredibly arrogant to come to America solely to make a living, send a lot of your money out of the country and THEN be offended when you are deported so citizens can take your job.
.
Additional info: http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/deportation-of-illegals-during-the-depression/
____________________________________________________________
Page - 16: “Denying the Mexican American population in Los Angeles protection from rioting vigilante servicemen during the 1943 “Zoot Suit” riots, raised further doubts in Mexican Americans as to who it actually was that the police were there to “protect and serve.” Labelling the riots “Zoot Suit” only served to reveal the racist motivations of the press by applying an historically permanent label that implied “the Mexicans did it,” thereby simultaneously protecting the servicemen from public ridicule.”
CORRECTIONS: EVERYTHING that Sanchez wrote above is totally FALSE.
The Zoot Suit Riots were a series of escalating street fights from June 3–8, 1943 in Los Angeles, California, between American servicemen and Mexican-American youths. The violence started after a year of harrassment and increasingly violent attacks on US servicemen by Mexican Americans. Mexicans were 100% responsible for the ‘Zoot Suit’ riots. There were four factors that lead up to the violence.
The first factor was competition over women. Thousands of servicemen were arriving In Los Angeles to be shipped to the Pacific theater and these servicemen crowded into local dance halls and night clubs to pick up women - often Mexican American women. This created tensions with Mexican American young men. Some Mexicans would start fist-fights with sailors who tried to flirt with Mexican girls.
Second, Zoot suits had become popular in the early 1940s among many Mexican Americans in Los Angeles - a flamboyant long jacket with balloon-leg pants, cuffed at the bottom. During World War Two, rationing of fabric was required for the war effort. Regulations prohibited the manufacturing of zoot suits because they used an excessive amount of material, but a network of bootleg tailors continued to manufacture them. This created instant animosity with Mexican American youths wearing the zoot suits. They were seen as un-American because they were deliberately violating the rationing regulations. That the "zoot suiters" were not in the military caused further resentment.
The third factor was the Sleepy Lagoon murder. In the summer of 1942, the city was becoming increasingly concerned with youth violence among Mexican Americans. When José Díaz was discovered unconscious and dying on a road near a swimming hole (known as the Sleepy Lagoon) in Commerce, California, on the morning of August 2, 1942, these fears were confirmed. Seventeen Mexican youths were tried for murder. With thousands of Mexicans moving into the area for the Bracero program(1), this murder heightened fears that gang violence was increasing.
On January 15, 1943, despite little evidence, the jury found 3 of the youths guilty of first-degree murder, 9 guilty of second-degree murder, and 5 guilty of assault. The remaining five were found not guilty. All the convictions were later overturned.
The fourth factor was the location of the Naval Reserve Training School. Latinos had long been informally segregated to areas such as Chavez Ravine - an area of about 315 acres.
With Japan and Germany becoming imperialistic in the 1930s, President Roosevelt, a former assistant secretary of the navy, began pushing a national military preparedness campaign. When a citizens' group proposed a "reserve training armory" for sailors in the Los Angeles area, FDR backed the idea. The navy selected Chavez Ravine in January 1935 from a list of 40 suggestions for its natural defensive position "inconspicuously nestled in the hills where raiding bombers in a possible attack by enemy air forces will be least likely to damage it."(2)
The center took only 4.5 acres. Construction started on April 22, 1938 and the building was dedicated on October 1940.(2) Some have argued that this set the stage for confrontations with servicemen when the center opened - but there were no protests from residents when construction started in 1938.
Servicemen had to go through Mexican American areas in order to go downtown - see map.(3) Mexican youth considered their neighborhoods to be their turf. Servicemen - who were from all around the country and unaccustomed to gang “turf wars” - assumed the area was public and open to anyone.
