1995 Edition
by Andrew Cayton, Elisabeth Israels Perry and Allan Winkler
Published by Prentice Hall, Needham, Massachusetts, 1995

This textbook is a monument to revisionist history. It is full of factual errors and half truths from cover to cover. This textbook is Anti-American propaganda. The fact this book came out in 1995 shows you how long our students have been getting brainwashed.

Quotes from this textbook are in RED
Jan 2020

Page 25, 26 - “Christianity Under Pressure.” 

“Another long term event that Christians interpreted as a bad sign was an invasion by believers in a rival faith, Islam.  Starting around 700, followers of Islam had taken over(1) much of the Mediterranean world, from the holy city of Jerusalem to large parts of Spain.”

“Islam had originally arisen between 622 and 632 in Arabia, inspired by the teachings of the prophet(2) Muhammad.  The prophet’s(2) followers, called Muslims, united by their new shared religion, then expanded(3) their empire from Arabia to new lands in Asia, Europe, and Africa in a prolonged series of invasions.  This was painful to Christians because their religion, too, taught them it was their obligation to spread Christianity throughout the world.”(4)

(1) ”taken over” is not accurate.  The correct word is “conquered”.

(2) “prophet” is not a verifiable fact.  Should read “...teachings of a man named Mohammad, who believed he was a prophet from God.”  (On page 203, in describing the new Mormon religion, says  “The Mormons took root in upstate New York. The Book of Mormon, which founder Joseph Smith claimed to have translated from gold plates he had found. . . .”)

(3) “expanded” is not correct.  Should read “Muslims conquered country after country and forcibly converted the native population to Islam.  People who refused to convert were either executed or forced to pay a special tax.

(4) This sentence makes it appear that Islam and Christianity spread by the same violent methods which is not true.  With some notable exceptions, Christianity spread by voluntary conversions while Islam nearly always forced people to convert under threat of execution.

Page 29 - (discussing the Songhai Government of West Africa) 
“The major curriculum at the university at Tombouctou was the Koran, which was and remains today the holy book of Islam.  Islam had reached Songhai by trade and by invasion from the north; with the new religion came knowledge of Arabic, the original language of the Koran.  Thousands of African Muslims found that practicing the rituals of Islam gave great meaning to their lives.”
This sentence does not belong in a history book.  But if the authors want to make this statement, the following statement should also be in this book: “No religion has peaceably converted more people than Christianity because of the great meaning it brings to peoples lives.”

Download a pdf of America-Pathways to the Present-1995 edition to share with others.

Page 116 - (Discussing British disadvantages in defeating the Colonies during the Revolutionary War)
“The war was not popular in Great Britain.  Many of the British resented paying taxes to fight the war and sympathized with the Americans.  In addition, the British had to fight against an enemy that was thousands of miles away across an ocean, spread out over a huge territory, difficult to identify, and without any visible organization that could be attacked.(1)  As Americans would discover two centuries later in Vietnam, winning battles and having superiority in training are not enough when your opponent constantly shifts ground - and will not give up.”(2)
(1) NOT true. The Revolutionary Army was a standing army that fought the British Army many times in conventional warfare. There were many visible organizations - cities and factories - that the British would have attacked if they had been able to.

(2) Again, NOT true.  There are no similarities between the Vietnam War and the American Revolution.  The US got involved in Vietnam to defend the South from Communist North Vietnam. The American Revolution was based on a belief in freedom and self rule. North Vietnam wanted to impose a communist dictatorship on the south.  The guerrillas in South Vietnam (Viet Cong) had been largely defeated but the North then sent hundreds of thousands of troops to fight in the south.  The North kept the war going and had we bombed all the important targets in North Vietnam (which we didn’t) we could have won the war.

Pages 286-288 - The War with Mexico

“Years before the United States annexed Texas, the steady influx of Americans into Mexico’s northern territories had led to growing friction between the two nations. When Congress approved annexation in early 1845, Mexico immediately broke off diplomatic relations with the United States. Continuing disagreements about the southern border of Texas signaled further trouble ahead.”(1)

“President Polk and other southern Democrats wanted much more from Mexico than Texas. Polk had dreams of acquiring the entire territory stretching from Texas to the Pacific.(2) In a final attempt to avoid war, he sent Ambassador John Slidell to Mexico City in November 1845 with an offer to buy California and New Mexico for $30 million. But the Mexican government refused even to receive Slidell, let alone consider his offer.”(3) 

“Determined to have his way, the aggressive Polk sent two thousand American troops under General Zachary Taylor into southern Texas to support the American claim that the Rio Grande was the official American-Mexican border.(4) Since the Mexican government claimed that the Nueces River, located quite a few miles further north, was the border, it considered Taylor’s movements an invasion of Mexican territory.(5) Tensions between the two nations escalated rapidly. Meanwhile, an American expedition under the command of Captain John C. Fremont moved into California, probably under orders from the President to stir up trouble.”(6)

“When Mexican troops engaged in a skirmish with Taylor’s forces in early May 1846, Polk had the excuse for which he had long been waiting. Expressing outrage at the loss of “American blood on American soil,” the President pushed for an immediate declaration of war. Despite some opposition, Congress gave it to him on May 13, 1846.”(7)



(1) The Mexican government invited Americans to settle in Texas and the first group of 300 arrived in 1825. The Rio Grande River became the border on May 14, 1836, when Santa Anna, the head of Mexico’s government, signed the Treaties of Velasco, which ended the Mexican war against Texas. Texas became an independent nation. Santa Anna had been captured by the Texas Army after they crushed the Mexican Army at the battle of San Jacinto. He was treated with tremendous respect as a prisoner and didn’t have to sign anything. 

If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces River, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the US and negotiate a deal. Texas from 1839 on had attempted to negotiate with Mexico over the southern boundary, but Mexico refused to negotiate. But the issue was really not about the border. The reason Mexico refused to negotiate was clear to all: Mexican pride could not accept the fact that they lost to Texas. A bunch of out numbered farmers, ranchers, businessmen and adventurous young men from the US had defeated the Army of Mexico. Mexico considered Texas a breakaway province and wanted it back. Mexico was NEVER going to resolve the border impasse as that would be an admission that Texas was separate from Mexico.

(2) Wanting to buy something is not proof you intend to start a war over it. The US had every reason to believe Mexico would sell this land as they were on the verge of bankruptcy with a staggering national debt, had scarcely any citizens on the land and in fact had very little control over the area. Had Mexico not started a war with the US, Mexico wouldn’t have lost the southwest US, or if they did, there could be no denying that the US stole it.

(3) This is a lie. The Mexican president, Herrera was a man who wanted peace between the US and Mexico. He REQUESTED that the US send a representative (John Slidell) to Mexico City in the hopes that all the differences between the two countries could be resolved. By the time Slidell got there, Herrera was about to be overthrown by the war mongers, led by General Mariano Paredes, whose sole objective in taking power was to start a war with the US. Hererra refused to meet with Slidell because he was trying to save his government from being overthrown, but it didn’t help. Paredes overthrew Herrera in January, 1846 and began planning to invade Texas.

Slidell summed up his experiences with Mexico: “We shall never be able to treat with her on fair terms until she has been taught to respect us... here all amicable advances are considered as indicative either of weakness or treachery.”

Polk had every reason to seek a diplomatic solution with Mexico. The US Army was untested against a conventional army. The last time the US Army faced off against a regular Army was the War of 1812, when they were routed by the British. Why would Polk fight a country with an untried army far from home over unfamiliar territory? He risked blundering into a stalemate like that which France faced in trying to set up Maximilian as emperor of Mexico during the 1860s. 