One of the first conflicts between the sailors and the zoot suiters was in August 1942. A sailor and his girlfriend were walking when four zoot suiters blocked the sidewalk in front of them. The zoot suiters refused to let them pass and pushed the sailor into the street. The zoot-suiters and the sailor stood their ground in silence until finally, the sailor backed away.(3)
And there were many more incidents. “One Mexican American man reportedly told a white sailor who walked into the Tip Toe Inn in East Los Angeles that it was unhealthy for him to eat there. The sailor hesitated, and the civilian responded: "If you don't leave now you will be in one fucking mess when you get in town--if you are able to get there after we are through with you.”(3)
As Electrician's Mate Third Class Domenick Valleta walked along Alpine near Broadway in late May 1943, a carload of young Mexicans, some reportedly dressed in zoot suits, drove close to the curb and spat upon him. "Son of a bitch!" "Bastard!" they yelled as they drove off.(3)
That same afternoon Seaman Second Class James Jerome Granner walked along Figueroa Boulevard and encountered a group of young Mexicans dressed in zoot suits at the corner of Temple and Figueroa. "There's another one of those sons of bitches," someone called out, and someone spat upon the sailor as he turned around and headed back to the armory.(3)
In the months prior to the outbreak of mob violence in June 1943, sailors, their wives, and their friends all reported a growing number of hostile encounters with Mexican youth in the area surrounding the armory. Other servicemen reported that Mexican Americans often blocked their access to dance halls, theaters, or restaurants or chased after them as they walked in the public areas of town.”(3)
Mexican Americans living and working in the areas surrounding the armory routinely denounced and ridiculed military men. The great majority of comments and epithets from Mexicans revolved around three central themes. Some ridiculed patriotism by suggesting that servicemen were fools because there were so many ways to avoid military service. Others questioned the bravery of sailors by asking if they had joined the Navy to avoid facing combat duty. And finally a number of young men hurled sexually explicit taunts at sailors that called into question their heterosexual manhood status. The favorite denunciation of servicemen by Mexican youth was c - - k sucker.(3)
By May 1943, confrontations with Mexicans had become a daily event - sometimes two and three times a day. Mexicans also became more brazen in their attacks on sailors. Prior to the spring of 1943, most confrontations consisted of name calling, but now the confrontations were becoming increasingly violent.
Seamen Second Class Robert Lafayette Calkins, Wallace Stetich, and Benny Claire Boatright, each of whom had previous encounters with civilian youth, were all walking down Figueroa one Tuesday in May. Upon arriving at the area just north of Sunset Boulevard, four young men dressed in zoot suits crossed from the opposite side of the street and approached the sailors from straight ahead. As the civilian youth drew nearer, some of the boys broke beer bottles over the edge of a nearby garbage can and pointed the jagged edges at the sailors like knives. The two groups faced off as they slowly walked past one another in tense silence.”(3)
Four days before the riot started, on Monday night, 31 May 1943, around 8:00 P.M. a dozen sailors and soldiers strolled together down Main Street, and among them was Seaman Second Class Joe Dacy Coleman, U. S.N. Near New Chinatown the military men spotted a group of young women on the opposite sidewalk, and the group of military men--with the exception of Coleman and a soldier--crossed the street to approach the women. Coleman continued on, walking past a small gathering of young men dressed in zoot suits. As he passed one of them, Coleman saw out the corner of his eye a boy raising his arm in a manner that Coleman took to be threatening. The sailor quickly spun around and seized the young man's arm, but someone or something immediately struck Coleman on the head from behind. He fell to the ground unconscious, breaking his jaw in two places. On the other side of the street Mexicans attacked the servicemen with rocks, bottles and fists. Yet the servicemen managed to fight their way over to where Coleman lay and drag him off to safety.
An undated letter from and unknown serviceman shows that they were done being nice to Mexicans:
“Say what the hell is being done about these god-damn Mexican punks, I think the city officials and police are scared of them ... They are certainly raising hell in L.A. raping women and knifing lone soldiers, one of our men came back to the outfit all cut up and its [sic] really getting us hot. This will naturally lead to a bunch of our men going into L.A. and there will be a lot of sorry Mexicans ... I for one would kill any of them that hurt anybody I know in L.A. I don't see why the army doesn't just go in and take the situation over, because the police can't handle it. We have wives and sweethearts there, and the soldiers won't stand for much more of this s---t.”(3)
A little after 6:00 P.M. on Thursday evening, 3 June 1943. About 16 Navy men exited a bus on Sunset Boulevard and began to walk northward along Figueroa Boulevard toward the armory. As the sailors came to the corner of Alpine and Figueroa, two young men dressed in zoot suits reportedly shouted across the intersection: "Sons of bitches and bastards!" The pair of Mexicans shook their fists at the sailors and called them "mother f--kers.”(3)
About the time these sailors arrived at the armory gates a couple of other sailors left the compound and headed toward town on Adobe. Not far from the armory they ran into two "Mexican" girls and four boys dressed in zoot suits who reportedly accosted the sailors with a tirade of foul language. During the verbal assault on the sailors some of the Mexicans reportedly raised their hands in the Nazi salute and shouted out: "Heil Hitler!"(3)
This last incident was the final straw. The months of ridicule and attacks had reached the breaking point. No more running away. The police couldn’t stop the attacks and the harassment, verbal abuse and brutality against servicemen was getting worse. Americans were now going to teach these punks a lesson in respect.
Later in the evening of 3 June 1943, about 50 sailors stationed at the Naval Reserve Training School, many now carrying clubs in case Mexicans had broken bottles, stormed through the Mexican American neighborhoods that lay between the school and downtown L.A. looking for anyone in a zoot suit.(3)
Their actions that night, which consisted mostly of stripping zoot suits off young men, set off a week of violence as thousands of military personnel poured into Los Angeles from the surrounding bases and attacked anyone wearing zoot suits, but most put their zoot suits away. Servicemen then began hunting for any young Mexican male.
The violence didn’t end until June 9, when U.S. military personnel were barred from leaving their barracks. The police were no more able to protect Mexicans from servicemen during the riots then they were able to protect servicemen from Mexicans over the preceeding year. Amazingly, no one was killed during the violence.
Most historians claim that Anti-Mexican racism by white servicemen caused the Zoot Suit riots. NOT true. The racists were the Mexicans. It was the constant harassment and attacks on servicemen by Mexicans from 1942 through June 1943 that caused the riots. If Mexican Americans hadn’t attacked servicemen for over a year, there would never have been a “riot.” Servicemen were the victims here. After all, servicemen were putting their lives on the line to protect the very civilians who beat and robbed them.
Typical of today’s revisionists historians, Mexicans who ‘protected’ their turf from outsiders are not condemned, rather given justification for their gang activities. “Although deservedly criticized and much denounced during this period, "gang wars" served as one of the socializing agents through which mostly young males marked and measured themselves through the intimacy of violence.”(3)
It must be pointed out that many incidents occured in the public downtown areas, not Mexican American ‘turf.’
Revisionist historians also claim the violence should be called a ‘military riot’ and condemn police for not protecting Mexican Americans from the servicemen. These historians are wrong on this too. Servicemen did not burn down or damage buildings or attack police. They didn’t loot stores. Servicemen were doing what they were going to war with Japan to do - engage in violence to bring peace. Servicemen attacked their attackers. Police were no more able to protect Mexicans from servicemen then they were able to protect servicemen from Mexicans for the past year.
Historical accounts about the Zoot Suit Riots seldom show injured servicemen - only Mexicans. Here are some pictures showing injuries from Mexican gangsters.
A Marine, Robert Egan, received a fractured skull in the fighting.(4)
Pagan appears to have produced a well researched paper. However, he is very biased in favor of Mexican Americans despite producing overwhelming evidence in his own paper that proves Mexicans were the instigators of the escalating violence against servicemen. He ignores his own evidence and declares the riots a result of white racism, ‘white privilege’ and defends Mexican gangs attacking servicemen intruding into ‘their turf.’
____________________________________________________________
Page - 16: Sanchez is “against the U.S. involvement in the Vietnam war which has resulted in a severe overrepresentation of Chicano deaths (in effect depriving the Chicano community of its future youth resource)”
CORRECTION: This is just another lie by Sanchez to get Hispanics angry and follow demagogue Sanchez. The political left made this claim and it was parroted by all the Anti-American political activists.
The military did not put Hispanics in a separate category during Vietnam. They were mostly put into the ‘white’ category. But in a massive sampling of the database, it was established that between 5 and 6 percent of Vietnam dead had identifiable Hispanic surnames.(1)
The first major attempt to estimate the size of the Hispanic population for the entire nation was in the 1970 Census, in which forms were completed by residents themselves.(2) The census recorded 9.1 million Americans of Hispanic descent or 4.5% of the population. Critics claimed Hispanics were undercounted by about 500,000.(2) If true, then the Hispanic population increases to 4.7% of the population. So it is probable that there was a slight over-representation of Hispanics among Vietnam casualties — an estimated 5.5 percent of the dead against 4.5, or 4.7 percent of the 1970 population.(1) However, this does NOT prove that there was a conspiracy to draft Hispanics into the military.
Sanchez was so busy hating America he probably never knew about the draft lottery. The selective service conducted two lotteries to determine the order of call to military service in the Vietnam War for men born from 1944 to 1950 based on their birth day. The first Vietnam draft lottery drawing was on December 1, 1969. From this date on, young men were drafted on the basis of their birthday. This proves there was no mass drafting of Hispanics into the military.
In addition, only 25% of forces in Vietnam were draftees with 30% of draftees killed.(1)
____________________________________________________________
Page - 38: “Zsa Zsa, Lucy and Sinatra live here (Palm Springs) and probably do not even realize that their Chicano servants were once the true inhabitants and owners of these lands.”
CORRECTIONS: The INDIANS were the true inhabitants and owners of these lands. The Spanish stole this land from the Indians and lost it when Mexico attacked the United States to start the Mexican American War of 1846.
____________________________________________________________
Page - 89 - 90: “It was the old town of Mesilla, a town famous for being the site where the Gadsden Purchase was signed in 1853. . .”