The fact is the US didn’t have to go to war to acquire California or New Mexico. The US had thousands of immigrants moving west each year. Within a few years, California would have had a heavy majority of Americans and New Mexico would only be a few years behind. So why go to war, if population growth could accomplish the same thing without all the bloodshed of a war? In addition, many Mexicans in California and New Mexico favored being annexed by the US because they realized their own government was dysfunctional.        

A little known fact is that Texas was NOT the first state to secede from Mexico. Because of the dysfunctional state of Mexican politics - and only 2 years after independence, 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. But constant infighting and wars resulted in the Union falling apart in 1838 and the five provinces became independent nations. So why hasn’t Mexico made an issue out of this over the past 190 years? It’s racism. Central Americans are fellow Spanish, whereas the northern territories came under control of Anglo Americans. 


(4) On Jan 12, 1846, Polk received word that negotiations had failed. President Polk realized that war with Mexico was inevitable and prepared to ask congress for a declaration of war. After all, General Mariano Parades overthrew the existing government with one stated objective - start a war with the United States and retake Texas. Mexico was eager to start the war because they were confident they would defeat the US. On Jan. 13, 1846, Polk ordered General Zachary Taylor to move his army from Corpus Christi to the north side of the Rio Grande River and prepare to defend Texas from the Mexican invasion. Taylor received these orders on Feb. 3. Taylor informed Mexican officials that he was moving to the Rio Grande but that it was purely for defensive purposes.     

Historical revisionists have said that the US intended to provoke a war with Mexico by stationing troops on the north side of the Rio Grande River. This is bogus reasoning and ignores facts. Who was provoking who? How could the US be responsible for starting a war with a country that had repeatedly declared war on the US, refused to negotiate, put an invasion force on the border and declared they would conquer Texas again? Polk had a moral obligation to defend Texas from Mexico.

(5) Mexico NEVER said they merely wanted to conquer the land up to the Nueces River. Mexico’s obsession for 10 years was with conquering Texas, which they still considered a breakaway province. Polk was aware of this Mexican scam. If Mexico wanted the boundary to be the Nueces, they had 10 years to bring it up with Texas, and later the US and negotiate a deal. But the issue was really not about the border. Mexico owned all of Texas and intended to conquer it.      

Apparently Mexico accepted the Rio Grande as the border, since they placed their army south of the river from 1836 on after Santa Anna signed the peace treaty with Texas that made the Rio Grande the southern border. When Taylor moved south of the Neuces to the Rio Grande, this was the perfect excuse Paredes was looking for to start a war with the US while claiming he was defending Mexico.

(6) John Fremont arrived in California on December, 1845. Despite orders to “conciliate the feelings of the Californians. . .” Fremont instigated numerous confrontations with authorities. Convinced authorities were about to forcibly expel him and his men and believing war between the US and Mexico was imminent, about 3 dozen men started what became known as the Bear Flag Revolt on June 10, 1845. Incredibly, the Bears took General Vallejo and other pro American Californios prisoner, took control of Sonoma and declared the Republic of California.

John D. Sloat, commander of the US Navy ’s Pacific Squadron, was instructed to land in California and claim it for the US if war broke out. After hostilities broke out, some 160 settlers and US soldiers plus sailors and Marines from Sloat’s ships had seized all of northern California by the end of July. Fremont met Sloat aboard the Navy ship Savannah and Sloat demanded to see his orders that authorized Fremont to take up arms against the Californians. Learning Fremont had no such orders, Sloat unleashed a blistering tirade against Fremont.(A) On July 29, Sloat ordered Vallejo released and the others prisoners were released soon afterwords. Most residents of northern California were elated and General Vallejo put his old Mexican military uniforms in a pile and set them on fire.(A) General Vallejo by Alan Rosenus (1995) p161

(7) On April 25, 1846, Mexican troops under General Arista crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed American troops, starting the war they were anxious to start. Historians later uncovered a letter dated Apr 18, 1846 from Paredes to General Arista “It is indispensable that hostilities begin, yourself taking the initiative.”

For more information: http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexican-american-war/



Page 347 - “The Lasting Impact of the Siege of Vicksburg.”

“Americans Wage Total War. American troops in the twentieth century would repeatedly find themselves in situations similar to the siege of Vicksburg. In later wars, too, their mission would be to bring the superior numbers and resources of the United States to bear on a well-entrenched enemy. These wars included World War II (1941-1945), the War in Vietnam (1965-1973) and the Persian Gulf War (1991). The United States and other nations would find new technologies for this purpose that would make the horror of Grant’s cannons and gunboats seem puny. And more often than not, this warfare would leave in its wake a massive loss of civilian life and destruction of property.”

“The purpose of this destruction was to persuade the enemy that the struggle was simply not worth the cost. After Vicksburg, civilians were as much a part of war as soldiers, starvation as much of a weapon as the rifle; and victory required not just the surrender of a few troops but the complete demoralization and destruction of vast civilian populations.”

“The success of Grant at Vicksburg was due to his use of modern warfare - a combination of technology and total war.  The people of Vicksburg would not be the last to have to decide whether it was worth losing everything just to hold on to the hope of a later victory.”


First, the authors claim that Total War is a recent occurrence is not true. Laying siege to a city and starving them into surrender was a common tactic in the ancient world. The Old Testament in the Bible has many accounts of armies starving a city into surrendering. The Roman Empire destroyed Carthage in the Third Punic War in 146 BC and sold 50,000 civilians into slavery.     

The US engaged in total war against Japan and Germany in WW2 and defeated the 2 strongest military powers in the world in only three and a half years. The US fought a limited war against North Vietnam for 9 years. We lost over 40,000 men and then lost the war. We fought a limited war against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War that kicked Iraq out of Kuwait but left Saddam in power. He then went on to commit massive crimes against the civilians of his own country.

Second, the authors do not distinguish between Just Wars and Unjust Wars. Some examples of countries engaged in immoral, imperialistic wars of aggression would be Japan in World War 2, Germany in World Wars 1 and 2 and the Soviet Union during the Cold War and in the 1930s. The United States went to war to defeat countries fighting unjust, immoral wars. 

Third, the authors don’t differentiate between civilians being killed in the course of defeating an immoral aggressor nation in order to win a war and bring about peace versus an army which is intent on brutalizing the conquered population just because they can.            

For instance, once the Civil War ended, civilians returned to their usual life. Once Japan and Germany surrendered, their civilian populations were respected and in fact the US spent billions to rebuild what they had destroyed. As the precision of weapons has improved, the US has gone to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties.     

Brutalizing the civilian population of a defeated country was common throughout ancient times as well as modern times. During World War Two the Japanese were extremely brutal in the countries they conquered. Look up Rape of Nanking in 1937. Nazi extermination of millions of Jews and other civilians is another example. The Soviet Union’s enslavement of the countries of eastern Europe after World War two is another example. Muslim terrorists deliberately target civilians in Iraq, Nigeria and Israel.      

In recent times, evil rulers have put military installations in civilian areas, hoping to get as many civilians as possible killed so they can claim war crimes were committed. In reality, the war crimes were committed by the nation’s leader who put his people in harms way. Saddam Hussein did this. The Hamas and Hezbollah terrorist organizations does this.

This picture from the textbook (pages 346, 347) is misleading because it places the aggressor nations and the defender nations on the same moral level. The authors ignore the fact that in all these wars depicted below, US forces were the good guys out to defeat the bad guys. 


Total Warfare has been around for thousands of years.