As we stood looking at these historical grounds, a viejeto walked up to us. He seemed surprised upon seeing the Mexican flag on our uniforms. He was about seventy-five years old, but still walked in a proud manner with his back erect. His eyes gleamed with pleasure as he scanned our uniforms. We later learned that he was Colonel Cruz Alvarez, a former U.S. Ambassador to Spain. He spoke in a course voice. ‘Do you know the history here? There is a lot here you may know . . . yes, I’m sure you know. But it’s not like the history books. Right here in Mesilla, the United States in 1853 offered money to Mexico for this land. Mexico became angry over this and refused the offer. Then the United States warned the Republic of Mexico that if Mexico did not take the U.S. money, the U.S. was going to take the land by force. So, Mexico reluctantly accepted the money which was later known as the ‘Gadsden Purchase.’ Mexico, you see, was forced to sell the Gadsden territory to prevent war. Mexico had already once before been defeated by the U.S. in the Mexican-American War of 1848.”
CORRECTIONS: More false information from Sanchez. There is a Cruz Richards Alvarez who was born in La Union, New Mexico, September 14, 1896. He was attached to the American Embassy in Madrid, Spain, during World War Two, but was not the Ambassador. It is very doubtful that Alvarez actually said what Sanchez quotes him saying.
Most Mexicans today believe that Mexico was bullied by the US into selling the land that became the Gadsden Purchase in June, 1854. This is NOT true.
The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo ended the Mexican American War of 1846-48. The new boundary line between the US and Mexico could not be determined west of the Rio Grande River because the negotiators used a map - the Disturnell map - which had major errors. The map showed the Rio Grande in the location of the Pecos River and the town of El Paso near the present day location of Carlsbad, New Mexico - about one hundred miles east and thirtyfive miles north of El Paso’s actual location.(2)
Although the boundary commissions from Mexico and the US attempted to resolve the impasse, it was determined that the issue had to be settled by negotiations between the US and Mexican governments.
Santa Anna became president of Mexico for the 11th time on 20 April 1853. He promptly declared himself dictator-for-life with the title "Most Serene Highness" and abolished freedom of the press. James Gadsden was appointed to represent the US in negotiations with Mexico and he first met Santa Anna on Aug 17, 1853.(3)
On Sep. 25, 1853, it was agreed that the land called the Mesilla Valley - about 6,100 square miles along with surrounding areas - would be a neutral zone between Mexico and the US, not belonging to either nation pending outcome of negotiations.(4)
Gadsden initial instructions was to secure a boundary line in the disputed area that would allow for a practicable route for the southern transcontinental railroad(4), a release from Article XI which bound the US to protect Mexico from Indian raids and settlement for all claims between the two governments.
Gadsden quickly realized that Santa Anna was desperate for money and was more then willing to sell the US land as long as the amount of money received was sufficient to alleviate the financial predicament Santa Anna was in. Already two rebellions over the summer of 1853 had been put down. Gadsden believed that Santa Anna would be overthrown at some point and realized it would be difficult to successfully negotiate a treaty if a new Mexican government took power midway through the process. Gadsden wrote to Secretary of State William Marcy: “This is a Government of plunder and necessity; we can rely on no other influence but an appeal to both.”(5)(6)
Negotiatons for a new treaty started on Dec 10, 1853. Three areas needed to be resolved:
1) By now, both Santa Anna and Gadsden agreed that attempting to determine the border based on a faulty map was pointless. The purchase of land by the US would be the easier and more beneficial solution for both sides - Santa Anna was desperate for money(4) and the US wanted a practicable route for the building of the southern transcontinental railroad. The US gave Santa Anna 6 options for the money he wanted. The more land he sold to the US, the more money he would get. Payment options started at $50 million going down to the least amount of land for $15 million.(7)(8)
2) Settlement of all the claims between the two governments.(9)
3) The US wanted released from it’s obligations of Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Article XI bound he US to prevent Indian raids into Mexico and to pay compensation to Mexico for any damages done by Indians. The US had foolishly agreed to Article XI, not understanding the long history between the Apache’s and Mexicans. Mexico successfully turned their two centuries long war against the Apaches over to the Americans. The Apache’s hated Mexicans. Mexican massacres of Indians had not been forgotten by the Apaches. The US rejected the Mexicans claims for Indian damages because:
A) Mexican claims were grossly inflated.
B) Mexico - fearing a revolt against the government - had disarmed its citizens in 1848 in two provinces bordering the US so they couldn’t defend themselves against Indian raids. Thus Mexican national policy encouraged Indian raids against their own citizens - which the US refused to be held accountable for.(10) The Indians just rode up and took what they wanted from Mexicans. This policy was reversed in the fall of 1853.(11)
C) To avoid American troops, the Indians simply crossed the border into Mexico where American troops were not allowed to go. An attempt was made by the American government to obtain permission from Mexico to pursue the Indians into Mexican territory, but this proposal was rejected. Consequently, more Indians began hiding out in Mexico with more attacks on Mexicans.(11)
D) The Mexican government made minimal effort to protect its own citizens(10)(11) - using them as pawns to build up monetary claims against the US.
The US was making every effort to prevent Indian raids into Mexico. By 1852, of the 11,000 soldiers in the US army, nearly 8,000 were along the border of Texas and New Mexico trying to protect US and Mexican citizens against the Indians. Troop expenses went from $130,053.52 in 1845 to $2,994,408.51 in 1851.(12)(13)
After only 20 days, a new treaty was finalized on Dec 30, 1853. Mexico decided to accept $15 million for 38,000 square miles of land and for settlement of all claims against the US for damages to Mexicans by Indian raids. Mexico released the US from Article XI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and the US set aside $5 million to pay for American claims against the Mexican government.(14)
The treaty was sent to Washington for ratification. The US Congress reduced the land purchased to 29,670 square miles for $10 million.(15)(16) Santa Anna accepted this change. The treaty - which became known as the Gadsden Treaty - was ratified on Jun 29, 1854.
After obtaining the treaty money, Santa Anna stole $700,000 for his personal use and the rest was quickly squandered or used to pay off adversaries and allies.(17)(18)(19)
In July 1855, Santa Anna attempted to obtain additional funds from the US by selling more Mexican land to the US. Meetings were held from July 8 to August 8, when Santa Anna was overthrown. Gadsden despised Santa Anna and refused to buy more land from Mexico. Gadsden wrote Secretary of State Marcy in August 1855: “I cannot reconcile it to my judgment to negotiate with such a temporary oligarchy of plunderers.”(17)(20)
Santa Anna claimed Gadsden made it very clear that the US was going to obtain the territory they needed for a railroad “one way or another”.(21) The fact that Santa Anna wanted to sell still more land to the US proves he was not bullied by the US. Santa Anna was a very gifted liar. It was all about Santa Anna.
After the Gadsden Treaty was ratified, Mexican attacks escalated on American civilians in Mexico. Mexico issued orders against freedom of speech, for the surrender of arms and use of a maze of passports for travel from one location to another within Mexico.(22) Americans were illegally arrested and imprisoned, goods were unlawfully confiscated, and Americans were expelled from their homes and land. In Dec. 1854, President Pierce informed Congress that numerous injuries by Mexico remained unadjusted and new cases were constantly arising.(23) Mexico also encouraged Indian raids into Texas. These raids were lead by a man who had a commission in the Mexican Army.(24)
As the extent of Santa Anna’s corruption became known, he was tried in absentia for treason and found guilty. All his estates were confiscated by the Mexican government.
Years later, Santa Anna declared the Gadsden Treaty a great deal: “. . . there remaining the satisfaction of having obtained for a piece of wild country, relatively what they gave for half of the national property.” (25)
Santa Anna
____________________________________________________________
Page - 98: When the Brown Berets were staying at a high school in Law Vegas, New Mexico for the night: “The next morning we realized that the American flag was not on the flag pole since the school was officially closed. We expeditiously took the opportunity to hoist the Mexican flag on the pole in front of the high school. This stirred up a storm of trouble with politicians all over the state of New Mexico,. . .”
COMMENT: These people are traitors and don’t belong in the US, but more then that, they are totally ignorant. America has done so much good for the world. Mexico? Constant revolutions and political chaos, terrible educational system and health care system. The country is run by drug cartels, crime is terrible and Mexico’s most famous export is people. Mexico made a minimal contribution to winning World Wars One and Two. Mexico was little help in winning the Cold War against the Soviet Union.
Why would anyone with an ounce of brains want to transform the US into Mexico??? Illegals don’t want to return to a dysfunctional country like Mexico - yet they want Mexico to come here. For all the people who support the creation of Aztlan and uniting with Mexico here is a question: Why would Mexicans want to go back to what they escaped from?
____________________________________________________________
Page - 98-99: “By August 1846, Kearny had taken Las Vegas, New Mexico, and prepared to attack Santa Fe. In his military mission, however, he had to pass through Apache Canyon, a narrow passage southeast of Santa Fe, where Governor Armijo could have easily ambushed him. Surprisingly, Kearny meet no resistance at the canyon. Armijo had fled south without firing a shot, thereby allowing Kearny’s army to enter the capital.
Not all New Mexicans, however, had their spirits broken. The resentment and revolt of the masses was led by Pablo Montoya, a Mexican peasant(1) and Tomasito Romero, a Pueblo Indian. They attacked the colonials and killed their new Governor Bent and five other important persons. Later they killed several dozens more of the colonials. In retaliation, Colonel Price and his well-armed soldiers attacked some 1500 Mexican and pueblo Indians armed with bows, arrows, and lances. The army massacred the rebels on the snow-covered ground outside the insurgent capital of Taos.”(2)
COMMENT: More bogus history from Sanchez. Here is the TRUE story.