Germany was the aggressor nation in WW2.
Not true. Napalm was primarily used to clear dense jungle communist troops were hiding in. Developed during WWII to clear Japanese troops from jungle hideouts, Napalm killed thousands of enemy troops and saved thousands of American lives.
Hussein killed Kurds because they opposed his dictatorship. 
Germany was the aggressor nation in WW1.
Japan refused to surrender until the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Iraq (1991) was the aggressor nation and bombing bridges was a way to harm Saddam Hussein’s war making abilities. It was also to let the civilian population know there is a price to pay for aggression.



Page 666 - The German Empire Grows.  

“German aggression continued as the decade of the 1930s drew to a close.  Early in 1938 Hitler annexed Austria.  Later that year, he demanded possession of the Sudetenland, a section of Czechoslovakia inhabited by an ethnic German population. The League of Nations, which had been organized after World War I to try to maintain international peace, proved powerless to resist German aggression.  England and France, reluctant to become involved in another conflict after the devastation of World War I, adopted a policy know as appeasement.  To appease means to “keep the peace by giving in to someone’s demands.” Over and over England and France allowed Hitler to seize control of European territories, on the assumption that he finally would be satisfied.”

“Their assumption was wrong.  Hitler’s appetite proved insatiable, and he moved relentlessly to take over all of Czechoslovakia. Then, in September 1939, after signing a non-aggression pact with the Soviet Union so he would not have to fear a Soviet assault, Germany invaded Poland. Two days after this attack, leaders in England and France decided they would appease Hitler no longer.  Angry and frustrated over his steady encroachment on the European continent, they finally declared war on Germany.”



NOT true. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany BOTH were imperialist nations conquering their neighbors. In August 1939, Hitler and Stalin signed a ten year non-aggression pact that included the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. This Pact was an agreement by Germany and the Soviet Union on conquering and dividing up Eastern Europe.      

The Soviet Union invaded Finland on November 30, 1939 and forced Finland to sign the Moscow Peace Treaty on 13 March 1940. The League of Nations deemed the attack illegal and expelled the Soviet Union from the League on 14 December 1939. The Soviet Union then took control of the small countries of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia in 1940.    

On September 1, 1939, Germany invaded Poland from the west and on September 17, the Soviets invaded Poland from the east. Germany and the Soviet Union divided Poland in half.



Page 669 -  (Following the attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941)
Anti-Japanese propaganda kept the Pearl Harbor attack fresh in Americans’ mind.


‘Propaganda’ is giving partial or misleading information or outright lies to people with the intend of brainwashing people into believing a lie. This poster (left) is NOT propaganda. This is legitimate information reminding Americans not to forget the terrible attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. 
On page 719, however, the authors show a 1943 Hollywood poster (above) supporting Soviet troops fighting the Germans at Stalingrad, but donʼt call it propaganda.



Do you think Truman would have been more reluctant to use the atomic bomb on Germany or Italy, if they had not yet surrendered in August 1945, then he was to use it on Japan? Why or why not?


Why is this question even being asked? This is a deliberate attempt to make school kids believe the US was more interested in killing Japanese then Nazis and discredit the US war effort. The US decided to make the atomic bomb after they learned Hitler was trying to build one. The purpose of building the atomic bomb was to use it on any enemy still fighting after the Bomb was completed. If Hitler got a nuclear bomb first, Nazi Germany would likely have won the war. The US goal, from Pearl Harbor on, was to destroy Germany and Japan as fast as possible and win the war. The allies - in effect - nuked Dresden, Germany in February 1945, by firebombing the city, causing 25,000 casualties. The atomic bomb wasn’t ready until July, 1945, after Germany had surrendered. The Japanese were reluctant to surrender until after the US dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The answer is Truman would have used the Bomb on whoever hadn’t surrendered by July 1945.



Page - 733 to 737 The Cold War in the United States. (This Textbook spends 5 pages devoted to McCarthyism in the US and makes many false statements.)

page 733 - “The political left is made up of people who generally want to see the political system changed - sometimes radically - to benefit the common person.(1) The political right is composed of people who generally wish to preserve the current system. . . . The government’s loyalty program removed the left from power while effectively silencing any real political debate in the United States.”(2)

page 734 - “Singer Judy Garland urged Americans to “write your Congressman a letter” denouncing the campaign.(3)

page 736 - “The Hunt for Witches and Communists. Between June and September of 1692, fourteen women and five men were hanged in Salem, Massachusetts, as witches(4) . . . Historians today compare Salem in 1692 to the United States in the 1950s.”(5)

“In 1954, after being condemned by the Senate for his activities, McCarthy’s reign of terror ended.”(6)


1. An incredibly misleading statement. Left wing economic programs have proven to be very corrupting to society not to mention they result in high taxes, economic decline and national bankruptcy. Communism killed millions of innocent people. Democracy has not.

2. Not true. No one was silenced. No newspapers were shut down. No writers were arrested and thrown in jail. No politician with leftwing beliefs was forcibly removed from their office.

3. How is this possible? This book tells me political debate in the United States was silenced on the preceding page.

4. Comparing heated political debate where no one was killed with people being hanged is the ultimate in irresponsible writing. 

5. Who are the supposed historians who compare a political debate with hangings?

6. Not true. There was NO “reign of terror.” A “reign of terror” happened in the Soviet Union under Communism where millions were executed or deliberately starved to death to achieve Stalin’s political aims. No one was executed or starved to death in the US to achieve political ends.


page 730 - “The Early War in Vietnam.” 

“Although Ho was sympathetic to the principles of communism, he was really more of a Vietnamese nationalist than a Soviet sympathizer. In his battle for Vietnamese independence, he used the American Revolutionary War as his model for independence.”(1)     

“Ho Chi Minh sent this urgent telegram to President Truman in October 1945 asking for United States support of Vietnamese independence. Not wanting to jeopardize relations with France, Truman ignored Ho’s plea.”(2)



1. None of this is factual. Ho was NOT a freedom fighter. Ho Chi Minh combined nationalism with communism. Ho was a dedicated communist dictatorship fighter. Communist Ho Chi Minh wanted to overthrow French colonial rule so he could establish his own brutal dictatorship.  Ho gave lip service to believing in the principles of the American revolution. It was all a scam. Ho, like other communist “freedom fighters” used lofty rhetoric to brainwash people (like the authors of this textbook) into believing they wanted to free the people from oppression, when in reality, all communist dictators wanted to do was impose their own dictatorship on the people. 

Ho studied revolutionary tactics in the Soviet Union and attended the Fifth Communist International Congress (Comintern) in June 1924. In November, 1924 Ho Chi Minh went to China to organize a Communist movement in Southeast Asia. Ho Chi Minh’s goals were: 1) Drive the French colonial rulers out of IndoChina. 2) Eliminate all Vietnamese who opposed Communism, even though they were also fighting against the French and 3) Eliminate all Communists who challenged his authority.