1. Montoya was NOT a peasant. He was the former mayor of Taos, New Mexico and a well known politician of his day. He was heavily involved in the 1837 rebellion against the governor of Spanish New Mexico. On September 21, 1837, Pablo Montoya led a force of 3000 against the governor, Manuel Armijo. Although Armijo only had 1000 men, they were well trained and equiped. Fearing he would lose, Montoya sold out 4 ringleaders of the uprising - who were later hanged - in return for amnesty. Montoya was one of the leaders of the revolt against the US in 1847.
2. American troops did NOT commit a massacre. The Mexicans/Indians had rifles, were well armed and were killed in battle. A massacre is what the Mexicans/Indians did to Charles Bent, James Leal, eight American merchants passing through the town of Mora, two American youths at the home of Carlos Beaubien - one of the youths was his son, two Americans in the town of Rio Colorado and others.
After Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War, General Stephen Kearny took New Mexico without firing a shot in August of 1846. On Oct 3, 1846, new U.S. troops arrived under command of Col. Sterling Price and Kearny and his army left for California - leaving Price in charge. Price’s troops were raw volunteers with little discipline. They undertook to act like conquerors rather then liberators.
Their actions were used to justify a bloody revolt. Despite the bad behavior by some soldiers, there were other fundamental issues involved:
1) The Catholic faith was the official religion of Mexico and the only faith permitted to openly operate. Catholic clergy had considerable power in the Mexican government and over the people. They would lose their power in the American system of government where there was freedom of religion and no officially recognized faith. There was fear that predominely Protestant America would overwhelm Catholics in the territory.
2) Fears that the United States would not respect Mexican-issued land titles.
3) Anger at not having resisted the initial invasion by General Kearny in August of 1846.
New Mexicans plotted a Christmas uprising. The plans were discovered so another revolt was planned for Jan. 19, 1847. About a week before the revolt, Gov. Bent issued a proclamation: “You are now governed by new statutory laws and you also have the free government promised to you. Do not abuse the great liberty which is vouchsafed you by it, so you may gather the abundant fruits which await you in the future. . .”(1)
The revolt started on Jan. 19, 1847. This uprising was not led by people of character and morals - like George Washington, Ben Franklin and others of the American revolution. The rebels were led by charasmatic Pablo Montoya who called himself “the Santa Anna of the North”- and Tomasito Romero, an influential Pueblo Indian. This was a mob action, not a fight for freedom.
The Indians were in Taos that night filling the saloons. Early in the morning, a mob surounded the house of Governor Bent. His wife, Ignacia gave him his pistols. Charles 10 year old son, Alfredo told his father, “Let’s fight them, Papa.”(3)
Bent told his family to hide in the next building. Suddenly, the Indians began firing through the door, wounding him in the chin and stomach.The door was broken down and Bent was shot with arrows and then scalped - all in front of his family. Bent’s family was spared.(4)
Circuit attorney James Leal was captured and marched naked through the streets and then was shot full of arrows and scalped - but still wasn’t dead. Finally killed, hogs ate most of his body.(5)
The mob came to the house of Judge Charles Beuabien who wasn’t home. His son, Narciso Beaubien and his friend Pablo Jaramillo heard the attackers coming and hid in the barn. A woman servant located the boys and shouted to the rebels: “Kill the young ones and they will never be men to trouble us!” The two Americans were stabbed to death.(5)
Then a mob of about 500 attacked Turley’s mill - a distillery outside Taos - which had been in New Mexico since 1830 without any problems. The eight men held out for 2 days until the Indians and Mexicans set the buildings on fire. The mob killed 5 men while 3 escaped.(6)
The same day rebels killed eight American merchants who were passing through the village of Mora on their way to Missouri.(7)
In the town of Rio Colorado, a pair of Americans carrying furs to Taos were captured and shot through the back.(6)
The US Army - with about 290 men - headed for Taos - aided by 65 American volunteers on horse back. One of the volunteers was Carlos Beaubien, whose son and his friend had been stabed to death.(8) The Mexican/Indian force was about 1,500 men.
The two armies met at La Canada - present day Santa Cruz. Despite being badly outnumbered, the US routed the enemy, killing 36 including their commander, General Tafoya. the US lost two killed. Reinforcements then arrived, giving the US 480 men. After another battle, which the US won, the rebels holed up in a church in Taos that had 6 foot thick walls. Artilery was unable to blow a hole in the walls until soldiers had made small holes with axes. Artillery fire then became deadly. Finally, the rebels were crushed. Some of the defenders tried to escape but were cut down by the American horsemen.
The US lost 7 killed and 45 wounded. There were 150 rebels killed, more then that wounded and 400 more captured.(9)
Tomasito Romero and Montoya were jailed in Taos. Romero was gunned down by a US soldier whose brother had been killed by Mexicans years earlier.(10) Montoya was hanged along with other leaders of the revolt.
Some historians have justified the actions of the rebels claiming they were defending their country from invaders - the Americans. But there is another side to this argument. Since Texas defeated Mexico to become an independent country in 1836, Mexico had vowed perpetual war on Texas until it reconquered the land. Texas became a state in 1845 for its own protection from Mexico - who then vowed war on the US.
In January 1846, General Mariano Parades overthrew the existing government with one stated objective - start a war with the United States and retake Texas. On April 25, 1846, 1,600 Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed a force of 80 American troops. Eleven men were killed and the rest taken prisoner.
Once Mexico started the war there had to be consequences. We couldn’t end this imperialism by staying on the defensive. Mexico had to pay a price for their war mongering or we would be inviting more attacks.
Mexico owed the US about $1.7 million which they refused to pay.(11) President Polk refused to go to war over money, but once Mexico attacked the US, Polk decided that Mexico must pay for the cost of the war plus the $1.7 million. Since Mexico was always broke, the only way to settle their debt to the US was with land. New Mexico and California were lightly populated and most citizens had little loyality to the Mexican government.
Mexico from its independence was dysfunctional with constant revolts. Many Mexicans recognized the superiority of the American form of government. Lorenzo de Zavala, the principal writer of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 traveled through America and wrote a book in 1831 entitled “Journey to the United States of North America.” The book is similar to de Tocqeville's "Democracy in America", and the two men - from very different backgrounds - hold similar views about the United States.
Zavala wrote: "What will be the final outcome of its greatness and prosperity? ...it is a new social order, brilliant, positive; a political system that has excluded all privilege... Standing before this political phenomenon statesmen of all countries, philosophers, economists have stopped to contemplate the rapid march of this amazing people, and agreeing with one accord on the never before seen prosperity of its inhabitants side by side with sobriety, love of work, unlimited liberty, domestic virtues, a creative activity, and an almost fanatical religious feeling. . ." (pg 189)
____________________________________________________________
Page - 123 -124: “One of the reasons we came to Denver was to build a monument and dedicate it to Hector Flores, a congressional medal of honor winner in World War II. He was decorated for heroism beyond the call of duty. Hector Flores was beaten to death by Denver police in 1952, seven years after the war. We built the monument and then held a rally.”
____________________________________________________________
Page - 169: The Brown Berets arrive in downtown El Paso, Texas marching under the Mexican flag.
____________________________________________________________
Page - 174: Sanchez: “This book is the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, a treaty of articles of peace between the United States and Mexico written in 1848. Here, in article five. It states that the islands are not included as parts of United States boundaries.”
CORRECTIONS: NOT true. Article five says nothing about the islands off the coast of California. These islands have always been considered part of California and are well north of the border agreed to in the treaty. Mexico has never contested ownership of these islands.
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo: https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp
____________________________________________________________
Page - 180-181: In August 1972, the Brown Berets went to Catalina Island off the coast of California disguised as tourists. Twenty six members of the Brown Berets scaled a mountain and posted a large Mexican flag that could be seen all throughout the town of Avalon. When local law enforcement confronted the Berets, they issued a press release, which stated in part: “The Channel Islands are Mexican lands, and are now occupied by many U.S. citizens. They have been a place where the United States and Mexico have arrived at an ‘understood’ agreement; i.e., Mexico has not asked visiting U.S. citizens to evacuate these land.”
Sanchez thinks the last sentence of Article V of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo - specifically the last four words - proves his point: “. . . thence down the middle of the said branch and of the said river, until it empties into the Rio Colorado; thence, across the Rio Colorado, following the division line between Upper and Lower California, to the Pacific Ocean.”
CORRECTIONS: The last four words don’t change anything. Sanchez is trying to make something out of nothing. These islands have always belonged to California and Mexico has never contested it. On Sep. 26, forty law enforcement personal surrounded the camp and gave the Brown Berets one hour to leave. The occupation was over.
____________________________________________________________
Page - 181: “Due to the changing of United States boundaries, we are citizens of the United States and descendants of Mexican citizenship; not by natural choice, but rather by the takeover of the southwest in 1848. “We as United States citizens, along with many Mexican citizens, protest the taking of further lands from Mexico.”
COMMENT: Mexican Pride can’t accept the fact that the US crushed the Mexican Army in the Mexican American War.
Many Mexicans consider the southwest U.S. stolen Mexican land. So the real issue today is this: Even if Mexico is 100% to blame for starting both the Texas Revolution and Mexican American War - which they were - did the US have the right to take almost half of Mexico’s territory? The answer is ABSOLUTELY YES!! Here’s why:
Mexico was determined to conquer Texas and was looking for an excuse to start this war because they were certain they could defeat the US. But Mexico lost every major battle. To have beaten Mexico as badly as we did, conquered most of their country including the capital city, and then told them they must accept Texas as part of the US, which it already was, and then retreated back to the U.S. would not have been fair to us. This would have been an unforgivable disgrace to the men who died and the rest who went through hell to attain victory - and we would be inviting another attack.