With the end of World War Two, on 14 August 1945, Ho launched an offensive against French troops and his political opponents. In the Hanoi area alone between 5,000 and 10,000 political opponents were killed.(2) The number of executions in the rest of Vietnam is unknown. After Ho killed a personal friend, he proclaimed: "Anyone who does not follow the line determined by me will be smashed.”(3) 

On Sep. 2, 1945, Ho Chi Minh declared Vietnamese Independence and became undisputed leader of Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh held elections on 6 Jan 1946 so he could claim he was the “duly elected” leader of Vietnam. This election was fraudulent. The anti communist nationalists complained they had little time to find candidates, because so many of their people had been killed by Ho Chi Minh’s forces. The candidates they did put up were not allowed on the ballot because Ho Chi Minh charged them with anti government activities. As a result, most of Ho Chi Minh’s candidates ran unopposed. Most importantly, the vote was not secret. Voters had to tell Ho’s henchmen who they were voting for and election officials would mark the ballot accordingly. Saying you were not voting for Ho Chi Minh was a death sentence. Voting totals were also inflated. The population of Hanoi in 1946 was about 119,000 but Ho received 169,222 votes. Not surprisingly, Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh party won a landslide victory.(4)

During the war against France from 1946 to 1954, Ho Chi Minh’s Viet Minh Army assassinated between 100,000 and 150,000 opponents of communism.(5) During Ho Chi Minh’s “land reform” in the mid 1950s, anyone who was not sufficiently supportive of Communism was classified a “landlord” and executed or imprisoned and their property confiscated. About 50,000 farmers were killed. In addition, about 300,000 wives, children and sometimes parents of those executed were now homeless and perished from starvation or sickness. Communist authorities forbid anyone from helping them.(6)

After Ho Chi Minh defeated French forces in 1954, the parties met in Geneva to work out a final solution for Indochina. Vietnam was divided in half, with the north being communist and the south being free. Contrary to popular belief, it was Ho Chi Minh’s representative to the Geneva Talks that wanted Vietnam divided in half.(7) The Geneva agreement was signed on 20 July 1954 by only two countries: France and Ho Chi Minh’s North Vietnam.

Ho Chi Minh violated the agreement immediately. Under this agreement, anyone was permitted to leave North Vietnam and move to South Vietnam and vice versa. One MILLION people fled to South Vietnam and up to two million more would have left had they not been stopped by Ho Chi Minh’s army.(8)

Vietnam was supposed to be reunited by an election in 1956. The US, Britain and free Vietnam wanted the UN to oversee the election but the Soviet Union rejected this idea.(9) Communist Vietnam wanted the elections to be “locally supervised”(10) which meant the elections in communist controlled areas would be rigged like the last elections run by Ho Chi Minh in 1946. So President Eisenhower cancelled the election. 

2. The telegram was received by Truman on Feb. 28, 1946. The telegram makes it appear the US supported French colonialism and had we supported Ho, we could have avoided the Vietnam War two decades later. The US supported Ho during WW2 when Japan occupied Indo China. 

On September 12, 1946, George M. Abbott, from the Department of State met with Ho Chi Minh for an hour in Paris. In the letter Abbott sent to US officials, Abbott declared that Ho Chi Minh denied being connected to communists. “Ho Chi-minh pointed out that there are no Communist ministers in his government and that the Viet-Nam constitution opens with a guarantee of personal liberties and the so-called rights of man and also guarantees the right to personal property. He admits that there are Communists in Annam but claims that the Communist Party as such dissolved itself several months ago.” Ho Chi Minh also demanded the French give in to his demands for freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and the release of political prisoners.(11) 

EVERYTHING Ho Chi Minh told George Abbott was a LIE. The communist Constitution of N. Vietnam - like the Constitutions of other communist countries - wasn’t worth the paper it was written on. Ho Chi Minh gave lip service to believing in the principles of freedom but it was all a scam. Harry Truman knew Ho was a master liar and a mass murderer. Truman was not about to help a communist like Ho Chi Minh. 

Communist dictators loved massive pictures of themselves.
1. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/ho-chi-minh/works/1930/02/18.htm
2. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 44
3. Ngo, Van (November 2, 2010). In The Crossfire: Adventures of a Vietnamese Revolutionary. Oakland, CA: AK Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-1849350136.
4. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 45-48
5. Dommen, Arthur J. (2001), The Indochinese Experience of the French and the Americans, Indiana U Press, p 252
6. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 130 -143
7. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 92
8. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 101-105 
10. Vietnamese Communism by Robert Turner, pub. 1975, p 97-98,100
11. http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon2/hochiminh/ Scroll down to “Memorandum of Discussion with Ho Chi Minh, September 12, 1946”


page 831 - Ethnic Minorities Seek Equallity. 

The Latino Population

“Spanish-speaking Americans, or Latinos, come from many places, although they share the same language and some elements of culture. But whether they come from Puerto Rico, Cuba, Mexico or other parts of the Americas, Latinos often have been seen as outsiders and denied equal opportunities in many aspects of life, including employment, education, and housing.”


The issue is not prejudice against Spanish speaking people, rather the refusal by some to learn English or insisting that everyone else learn Spanish to communicate with them. Everyone knows before they come here that the United States speaks English. It’s vital we all speak English or we will be divided by language. The Founding Fathers recognized this when they adopted our national motto “E Pluribus Unum” in 1782 - "Out of many, one." Although the English language was never the official language of the US, there were no provisions for other languages. Everything was done in English and everyone was expected to learn English. This system worked brilliantly for 200 years. 

Immigrants form Germany, Poland, Italy Norway and many other countries came to the US, learned English and assimilated. The large German immigrant population in America didn’t demand government forms to be printed up in German or have America be bilingual - German and English. But today, some Spanish immigrants think they are better then previous immigrants and we should cater to them in their native language. These immigrants are racists and don’t belong in America.

Being ‘Americanized’ does NOT and NEVER HAS meant losing your cultural identity! Being ‘Americanized’ is a positive concept and introduces immigrants to the highest form of self rule here in the United States. Being ‘Americanized’ means teaching immigrants the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Rule of Law and Judeo-Christian ethics - which many of our laws are based on. Immigrants need to learn how our government works and the awesome responsibility of voting. Immigrants must profess loyalty to America. Since most immigrants came from dysfunctional countries, they should be anxious to be Americanized.


page 831 - Mexican American Protests

Mexican Americans, often known as Chicanos, always have been the most numerous Latinos in the United States. In the 1960s, they began to organize against discrimination in education, jobs, and the legal system, leading to el Movimiento Chicano - the Chicano movement.



Certain aspects of this movement were certainly legitimate. Mexican farm workers were not treated or paid well. Cesar Chavez efforts to unionize farm workers was  legitimate and overdue. There was discrimination in jobs and the legal system, but this was being exposed and corrected by two Mexican American groups, The League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC - established in 1929) and the American GI Forum (AGIF - established in 1948). These groups were very active and embraced Americanism but as the decades passed, both groups embraced the politics and violence of the political left.

The Chicano Movement is not interested in living peacefully with Americans of other nationalities. This is a movement of domination, based on lies, hate and ethnic superiority based on fraudulent history. The Chicano Movement was founded on six beliefs:

1. The Chicano Movement demanded that Mexican Americans be separated from the ‘white’ designation and considered a different ethnicity. Assimilation and Americanism was rejected in favor of extreme nationalism and the creation of a new self-image. The Chicano Movement promoted ethnic superiority based on being mixed blood - Spanish and Indian - called Mestizo. The Chicano Movement was a radical, revolutionary nationalist mobilization of divergent organizations across the United States.

2. The Chicano Movement claims the southwest US is historically Mexican land. This land historically belonged to the Indians. The Spanish took this land from the Indians and then lost this land to the US when Mexico attacked the US to start the Mexican American War. They want the southwest US (Aztlan) to become part of Mexico or else a Mexican state within the US. The Mexican American War is discussed on pages 2 to 4. The full story of this war is here: http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexican-american-war/

3. That Chicanos are culturally oppressed and the Spanish language is suppressed. This is all a lie. Chicanos view the Spanish language as some sort a cultural sacred cow. No one ever said you must forget Spanish when you learn English. Millions of people from Germany, Poland, Italy, Norway and many other countries have come to America, learned English, and did not feel ‘oppressed” or “Culturally deprived.” No other ethnic group has made these bogus claims. Everyone who comes to America needs to recognize that we must all speak English or we will be a country divided by language. This is just common sense. 