Now put yourself in Mexico’s shoes. Your army has been repeatedly defeated, nearly the entire country has been conquered, and the consequences are - nothing!! Just be nice and don’t threaten Texas again! In a machismo society like Mexico, would they sit back and say ‘OK’ or would Mexico think we Americans are unbelievably gullible. Mexico would hold Americans in contempt for conquering their country and not making them pay a price for their warmongering. The reality is that once Mexico attacked the US, losing the land north of the Rio Grande became necessary to repay the US for the cost of the war in blood and money and to repay US citizens for monetary damages Mexico refused to pay.
If the US could change history, what could we change so Mexico would love us today? If we only kept Texas and didn‘t take California and New Mexico, would Mexico still hate us for keeping Texas? Absolutely yes. If we gave Texas to Mexico, would they love us? No, Mexico would still be bashing America and sending in drugs and illegal aliens into all parts of our country. They already are. Giving Texas and the southwest US to Mexico would gain us nothing.
Reies Tijerina, a very influential Mexican-American racist from the 1950s til his death in 2015, referenced the Treaty of Tordesillas - signed by Spain and Portugal in 1494 - to justify forcing all Anglos to move back to Europe!(131)
After the loss of Texas in 1836 and Texas becoming a state in 1845, Mexico repeatedly declared that war was inevitable. In 1846, General Mariano Parades overthrew the existing government with one stated objective - start a war with the United States and retake Texas.
Mexico owed the US about $1.7 million which they refused to pay.(16) President Polk refused to go to war over money, but once Mexico attacked the US, Polk decided that Mexico must pay for the cost of the war plus the $1.7 million. Since Mexico was always broke, the only way to settle their debt to the US was with land. New Mexico and California were lightly populated and most citizens had little loyality to the Mexican government.
Mexico from its independence was dysfunctional with constant revolts. Many Mexicans recognized the superiority of the American form of government. Lorenzo de Zavala, the principal writer of the Mexican Constitution of 1824 traveled through America and wrote a book in 1831 entitled “Journey to the United States of North America.” The book is similar to de Tocqeville's "Democracy in America", and the two men - from very different backgrounds - hold similar views about the United States.
Zavala wrote: "What will be the final outcome of its greatness and prosperity? ...it is a new social order, brilliant, positive; a political system that has excluded all privilege... Standing before this political phenomenon statesmen of all countries, philosophers, economists have stopped to contemplate the rapid march of this amazing people, and agreeing with one accord on the never before seen prosperity of its inhabitants side by side with sobriety, love of work, unlimited liberty, domestic virtues, a creative activity, and an almost fanatical religious feeling. . ." (p 189)
____________________________________________________________
Page - 190: “I disbanded all the units within my reach. Then, on November 1, 1972, I resigned from my post as Prime Minister of the Brown Beret National Organization. I exercised my given powers in the way I thought best. I did what I had to do.”
CORRECTIONS: Sanchez disbanded the Brown Beret due to infighting and increasing gang warfare. Years later the Brown Beret were reorganized and are active today - mostly in California.
____________________________________________________________
Source:
1. http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexican-american-war/
2. http://americanaction.us/index.php/other-matters/evil-organizations/maldef/Obledo made statements about California becoming a "Hispanic state" at least twice, during an appearance on Ray Briem's talk radio show in May or June of 1998, and again on the Tom Leykis' talk radio show:
Obledo: "We're going to take over all the political institutions of California. In five years the Hispanics are going to be the majority population of this state."
Caller: "You also made the statement that California is going to become a Hispanic state, and if anyone doesn't like it, they should leave. Did you say that?"
Obledo: "I did. They ought to go back to Europe."(8)
Audio of Obledo: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Obledo1.mp3
3. http://americanaction.us/index.php/other-matters/book-reviews/king-tiger-by-reies-tijerina/These quotes are from Tijerina’s autobiography ‘They Called Me “King Tiger”
“The Jews are fleeing to their land since 1947. And if the Anglo helps us, one day he’ll have to do the same, because we have roots here and the Anglo doesn’t. We have roots of blood and land. The Anglo has none - no blood root nor land.”(p39)
“A delegation of Anglos came to see me and reminded me that I was committed to fraternal harmony. They asked that I speak to the youth and urge them not to use violence.” “The Anglo, with his psychopathic mentality and his bloody and violent history, has to repent and change. Repentance means doing what the Jews are doing, and that is to return to their ancestral lands.”(p198)
4. Cebada:
“You old white people, it is your duty to die. They’re taking up too much space, too much air. . .” “Right now we're already controlling those elections, whether it's through violence or nonviolence. Through love of having children we're going to take over."
Audio of Cebada: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Cebada.mp3http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexicos-secret-war-against-the-u-s/
Nov 2019