4. This extreme ‘pride’ in all things Mexican is phony patriotism. We need to be honest. Mexico has a horrible history of constant wars and revolutions. Mexico has few inventions or economic accomplishments, a poor educational system and health care system. If Mexico is so wonderful why are so many Mexicans coming to the US?

5. Most people don’t realize that the Spanish had their own Manifest Destiny - and it was extremely imperialistic. Spain believed they had a Divine Right to conquer ALL of the New World (except Brazil) for Spain and Catholicism. So it was really inevitable that Spain/Mexico’s land claims would come into conflict with America’s more limited expansion. While Spain/Mexico was claiming land just to claim it - land they had a difficult time putting people on - the US was rapidly expanding based on a growing population. 

6. Chicanos are experts in blame shifting. No one forces Mexicans to drop out of school or not study. Crime, violence and other social issues are not the fault of ‘Anglos.' 

As unbelievable as it sounds, Mexican supremacist want more then just the southwest US - they want ALL of the U.S. based on the Treaty of Tordesillas - signed in 1494!! The Treaty of Tordesillas was signed by Spain and Portugal which gave Brazil to Portugal and Spain got the rest of the New World. This treaty ignored all the other European powers and they ignored the treaty. The mind set this treaty - signed over 500 years ago - produced is why many Mexicans believe they have the right to ignore the border between the US and Mexico. This is the Spanish Manifest Destiny.

Reies Tijerina, a very influential Mexican American racist from the 1950s til his death in 2015, referenced the Treaty of Tordesillas to justify forcing all Anglos to move back to Europe - not just leave the southwest US. Tijerina decided to write a book about “the land that belonged to my people since the signing of the Treaty of Tordecillas on June 7, 1494.”(1) 

Mario Obledo, a co-founder of MALDEF declared “They (white people) ought to go back to Europe."(2)

Augustin Cebada, information Minister of the Brown Berets, a terrorist group similar to Hitler’s ‘Brown Shirts’ in the 1930s declared; “You old white people, it is your duty to die. They’re taking up too much space, too much air. . .” “We are already controlling those elections, whether it’s through violence or non-violence”(3)

Jose Angel Gutierrez, ‘professor’ at the University of Texas at Arlington and a founder of La Raza Unida: “We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not im-mi-grants that came from another country to another country; we are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. [laughter] The explosion is in our population.”(4)

Mexicans have demonstrated all over the country under Mexican flags demanding government aid for illegal immigrants and attacked Americans celebrating July 4th festivities. This refusal by some Mexicans to embrace America like other immigrants shows Americans need to unite in opposition to these traitors. 

This psychosis did not die out in the 1970s. A book entitled ‘The Aztlán Mexican Studies Reader, 1974–2016’  edited by Héctor Calderón, won 1st Place for Best Academic-Themed Book and 2nd Place for Best Latino-Focused Nonfiction (English) in the  2019 International Latino Book Awards.

1.They Called Me “King Tiger” by Reies Lopez Tijerina, p 218
2. http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Obledo1.mp3
3. http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Cebada.mp3
4. http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Gutierrez.mp3
La reconquista, a radical movement in the US calling for Mexico to “reconquer” America’s Southwest, had signs reading, ‘Uncle Sam Stole Our Land!” and waved Mexico’s flag.
La Raza Magazine. August 1970 
Demonstrators against Trump carrying the Mexican flag on May 2016 in San Fernando Valley, California.
On May 2010, a Mexican American traitor knocked the American flag off a pickup in Morgan Hill, California. 
Traitors wave Mexican flags in Chicago on March 2006 supporting ‘rights’ for illegal immigrants.(5)
page 831 - 832 - Cultural Identify

“Activists began encouraging pride in Mexican American culture and its dual heritage from Spain and the ancient cultures of Mexico. In 1967 Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales, a Denver activists, wrote a long poem that raised Mexican Americans self-awareness nation-wide. Yo Soy Joaquin (“I am Joaquin”) expresses the importance of cultural identity in Mexican history and the modern world. It begin:

I am Joaquin
lost in a world of confusion
caught up in the whirl of a gringo [white] society;
confused by the rules,
scorned by attitudes,
suppressed by manipulation
and destroyed by modern society.

Gonzales emphasized that Anglos - English Speaking, non-Latinos - had undermined Mexican Americans’ control over their lives. Gonzales said that Anglos had done this through economic pressure and through institutions such as the schools, the Roman Catholic church, and the media.”


Rodolfo Gonzales was one of the leaders in promoting the propaganda of the Chicano movement. All these claims by Gonzales are NOT true. Anglo culture did NOT steal the Chicanos’ heritage and no other ethnic group has made these bogus claims. 

All these claims of ‘oppression’ by Gonzalez and others are a way to justify the Chicano Manifesto: El Plan de Aztlan. This plan was adopted at the first National Chicano Youth Liberation Conference in Denver, Colorado in March 1969. Here are some excerpts:

“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal "gringo" invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlán from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny.”

“. . . Aztlán belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. We do not recognize capricious frontiers on the bronze continent.”

“. . . With our heart in our hands and our hands in the soil, we declare the independence of our mestizo nation. We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlán.”

"Nationalism as the key to organization transcends all religious, political, class, and economic factions or boundaries. Nationalism is the common denominator that all members of La Raza can agree upon.”

So why is a manifesto written in 1969 relevant today? The answer is that this manifesto IS BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE SOUTHWEST U.S. - ESPECIALLY CALIFORNIA!! Mexicans and Mexican Americans have been brainwashed by books written by Gonzales, David Sanchez and other Chicano activists. This is an invasion with a plan. Claiming to be part Indian is all part of the scam to justify ignoring the border.

El Plan de Aztlan: http://clubs.arizona.edu/~mecha/pages/PDFs/ElPlanDeAtzlan.pdf 

Gonzales was one of the leaders in radicalizing Mexican Americans. An examination of Gonzales’s widely read autobiography - Message to Aztlan - proves he was an ethnic supremacist - a racist who promoted ethnic separation, domination and xenophobia. This is a book of propaganda with many factual errors. 

In 1967, Gonzales founded the ‘Crusade for Justice.’ The violence and intolerance preached in his autobiography manifested itself in the organization. Members of competing organizations were violently attacked by Gonzales’s thugs. On March 17, 1973, a  gun battle erupted with Denver police that ended when explosives stored in the building detonated - destroying portions of the building occupied by the Crusade for Justice. One person was killed and 17 people were injured.

Gonzales goal was to build a large organization and in collaboration with other militant Chicano groups, 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.

Rodolfo Gonzales has been treated with a respect he doesn’t and NEVER has deserved. Here are some revealing excerpts from Gonzales’ book so you find out about the REAL EVIL Rodolfo Gonzales:


Gonzales book - Page 28 - Another part of the poem.
“Part of the blood that runs deep in me
Could not be vanquished by the Moors.
I defeated them after 500 years
,and I endured.”
“The part of blood that is mine
has labored endlessly five-hundred
years under the heel of lustful Europeans
I am still here!”


The first part of this poem is accurate. It took the Spanish 500 years to drive the Moors (Muslims) out of Spain in what became known as the ‘Reconquista.’ This term is used today by radical Mexicans in their belief that Anglos must be driven out of not only the south west United States, but ALL of the United States.

The second part is laughable. The Spanish are Europeans. The Spanish destroyed the Aztec, Mayan and Inca empires and took what land they wanted from the Indians. The Spanish were not under the heal of the lustful Europeans for 500 years - the Spaniards WERE Europeans. If the poem refers to Americans - those evil Anglos - this statement is very inaccurate. Americans had minimal contact with Mexicans until the 1820s.

Every immigrant group from Europe and Asia started at the bottom and worked their way up because of their work ethic and capitalism. But Gonzales blames everything on the gringo instead of examining their failures to advance.



Gonzales book - Page 32, 33 - Here is a partial list of Gonzales’ demands from the Anglo:

“Education: . . .We demand a completely free education from kindergarten to college, with no fees, no lunch charge, no supplies charges, no tuition, no dues.”(1)

“We demand that all teachers live within walking distance of the schools. We demand that from kindergarten through college, Spanish be the first language and English the second language and the textbooks to be rewritten to emphasize the heritage and the contributions of the Mexican American or Indio-Hispano in the building of the Southwest.”(2)

“Economic Opportunities: We demand that the businesses serving our community be owned by that community. . . Instead of our people working in big factories across the city, we want training in our own communities. These industries would be co-ops with the profits staying in the community.”(3)

“Agricultural Reforms: We demand that not only the land, which is our ancestral right, be given back to these pueblos, but also restitution for mineral, natural resources, grazing, and timber used.”(4)


1. And who is going to pay for all this ‘free’ education?

2. If you live in America, you will be taught in English. Spanish is the second language. Textbooks have already been rewritten to make these racist Mexican American groups look like civil rights groups - which they are not. Now white males are always the bad guys in US history textbooks.

3. If you get the money to buy these businesses, you can locate them and run them how you want.

4. Mexicans claim the southwest US is historically Mexican land. This is a NOT true. This land is historically Indian land. The Spanish took it from the Indians and then lost this land to the US after the Mexican American War of 1846-48. Mexicans should keep in mind the southwest US became prosperous because it became part of the US. Had Mexico kept this land, it would be as dysfunctional and poverty stricken as the rest of Mexico. No restitution is owed.



Gonzales book - Pages 38-39 -

“Their historical roots are that they predate any gringo from that side of the Mississippi by nearly 500 years on one side of us and 20,000 years on the other side of us, because we are mestizos. We are “La Raza Cosmica.” We are the only integrated people on these two continents. We’re not a minority. We’re a majority, when you stretch us from here to Mexico to Peru.”


More phony history here. Mestizos are mixed Spanish and Indian. Mestizos only came into existence when Spanish intermarried with Indians from the early 1500s on. So mestizos have been around about 500 years - not 20,000.

Some Mexicans claim that being Spanish and Indian makes you ‘La Raza Cosmica’ - The Cosmic People. This idea came from Mexican ‘philosopher’ Jose Vasconcelos - whose sanity was debatable. Vasconcelos argued that the mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. Vasconcelos, who became a fascist and Jew hater in World War Two, engaged in stereotyping various races in developing his own racist theory.



Gonzales book - Pages 39-40: When Gonzalez was in California for a speaking engagement he met with a friend, Antonio Salazar. They went to a store in the Los Angeles neighborhood called Hazard, when a patron asked Gonzales: 

“Hey, where are you going to speak at? Maybe we’ll come down there tonight.’ Then he told the other barrio guys, “Hey, come here, I want you to meet this cat.” 

“We started shaking hands. He asked, “Hey, are you the guy that’s fighting for some land?” 

“I told him, “No, I’m from Denver. We support the land issue and we support the farm workers. We support every problem that involves our people, and we have to start to organize our communities to control them ourselves.”

“Ah, he said, no sweat, look there. There is not one gringo nor one black guy in this barrio. We control it.”

“I asked them, “Who runs the store?”

“Ah, some gringo.”

“And who owns that clothing store across the street?”

“Pues un pinche gringo” (That f__ing gringo)

“And who owns that housing project?”

“So what are we going to do, man?” And then Little John says, “Yeah, They are all gringos in there! We’re in occupied country. . .”

“I told him “You guys are already organized. If someone came here from any other barrio and said, “Hey, I’m taking over here,’ you guys would kill him in a minute. You’d wipe him out because you’re organized.”


Racism is on full display here.



Gonzales book - Page 44:

“They (the gringo Establishment) killed Che (Guevara) at thirty-eight. They killed Malcolm X at thirty-eight and Martin Luther King at forty.” 


Gonzales is clueless. Che was a Marxist revolutionary. He was determined to see that Cuba become a Marxist state - a dictatorship. He was Castro’s chief executioner and a murderer of those who disagreed with the communist ideology. In October 1967 the guerrilla group that Che Guevara was leading in Bolivia was almost wiped out by a special detachment of the Bolivian army aided by CIA advisers. Guevara was captured and then shot dead. 

On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated by three black members of the Nation of Islam. Gringos had nothing to do with this.

King was assassinated by James Earl Ray, an Anglo and a racist. No US government involvement in this crime has ever been proven although this conspiracy theory was investigated for decades without any proof being found.


Gonzales book - page 53 -

“We are strangers in our own church. We do not control who comes into our church. The time will come when we will, and we must. These are ideas are based on El Plan Espiritual de Aztlan,(1) to control our own destiny.”

More xenophobia by Gonzales. Now it is the fault of the church - who they let in.

Gonzales book - page 80 -

“We are all heirs to the land. We, the mestizo, the Indian, and of Spanish birth, owners of the Southwest by precedent and by legal title.”


Gonzales uses the Treaty of Tordesillas to declare legal title to the Southwest US. This treaty was signed in 1494 - over 500 years ago. This is why many Mexicans believe they have the right to ignore the border between the US and Mexico.

Mexicans believe if you have Indian blood in you - Mestizos - you are some sort of superior human being who doesn’t have to obey the border between the US and Mexico. This is all a scam because nearly all mestizos originated in Mexico, not the Southwest US. Also, being part Indian doesn’t make you superior or above the law. It means you’re part Indian. Millions of Americans are part Indian.


Gonzales book - Page 88 -

“We have to destroy capitalism, and we have to help five-sixths of the world to destroy capitalism in order to equal all people’s lives. We have to support our Indian brothers, who are the indigenous people of this country. We have to support the Asians, who are indigenous, and the Africans, who are indigenous, and the South Americans, who are indigenous. People should have the right to liberation and the right to control their own destiny, and the only way to do that is to have a formulated plan to say that some of us will learn.”


More false history. Asians and  Africans are NOT indigenous. Spanish in South, Central and North America are not indigenous. Only Indians are indigenous. Everyone being ‘equal’ has been tried many, many times in dictatorships as well as hippie communes without success over centuries. This can only happen when everyone has equal amounts of initiative and intelligence. In other worlds, this can never work. 


Gonzales book - page 89 -

“People are loyal to corporations for the check. People are loyal to the Mafia for the payment. They kill for money. But our people, I have to say, liberate themselves for love of each other, and that is the most important thing that we can have. Nobody can destroy that; nobody can destroy the spirit of our people. And they can kill individuals, they can shoot us down in the streets, and they have. They can throw us in their jails, but they cannot destroy an idea of a philosophy, and they can never destroy love, because we’re going to win. We’re going to beat them, whether it takes this generation, the next generation, or the next generation. We’re going to win. Viva La Raza! Viva La Raza Libre! Viva Aztlan Libre!”


More false history as well as extreme racism. Mexico, since it’s independence in 1821 has seen one revolution after another and killed tens of thousands of fellow Mexicans. The US has a stable society which is why Mexicans come here. Mexico has always been dysfunctional. Mexico today is essentially run by drug cartels and Mexico’s contribution to winning World War Two and the Cold War was minimal to say the least. 


Page 832 - Brown Berets

“In East Los Angeles, David Sanchez and other young Mexican Americans formed a community action group that took on a semi-military style. Known as the Brown Berets, they later started branches in other cities. The group regarded itself as “defensive,” protecting Mexican Americans against police and other authorities and sometimes acting outside the Law.”


The Brown Berets are actually a domestic terrorist organization. Sanchez blames 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 of 1846-48. 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 Chicanos live in a totalitarian-like atmosphere in Los Angeles. 

All these claims by Sanchez are false. Sanchez, like all minority ‘Civil Rights’ activists blame everything on the white man - the Anglo. This is called blame shifting and is typical of all demagogues. They claim terrible conditions and distort history in order to stoke anger and hate - and keep themselves in charge.

In 1978, Sanchez wrote ‘Expedition through Aztlan.’ A review of this book proves that he is an ethnic supremacist - a racist. This is a book of propaganda with many factual errors. Here are some examples:

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.’


Sanchez book - P-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.”


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.  


Sanchez book - p-VII: Morales:

“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.”


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. 


Sanchez book - p-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.”


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/

In the LA plaza raid in 1931, 11 Mexicans, 5 Chinese and one Japanese were detained.(15)
Automobile caravan of repatriate families assembling at Karnes City, Texas, 1931.(17)

Sanchez book - p - 89 - 90:

“It was the old town of Messilla, 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.”



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.

Gadsden purchase in grey.

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.

James Gadsden(1)
Santa Anna

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)

1. https://www.floridamemory.com/items/show/26225
2. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 49
3. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 85             
4. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 82   
5. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 84
6. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 89
7. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 85
8. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 91-92
9. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 38
10. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 44  
11. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 32,33
12. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 30    
13. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 43  
14. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 103,104
15. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 85      
16. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 124,134            
17. Slavery, Scandal and Steel Rails by David Devine. Pub 2004, p 81
18. Turmoil on the Rio Grande by William S. Kiser. Pub 2011, p 89,90
19. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 155
20. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 166-167
21. Slavery, Scandal and Steel Rails by David Devine. Pub 2004, p 53
22. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 148
23. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 157
24. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 158
25. The Gadsden Treaty by Paul Garber. Pub 1923, p 139-140

Sanchez book - p-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,. . .”


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?


Sanchez book - p-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.”


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!(1) 

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 $2 million which they refused to pay for years. After arbitration in 1841-1842, Mexico finally agreed to make 20 quarterly payment starting April 1843. Mexico made 3 payments and then stopped, leaving about $1.7 million unpaid.(2) 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)

1. They Called Me “King Tiger”: by Reies Lopez Tijerina, pub. 2001, pgs 218, 39, 198
Also: http://americanaction.us/index.php/other-matters/book-reviews/king-tiger-by-reies-tijerina/
2. Claims As a Cause of the Mexican War, by Clayton Kohl, pub 1914, p30-42   ____________________________

Page 833 - Political Action

“New political groups formed to support Latino interests. For example, Jose Angel Gutierrez brough together Mexican American groups in Crystal City, Texas, leading to the formation of the political party La Raza Unida in 1970. The new party worked for better housing and jobs and backed Mexican American political candidates.”


La Raza Unida Party (RUP) was a militant, anti-American hate group. La Raza Unida simply means “The Race United.” 

While La Raza Unida has engaged in legitimate civil rights issues, its true agenda was revealed at the 1980 convention.(1) RUP declared a policy of Revolutionary Nationalism and the eventual takeover of what they refer to as Aztlan, which is composed of five southwestern states; California, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and Colorado. RUP wrongly believes that the southwest US was stolen from Mexico.(2)

In 1995, Armando Navarro, member of La Raza Unida and a professor of Ethnic Studies at UC Riverside made this statement opposing California Proposition 187: “It's a game - it's a game of power - who controls it. You (to MEChA students) are like the generals that command armies. We're in a state of war. This Proposition 187 is a declaration of war against the Latino/Chicano community of this country. They know the demographics. They know that history and time is on our side. As one community, as one people, as one nation within a nation as the community that we are, the Chicano/Latino community of this nation. What this means is a transfer of power. It means control."

La Raza Unida opposed Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 had this introduction on the ballot: “The People of California find and declare as follows: That they have suffered and are suffering economic hardship caused by the presence of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have suffered and are suffering personal injury and damage caused by the criminal conduct of illegal immigrants in this state. That they have a right to the protection of their government from any person or persons entering this country unlawfully.” Proposition 187 passed 59 to 41 percent but was eventually declared unconstitutional by liberal judges after being challenged in court by La Raza and the morally clueless Clinton administration. Clinton was more interested in getting more voters for the Democratic party then doing what was right. 

Jose Angel Gutierrez, ‘professor’ at the University of Texas at Arlington and founder of La Raza Unida declared: “The border remains a military zone. We remain a hunted people. Now you think you have a destiny to fulfill in this land that historically has been ours for forty thousand years, and we're a new Mestizo nation. And they want us to discuss civil rights. Civil rights! What law made by white men to oppress all of us of color, female and male! This is our homeland. We cannot, we will not, and we must not be made illegal in our own homeland. We are not im-mi-grants that came from another country to another country; we are migrants, free to travel the length and breadth of the Americas because we belong here. We are millions. We just have to survive. We have an aging white America. They are not making babies. They are dying. It's a matter of time. [laughter] The explosion is in our population.”(3) 

Gutierrez and others like him somehow believe if you have Indian blood in you - Mestizos - you are some sort of superior human who doesn’t have to obey the border between the US and Mexico. This is all a scam for two reasons: First, Gutierrez is only attacking the border with the US, not other countries in Central America, and second, the Indians Gutierrez is talking about NEVER inhabited US territory. Being part Indian doesn’t make you superior or above the law. It means you’re part indian.

More questions for the scammers: Why does everyone in this movement have Spanish names? Can you prove you are part Indian? What about Americans who are part Indian? There is no rule on how long someone has to live in a place before they become a ‘native.’ Most Americans have been here over 100 years and many over 200 years. That’s long enough to be a native. We’re staying. YOU can leave.

1. http://www.pnlru.org/About_the_Artist.html
2. http://americanaction.us/index.php/american-history/mexican-american-war/
3. Audio of Gutierrez: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Gutierrez.mp3



Page 833 

“Another leader, Reies Lopez Tijerina, argued that the Anglo culture had stolen the Chicanos’ land and heritage. To call attention to broken treaties, in 1966 his Alianza Federal de Mercedes (Federal Alliance of Land Grants) marched on the New Mexico state capital. 


Another example of this textbook allowing a critic to make inflammatory charges against America and reporting it as if it was a fact - which it isn’t. In order to understand the land claims dispute in New Mexico, an overview of the history leading up to these disputes is necessary. From the 1600s on, Spain made land grants to individuals and groups in an attempt to put people on land claimed by Spain. When Mexico gained it’s independence from Spain in 1821, they continued the land grant process. In 1835 Mexico’s leader, Santa Anna, changed the constitution. All state legislatures were abolished and all power centralized in Mexico City. Texas and two other Mexicans states revolted against the central government in Mexico City. Only the revolt by Texas was successful - making Texas the sixth Mexican state to successfully secede from the country. Unlike the first five countries that seceded from Mexico, Mexico vowed perpetual war on Texas until they reconquered the land. When Texas joined the U.S. in 1845 for its’ own protection, Mexico repeatedly declared that war against the U.S. was inevitable. In January, 1846, the Mexican government was overthrown by General Mariano Parades, whose sole stated objective was to start a war with the U.S. and conquer Texas. Mexico was eager to start the war because they were confident they would defeat the U.S. 

On April 25, 1846, 1,600 Mexican troops crossed the Rio Grande and ambushed American troops, starting the Mexican American War. On September 13, 1847, the U.S. Army entered Mexico City and the war was over. But negotiating a peace treaty proved difficult and the U.S. and Mexico ultimately ratified two different versions of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. The initial treaty was negotiated by Nicholas Trist for the United States and special commissioners representing the collapsed government of Mexico. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed on February 2, 1848 near Mexico City and sent to Washington for ratification. The U.S. Senate deleted Article X and made other changes to the treaty before it was ratified on 10 March 1848. Mexico was not happy about the changes and negotiated the Protocol of Querétaro. Mexico ratified the amended Treaty along with the Protocol which basically returned the Treaty to it’s original wording. The U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Protocol of Querétaro meaning the US and Mexico are complying with two different treaties. In addition, the treaty provided no standard for validation of land grants. These disputes over the Treaty and land grants continues to this day.The key disagreement with the Treaty was over Article X which was deleted by the U.S. for two very good reasons: 

1) Article X forced Texas to go back to boundaries that existed in March, 1836. Since Mexico’s intentions was to conquer Texas again, they saw no need to negotiate with Texas over land grants or on anything else. So Mexico brought this situation on themselves by their obstinate refusal to negotiate with Texas and later the U.S. Land boundaries were now 10 years old and many boundaries had changed. Never the less, Texas on it’s own instituted a program of recognizing Spanish/Mexican land grants in the state.

2) Article VIII already bound the U.S. to recognize private property rights of Mexicans whose property now was in the U.S., so what was Mexico’s intentions for having Article X in the initial treaty? Article X bound the U.S. to recognize massive communal land grants in New Mexico. Between 1837 and 1848, Manuel Armijo, the last Mexican governor of New Mexico gave away over half of the 31 MILLION acres of land granted to all Mexicans under Spain and Mexico. These huge land grants violated Mexican law and should never have been granted! The U.S. correctly viewed Article X as a back door method by Mexico of maintaining Mexican hold on vast amounts of land that now belonged to the U.S. Article 12 of the Treaty states the U.S. will pay Mexico $15 million for the land transfered to the U.S. - not the land minus the land grants. The U.S. had the right, as the owner of ALL the land to limit grant sizes as was done when the U.S. purchased Florida. Mexico knowingly violated their own laws with these huge land grants - and then expected the U.S. to recognize these grants. While the U.S. was bound to honor private property of individual Mexicans, the U.S. had no legal or moral obligation to recognize Mexican claims to vast amounts of land which often had no Mexicans there. U.S. Secretary of State John M. Clayton made it clear the U.S. viewed article X as a cheating tool by Mexico: “Could it however reasonably be expected that this government, in addition to the treasure and blood expended in prosecuting the war, would engage to pay fifteen millions of dollars for lands, the title to the most valuable part of which had been extinguished?” Mexico lost the war. The U.S. could have kicked out all the Mexicans and sent them back to Mexico but was trying to be fair.
Not only were these huge grants illegal under Mexican law, but the grantees never fulfilled their obligations in order to claim possession of many grants in northern New Mexico. All of these massive grants were in Indian controlled territory and had  never been permanently occupied. They were always run off by Indian attacks. If grantees didn’t settle the grant after it was granted due to Indian attacks or abandoned their settlements due to Indians raids, the grant was NOT considered valid under Spanish/Mexican law. Under Spanish/Mexican law, the most important aspect of the validity of a land grant was continuous occupation.

Nearly all of the critics who condemn America over Mexican land claims are intellectually dishonest. The U.S. government approved grants that should not have been approved and approved grants for far more acreage then they should have been - but these critics don’t care about that. They only care when they believe Mexicans were cheated out of land. 

The fact is that Mexicans were not cheated out of land - but the United States was. Congress confirmed land grants based on the validity of the claim, without knowing the amount of land being claimed. After confirmation it was learned that five grants - Maxwell, Sangre de Cristo, Pablo Montoya, Preston Beck, Jr. and Bosque Del Apache - should have been awarded a total of 342,778 acres to be in conformance with Mexican law. They were later surveyed for a total of 3,747,830 acres. The U.S. was defrauded out of 3,406,052 acres.

Additional information and sources:

Page 833 -

At about the same time, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) was founded. It has provided legal aid to help Mexican Americans gain civil rights and encouraged Mexican American students to become lawyers.


MALDEF was co-founded by two Mexican Americans in 1968: Mario Obledo, who died in 2010 and Pedro Tijerina, who died in 2003. MALDEF originally handled legitimate civil rights cases, but as time went by, became increasingly radicalized. 

Obledo became another racist Mexican supremacist. 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."(1)


MALDEF supports “rights” for illegal aliens that they are NOT entitled too because they are here ILLEGALLY. 

MALDEF supports taxpayer funding for social services for illegal immigrants. 

MALDEF opposed - sometimes violently - Proposition 187 in California in 1994, where the state was spending over $3 BILLION a year in aid to illegal aliens. 

MALDEF opposes enforcement of “E-Verify” to determine if a job applicant is in the US illegally.(2)

MALDEF opposed the bipartisan SAVE Act bill in Congress in 2007 (H.R. 4088 in the House and S. 2368 in the Senate). This bill would have secured America's borders by adding 10,000 border patrol agents, require all US employers to use “E-Verify” to determine if you are in the country legally and expanded the 287(g) program, in which local police are trained to enforce federal immigration laws when the situation arrises in the normal performance of their duties.(3)

MALDEF pushed for California to pass the AB540 law that allows reduced tuition for students who are illegal aliens.(4)

Obledo was also an enemy of free speech. With the waves of illegals entering California, a sign was erected at Blythe, California near the Arizona border which said “Welcome to California, the Illegal Immigrant State.” This obvious truth offended Obledo who “vowed to burn or deface the sign." He then issued a press release that said on Sat, June 27, 1998 the billboard would be set on fire. The local sheriff telephoned Obledo, not to warn him against committing a criminal act, but to warn him of a nearby natural gas plant that might explode. Delighted at this escalation, Obledo spoke to the Sacramento Bee of an explosion that would annihilate Blythe. But 4 days before the scheduled climax, the billboard company took the sign down, under pressure from advertisers.(5)(6) 

Incredibly, Obledo received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1998 by the morally clueless Bill Clinton.

Pedro Tijerina grew up in Laredo, Texas and was not a victim of prejudice. In fact, when Tijerina needed his high school diploma to get into college, the principal, J. W. Nixon, told him: “Pete, if you pass the college entrance exam to Texas, I’ll give you your diploma.” Tijerina passed and got his high school diploma.(7)

During World War 2, as the only Mexican American in his company, Tijerina said his ethnicity was never a concern, as he was surrounded by many different ethnicities from all over the country.(7) 

1. Audio of Obledo: http://americanaction.us/public_documents/Obledo1.mp3
2. https://www.maldef.org/employment/public_policy/e-verify/index.html
3. https://www.maldef.org/immigration/public_policy/save_act/index.html
4. https://www.maldef.org/education/public_policy/ab540/index.html
5. http://articles.latimes.com/1998/aug/02/news/mn-9476
6. Population Politics By Virginia Abernethy p.xxix
7. https://voces.lib.utexas.edu/collections/stories/pedro-tijerina









Mario Obledo




Obledo receives Medal of Freedom from morally clueless Bill Clinton.